The Great Terror

In his Secret Speech of February 1956, Khrushchev said, “It must be asserted that to this day the circumstances surrounding Kirov’s murder hide many things which are inexplicable and mysterious and demand the most careful examination.” This was said in the context of an attack on Stalin. But nothing was made explicit. At the XXIInd Party Congress in October 1961 Khrushchev said, this time in public: “Great efforts are still needed to find out who was really to blame for his death. The more deeply we study the materials connected with Kirov’s death, the more questions arise…. A thorough inquiry is now being made into the circumstances of this complicated case.” The same cautious line was taken by other speakers. But the “inquiry” was slow to produce results. And in a Pravda article of 7 February 1964, the hint was conveyed by remarking that Kirov represented an obstacle to Stalin’s ambitions and going on immediately to add: “Less than a year had passed after the XVIIth Congress when a criminal hand cut short life of Kirov…. This was a premeditated and carefully prepared crime the circumstances of which, as N. S. Khrushchev declared at the XXIInd Congress, have not yet been fully cleared up.”

Short of actually saying that Stalin was responsible, an announcement which still seemed to stick in the Soviet throat, it would hardly be possible to make the point more clearly. If we still had to find out who was really to “blame,” then obviously the case against the previously blamed—Zinoviev and Kamenev, and later the Rightists—was no longer sustained. Only one major suspect remained. Stalin’s daughter, writing in 1963, rightly speaks of “transparent hints” then being given in Russia that her father was responsible. And there is no doubt that they were so intended and so taken.fn2¹⁷ But it was not until 1988 that Yagoda was officially implicated and Stalin often, though not yet officially, named as mainly responsible. The latest Soviet account concludes, “Stalin’s participation in the murder is extremely probable, though there is no documentary confirmation”; or, as Khrushchev put it in a section of his memoirs which remained unpublished until mid-1989, “Yagoda could only have acted on secret orders from Stalin.”¹⁸

With Borisov liquidated, Stalin was left with the major problem—Nikolayev.

Leonid Nikolayev had, indeed, been a dupe of Stalin, Yagoda, and Zaporozhets. But he had also acted on his own beliefs. He has, naturally, been treated in a hostile fashion by every generation of Soviet and of oppositionist commentators, including the present one. And his act, far from bringing any benefit to Russia, was made the excuse for worse tyranny than ever. For these and other reasons, it is not easy to get a clear idea of the thirty-year-old tyrannicide.

Like many revolutionaries, he seems to have been something of a misfit. He had fought in the Civil War as a teenager, and afterward had been unable to make a successful career amid an increasingly bureaucratic society.

A Party member since 1920, he had not been known as an oppositionist, and, indeed, seems to have been very hostile to Trotskyism.

Nikolayev had been out of work since March 1934, when he seems to have attacked a decision sending him to work outside the city, which he believed to be a piece of bureaucratic intrigue.¹⁹ He had been expelled from the Party for this breach of discipline,²⁰

but his membership had been restored two months later on his making a declaration of repentance.²¹

After the crime, he had been interrogated by local men before the Moscow delegation arrived, and through some slip had realized that the NKVD had been using him. When he was brought before Stalin, he said so flatly and was removed. Even if he could be tortured into temporary submission, it was out of the question to produce him in open court.

Ordering Agranov to follow up the “Zinovievite” line as best he could, Stalin returned to Moscow and for the moment satisfied himself with other measures to intensify the atmosphere of terror.

Back in the capital, Kirov’s body lay in state. The highest in the land mounted guard over it in the Hall of Columns. When Stalin saw the corpse, the Soviet press noted, he appeared so overcome by emotion that he went forward and kissed it on the cheek. It would be interesting to speculate on his feelings at that moment.

It is a trifle ironic that Zinoviev, too, had just expressed his sorrow over Kirov’s death, in an obituary rejected by Pravda, and that at the 1936 Trial Vyshinsky was to speak of it in these terms: “The miscreant, the murderer, mourns over his victim! Has anything like it ever occurred before? What can one say, what words can one use fully to describe the utter baseness and loathsomeness of this: Sacrilege! Perfidy! Duplicity! Cunning!”²²