Bakayev, who followed, confessed to having organized the Kirov murder and planned that of Stalin:
Vyshinsky:
Did you take a number of practical measures to carry out these instructions, namely, to organize several attempts on the life of Comrade Stalin, which failed through no fault of yours?
Bakayey:
That is so.
117
But he introduced a note of reservation, of a type to be found in later cases, when he said that the other plots now attributed to the accused he had learned of for the first time when he read the indictment.118 He also had some lesser reservations, saying, for example, that he did not go to Leningrad to meet Vladimir Levin (one of the Nikolayev “group”) for terrorist reasons.119 These minor denials could count for nothing against the major admissions. Nevertheless, they can still perhaps be treated as slight and pathetic signals that the evidence was not to be relied on.
Pikel came next. He had agreed, he said, to take part in an attempt on Stalin’s life. He mentioned a tragedy of 1933, when Zinoviev’s secretary, Bogdan, had committed suicide as a protest against the Party purge then going on. A new interpretation was now imposed on this, through Piker s mouth. Bogdan had indeed “left a note making it appear that he was a victim of the Party cleansing,” but in fact he had been ordered by Bakayev either to attempt Stalin’s life or to commit suicide. Even this extravagant tale roused no incredulity from some of those present in the press box.
Pikel had been away in Spitzbergen; as a member of the Union of Soviet Writers, he had been on assignment to do some work on the Soviet mining concession there. This was represented as an attempt to keep clear in order to avoid discovery.120 Thus when a man was away, this proved that he was a terrorist trying to escape discovery, and when he came back (as Pikel did), he was a terrorist resuming work—in this case further attempts on the lives of Kaganovich, Voroshilov, and others.
Next morning, 20 August, Kamenev gave his evidence. He spoke at first with a certain dignity, but as the cross-questioning went on, this began to collapse. He made an almost complete confession, repudiating only the idea that the plotters had intended to cover the traces of their crimes by physically exterminating NKVD men and others who might know about them. About Smirnov’s denials, he said, “It is ridiculous wriggling, which only creates a comical impression.”121
In Reingold’s evidence, Sokolnikov had been named as a full member of the “Center.”122 However, Kamenev now put it slightly differently:
Kamenev:
… Among the leaders of the conspiracy another person may be named who in point of fact was one of the leaders, but who, in view of the special plans we made in regard to him, was not drawn into the practical work. I refer to Sokolnikov.
Vyshinsky:
Who was a member of the Centre, but whose part was kept a strict secret?
Kamenev:
Yes. Knowing that we might be discovered, we designated a small group to continue our terroristic activities. For this purpose we designated Sokolnikov. It seemed to us that on the side of the Trotskyites this role could be successfully performed by Serebryakov and Radek.
He also extended the conspiracy to include the former Workers’ Opposition group of Shlyapnikov.
On the involvement of the Rightists he said:
In 1932, 1933 and 1934 I personally maintained relations with Tomsky and Bukharin and sounded their political sentiments. They sympathized with us. When I asked Tomsky about Rykov’s frame of mind, he replied: ‘Rykov thinks the same as I do.’ In reply to my question as to what Bukharin thought he said: ‘Bukharin thinks the same as I do, but is pursuing somewhat different tactics: he does not agree with the line of the Party, but is pursuing tactics of persistently enrooting himself in the Party and winning the personal confidence of the leadership.’123
This was not a complete incrimination, in theory at least, but it could hardly be regarded as meaning anything other than an intention by Stalin to bring Bukharin and his associates into dock.
A “witness,” Professor Yakovlev, was next produced, to corroborate the testimony. Kamenev, he said, had put him in charge of a terrorist group at the Academy of Sciences.124
Zinoviev was now called on for his evidence-in-chief. He appeared cowed. The formerly eloquent orator was hardly able to speak. He looked puffy and gray, and gasped asthmatically. His confession was complete, involving him not only in the Zinovievite terrorist groups, but also with M. Lurye, allegedly sent by Trotsky. He invoked Tomsky’s name unambiguously, and also named Smilga, the veteran member of Lenin’s Central Committee who had led the Baltic Fleet in the seizure of power. He asserted that he was in constant communication with Smirnov,125 adding:
… In this situation I had meetings with Smirnov who has accused me here of frequently telling untruths. Yes, I often told untruths. I started doing that from the moment I began fighting the Bolshevik Party. In so far as Smirnov took the road of fighting the Party, he too is telling untruths. But it seems, the difference between him and myself is that I have decided firmly and irrevocably to tell at this last moment the truth, whereas he, it seems, has adopted a different decision.’126
Next came—as witness only—Smirnov’s former wife, Safonova. She said that Smirnov had transmitted Trotsky’s instructions on terrorism and strongly supported them. Smirnov firmly denied both assertions, but others of the accused backed her up. Vyshinsky then questioned Smimov:
Vyshinsky:
What were your relations with Safonova?
Smirnov:
Good.
Vyshinsky:
And more?
Smirnov:
We were intimately related.
Vyshinsky:
You were husband and wife?
Smirnov:
Yes.
Vyshinsky:
No personal grudges between you?
Smirnov:
No.
127
At the afternoon session, Smirnov was the first to be questioned. He continued with his partial confession. He had passed on Trotsky’s and Sedov’s ideas about terrorism; but he had not shared them, and he had done nothing else:
I admit that I belonged to the underground Trotskyite organization, joined the bloc, joined the centre of this bloc, met Sedov in Berlin in 1931, listened to his opinion on terrorism and passed this opinion on to Moscow. I admit that I received Trotsky’s instructions on terrorism from Gaven and, although not in agreement with them, I communicated them to the Zinovievites through Ter-Vaganyan.128
Vyshinsky:
(ironically) When did you leave the Centre?
Smirnov:
I did not intend to resign; there was nothing to resign from.
Vyshinsky:
Did the Centre exist?
Smirnov:
What sort of Centre …?
Vyshinsky:
Mrachkovsky, did the Centre exist?
Mrachkovsky:
Yes.
Vyshinsky:
Zinoviev, did the Centre exist?