Search Results for: criminal code

First Soviet Criminal Code

The Criminal Code of the RSFSR, 1922. June 1, 1922

 

Excerpts

Original Source: Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii raboche-krestian’skogo pravitel’stva, 1922, No. 15, Art. 153.

General Section

II. General Principles Governing the Application of Punishment

5. The Criminal Code of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic has as its object the legal protection of the Workers’ State from crimes and from socially dangerous elements, and achieves this object by applying punishments or other means of social protection against violators of the revolutionary system of law.

6. A crime is any socially dangerous act or omission which threatens the foundations of the Soviet structure and that system of law which has been established by the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government for the period of transition to a Communist structure.

7. A person is dangerous if he commits acts which are injurious to the community, or if his actions present a serious menace to the established laws of the community.

8. Punishment and other measures of social protection are applied for the following purposes: (a) generally to prevent the commission of further offences, both by the particular offender and by other unstable elements of the community; (b) to adapt the offender to the conditions of social life by subjecting him to the influence of corrective labor; (c) to deprive the offender of the possibility of committing further offences.

9. Punishment is to be determined by the judicial bodies in accordance with their socialistic conception of law, and in conformity with the Articles and fundamental principles of the present Code.

10. In cases where the Criminal Code makes no direct reference to particular forms of crime, punishment or other measures of social protection are applied in accordance with those Articles of the Criminal Code which deal with crimes most closely approximating, in gravity and in kind, to the crimes actually committed, and in conformity with the regulations laid down in the General Section of the Present Code …

IV. Classification and Forms of Punishment and of Other Measures of Social Protection

32. The punishments which may be applied under the provisions of the Criminal Code are: (a) temporary or permanent banishment from the territories of the RSFSR; (b) imprisonment with or without strict isolation; (c) compulsory labor without custody; (d) conditional conviction; (e) confiscation of property in whole or in part; (f) fine; (g) forfeiture of rights; (h) dismissal from office; (i) public censure; (j) the imposition of an obligation to make good the harm done.

33. In cases examined by the revolutionary tribunals, until abolition by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, whenever the supreme penalty is specified by articles of this Code, execution takes place by shooting…

46. Among other measures of social protection which may, by sentence of the Court, be substituted for the punishment imposed, or may succeed it, are the following:

(a) Internment in an institution for the mentally or morally defective.
(b) Compulsory medical treatment.
(c) Prohibition from holding a particular office, or from engaging in a particular occupation or craft;
(d) Removal from a specified locality…

Chapter 1. State Crimes

(I) Of Counter-revolutionary Crimes

57. The term counter-revolutionary is applied to any act committed with the intention of overthrowing, undermining or weakening the authority of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Soviets, and of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government founded on the constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, and also to any acts calculated to assist that portion of the international bourgeoisie which does not recognize the rights of the communistic system of ownership which is replacing capitalism, and which strives to overthrow that system by means of intervention or blockade, espionage, press subsidies, etc.

An act is also to be counter-revolutionary which, though not directly aimed at attaining the above objects, nevertheless, to the knowledge of the person committing it, endangers the fundamental political or economic conquests of the proletarian revolution.

58. The organization, with counter-revolutionary intentions, of armed risings, or of the invasion of Soviet territory by armed detachments or bands; likewise participation in any attempt, made with such intentions, to seize power at the metropolis or in the provinces, or forcibly to detach from the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic any portion of its territory, or to subvert any treaties concluded by it, is punishable with the supreme penalty and confiscation of all property. This punishment may, however, in extenuating circumstances, be reduced to imprisonment for not less than five years with strict isolation, and confiscation of all property.

Where the Court is satisfied that a participator was ignorant of the ultimate purpose of the crime described in the present Article, such participation is punishable with imprisonment for not less than three years.

59. Communication with foreign Governments or with their individual representatives with the object of inducing their armed interference in the affairs of the Republic or a declaration of war on it, or the organization of a military expedition; likewise the rendering of assistance, in any shape or form, to foreign Governments after war has been declared on them or after the dispatch of an expedition, is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the first part of Article 58 of the Criminal Code.

60. Participation in an organization aiming at the commission of the crimes specified in Articles 57-59 of the Criminal Code, is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the first and second parts of Article 58.

61. Participation or co-operation in an organization aiming at assisting the international bourgeoisie as specified in Article 57 of the Criminal Code, is punishable with the same penalties.

62. Participation in an organization aiming at the objects specified in Article 57 of the Criminal Code, by inciting the populace to mass disturbances, nonpayment of taxes, non-fulfillment of obligations, or by any other means, to the manifest detriment of the dictatorship of the working class and the proletarian revolution, even in cases where an armed rising or armed invasion was not the primary object of such organization, is punishable with the same penalties.

63. Participation in an organization which, for counter-revolutionary ends, operates against the normal working of Soviet institutions or enterprises, or which uses such institutions or enterprises for the same ends, is punishable with the same penalties.

64. The organization, with counter-revolutionary intent, of terrorist acts directed against representatives of the Soviet Government or against officials of the revolutionary Workers’ and Peasants’ organizations; likewise participation in the performance of such acts, even if the participator did not belong to a counter-revolutionary organization, is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the first part of Article 58.

65. The organization, with counter-revolutionary intent, of the destruction or injury-by explosion, by fire or by any other means-of railroads or other routes and their equipment, the public postal, telegraphic and telephone services, aqueducts, public depots and other buildings or structures; likewise participation in the commission of the aforesaid crimes, is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the first and second parts of Article 58.

66. Participation in any form of espionage, involving the delivery or communication or abstraction or collection-with counter-revolutionary intent or for a reward -of information bearing the character of State secrets, and in particular of military information, to or for foreign Powers or counterrevolutionary organizations, is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the first part of Article 58.

The publication of such information, in the absence of counter-revolutionary or venal intentions and in ignorance of the possible consequences of such acts, is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the second part of Article 58.

67. Active participation in the struggle against the laboring class and the revolutionary movement by persons who were in responsible positions in the tsarist regime is punishable with the penalties prescribed in the first part of Article 58-

68. The concealment or aiding of any of the forms of crime described in Articles 57-67, in the absence of direct participation in the performance of such -crimes or in ignorance of the ultimate purposes of such crimes, is punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than one year.

69. Propaganda and agitation in the form of a call to overthrow the Soviet power by means of acts of violence or treachery, or by active or passive opposition to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, or by mass non-fulfillment of the obligations imposed on citizens in the matter of military service or taxation, is punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than three years, with strict isolation. The punishment for these crimes, if committed in time of war or popular disturbance, is the supreme penalty.

In cases where counter-revolutionary intent is not proven, summons to non-fulfillment of, or opposition to, orders of the central or local authorities is punishable with the penalties prescribed in Article 83 of the Criminal Code.

70. Propaganda and agitation intended to assist the international bourgeoisie specified in Article 57 is punishable with banishment from the territory of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, or imprisonment for a period of not less than three years.

71. Unauthorized return to the territory of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic after the application of punishment under paragraph (a) of Article 32 is punishable with the supreme penalty.

72. The distribution of agitation literature of a counter-revolutionary character and the preparation or storage of such literature for the purposes of distribution is punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than one year.

73. The invention and diffusion, with counter-revolutionary intent, of false rumors or unconfirmed news which may create a panic among the public or provoke lack of confidence in the authorities or discredit them, is punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than six months.

In cases where counter-revolutionary intent is not proven, the penalty may be reduced to compulsory labor for a period of three months …

(2) Crimes against Public Administration

84. The distribution of literary productions inciting to the commission of the criminal acts specified in Articles 75-81 of the Criminal Code, and the preparation or storage of such productions for the purpose of such distribution, is punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than six months; but in the aggravating circumstances described in the second part of Article 83- imprisonment for a period of not less than one year …

87. The insulting expression of disrespect towards the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, in the form of reviling the emblem or flag of the State, or a memorial of the revolution, is punishable with imprisonment for a period not less than six months …

Source: The Criminal Code of the RSFSR (London: HMSO, 1925), Articles 33, 46, 63, 67.

 

From the Criminal Code of the RSFSR

Violation of the Rules on the Separation of the Church and the State. 1923

 

Original Source: Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R. (Moscow: Official Edition, 1923).

119. Utilizing the religious prejudices of the masses with the object of overthrowing the Worker-Peasant government or of rousing opposition to its laws and orders, is punishable by the penalty prescribed in paragraph 69 of the Criminal Code.

120. Fraudulent actions performed for the purpose of rousing superstition among the masses, and also for the purpose of thereby securing any kind of advantages, is punishable by privation of liberty up to one year or forced labor up to one year.

121. Imparting religious instruction in state or private educational institutions to children or minors, is punishable by forced labor up to one year.

122. Any employment of compulsion in making collections in favor of religious organizations and groups, is punishable by forced labor up to six months, by privation up to two years of the right of concluding contracts with local Soviets for the use of ritual property and religious edifices, and by confiscation of the property of the organizations.

123. Assumption by religious or Church organizations of administrative, court or other functions of a public-legal character and of the rights of juridical persons, is punishable by forced labor up to six months, by liquidation of the above mentioned organizations and by confiscation of their property.

124. The performance in Government buildings and institutions of religious ceremonies and also the placing in these buildings of any sort of religious symbols, is punishable by forced labor up to three months or a fine up to 300 gold rubles.

125. Hindering the performance of religious rites, in so far as they do not disturb the public peace and are not accompanied by infractions of the rights of citizens, is punishable by forced labor up to six months.

69. Propaganda and agitation, in the form of instigation of the overthrow of the government of the Soviets by forcible or treasonable actions or by active and passive resistance to the Worker-Peasant Government, or by mass non-compliance with military and tax obligations imposed on citizens, is punishable by privation of liberty for not less than three years with strict isolation.

For the same crimes, committed in circumstances of war or during popular disturbances, the penalty is increased to the extreme limit of the law [the death penalty].

Instigation of non-compliance with, or of opposition to, orders of the central or the local authorities, where counter-revolutionary aims are not proven, is punishable by the penalties prescribed in paragraph 83 of the Criminal Code.

83. Agitation and propaganda of any kind, including the instigation of the crimes defined in paragraph 75-81d, and also the rousing of national hatred and dissension, is punishable by privation of liberty for not less than one year, with strict isolation.

If the agitation and propaganda take place in time of war and are directed toward non-compliance by citizens with military obligations or obligations connected with military operations which have-been imposed on them, the penalty may be increased up to the supreme penalty of the law.

{The paragraphs referred to, 75 to 81d, deal with crimes against the administrative order.}

Source: Boleslaw B. Szczesniak, ed. and tr., Russian Revolution and Religion; a collection of documents concerning the suppression of religion by the Communists, 1917-1925 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959), 107-108.

 

Repealing Criminal Liability for Abortions

Supreme Soviet of the USSR, On Repealing the Criminal Liability of Pregnant Women for Having Abortions. August 5, 1954

 

Translated by Ward McKee

Original Source: Sbornik zakonov S.S.S.R. i ukazov Prezidiuma Verkhovnovo soveta S.S.R. (1938 g. – noiabr’ 1958 g.). (Moscow, 1959), p. 549.

1. To repeal the criminal liability of pregnant women having abortions as established in Art. 4 of the June 27, 1936 Resolution of TsIK and Sovnarkom; however, criminal liability shall remain for persons performing illegal abortions and those coercing women to have an abortion as established by this resolution.

2. To request Presidiums of the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics to bring their Criminal Codes in compliance with this decree.

Source: Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Bulletin, No. 15 (1954).

 

Disciplinary Code of the Armed Forces

Minister of Armed Forces of the USSR, Disciplinary Code of the Armed Forces of the USSR. June 1, 1946

 

Chapter I. General Provisions

1. Military discipline is the strict and exact observance by all servicemen of the order and rules established by laws and military codes.

2. Military discipline is founded on recognition by each serviceman of military duty and personal responsibility for the protection of his Motherland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

3. Military discipline obligates each serviceman:
To carry out exactly the requirements of military codes, orders, and instructions of commanders;
Staunchly to bear all burdens and deprivations of military service, not to spare blood or life itself in fulfilling military duty;
To guard strictly military and state secrets;
To be honorable, truthful, and to study conscientiously the art of war and to safeguard in all ways military and national property;
To show respect to commanders and seniors, and to observe strictly the rules of military courtesy and saluting.

4. The interests of defending the Motherland require of a commander that he not leave without action a single offense of his subordinates, that he punish strictly the remiss and encourage the deserving for demonstrated zeal, exploits, and distinctions in service.

5. Each commander is obliged resolutely and firmly to require observance of military discipline, constantly to educate his subordinates in the spirit of unflinching fulfillment of all its requirements, to develop and support in them a consciousness of military honor and military duty.

6. The order of the commander shall be law for the subordinate. An order must be executed without reservation, exactly, and promptly.

7. In case of open disobedience or resistance of a subordinate, the commander is obliged to take all measures of compulsion, and in an extreme case, which does not permit delay, to use weapons; the commander shall report such an extraordinary case immediately through channels.

A commander who does not take active measures for the restoration of order and discipline shall bear responsibility for that.

Each serviceman is obliged to co6perate with his commander in maintaining military discipline and order.

8. Only direct commanders and commanders indicated in Chapter 7 may impose disciplinary penalties.

9. Disciplinary authority assigned to junior commanders shall always belong to the senior commanders as well.

10. Commanders of the rank of sergeants and master sergeants whose official duties are not stated in the present code shall enjoy disciplinary authority with respect to their subordinates according to the military rank provided for the official duties occupied:
(a) In the rank of junior sergeant, sergeant, master sergeant second class and master sergeant first class – the authority of commander (master sergeant) of a squad;
(b) In the ranks of senior sergeant and chief master sergeant – the authority of assistant platoon commander;
(c) In the ranks of master sergeant and warrant officer – the authority of a master sergeant of a company (ship’s crew).

11. Commanders of the rank of officers, generals, and admirals, whose official duties are not stated in the present code, shall enjoy disciplinary authority with respect to subordinates according to the military rank intended for the official duties occupied:
(a) In the ranks of ensign, second lieutenant, and first lieutenant – the authority of a platoon commander;
(b) In the ranks of captain and lieutenant-commander – the authority of a company commander (commander of a ship of the fourth class);
(c) In the ranks of major, lieutenant colonel, commander, and captain – the authority of a battalion commander (commander of a ship of the third class);
(d) In the ranks of colonel and commodore – the authority of a regimental commander (commander of a ship of the second class);
(e) In the ranks of major-general and rear-admiral – the authority of a division commander (commander of a ship of the first class);
(f) In the ranks of lieutenant-general and vice-admiral-the authority of a corps commander (commander of a division of ships);
(g) In the ranks of colonel-general and admiral – the authority of commander-in-chief of an army (commander-in-chief of a naval squadron);
(h) In the ranks of general of the army, marshal of a branch of the army, admiral of a fleet, and Marshal of the Soviet Union -the authority of commander-in-chief of troops of a military district (commander-in-chief of a fleet).

12. Commanders of fleet bases, commanders-in-chief of sea frontiers and also officers and admirals of ships and commands of ships, whose official duties are not stated in the present code, shall enjoy disciplinary authority with respect to their subordinates one grade higher than the authority of officers and admirals indicated in Article 11.

13. Deputies (assistants) of commanders of subdivisions, units, ships, and commands, and also chiefs of staff, shall enjoy disciplinary authority with respect to their subordinates one grade lower than the rights assigned to their immediate commanders.

On ships where there is a senior assistant and an assistant commander of the ship, the latter shall enjoy disciplinary authority one grade lower than the rights assigned to the senior assistant.

14. In temporarily fulfilling official duties, the commander shall enjoy disciplinary authority in accordance with the official duties temporarily being fulfilled, if so stated in the order.

15. Commanders of battalions, companies, platoons, and corresponding organizations, when commanding subdivisions or detachments on detached duty, and also when carrying out independent tasks separately from their unit, shall enjoy disciplinary authority one degree higher than the official duties occupied.

Privates, sergeants, and master sergeants assigned as commanders of detachments in the cases indicated above shall enjoy the disciplinary authority of a master sergeant of a company (ship’s crew), and sergeants in the rank of master sergeant and master sergeants in the rank of warrant officer shall enjoy the authority of a platoon commander.

16. Officers commanding cadet subdivisions in military academies (schools) shall enjoy disciplinary authority with respect to their subordinates one grade higher than the official duties occupied.

17. The provisions of the present code shall apply:
(a) To all servicemen of the Armed Forces of the USSR;
(b) To persons in the reserve liable to military service and to pre-draftees during the period which they spend in camp, during their participation in maneuvers and other combat courses;
(c) To officers, generals, and admirals in the reserve and on the retired list and also to officers, generals, and admirals on detached duty for work in the national economy – while wearing the military uniform.

Chapter II. On Punishments for Violation of Military Discipline

18. For a violation of military discipline or of the general order a serviceman must be subjected to disciplinary penalty if the offense committed by him does not involve being arraigned in court.

19. In those cases when for the offense committed various punishments are provided by military criminal laws, depending upon the degree of guilt, some of which are imposed by a court, and others by disciplinary action, the commander shall determine whether to transfer the record of the guilty person to the military investigating organs or to limit himself to disciplinary penalties. The decision of the question and the determination of the measure of disciplinary penalty itself shall belong in such an instance to that commander who, according to the law, is to determine whether the record should be transferred to the military investigating organs.

20. One who for illegal actions subject to punishment by sentence of court is subjected to a disciplinary penalty shall not be exempt from arraignment in court.

21. In extreme cases, not permitting delay, the right to relieve officers, generals, and admirals from official duties shall be assigned:
(a) To the regimental commander, the commander of a ship of the second class and to commanders enjoying authority equal to theirs-when the officers to be relieved of their official duties are commanders of companies, commanders of combat units of a ship, those corresponding to them and lower;
(b) To the division commander, the commander of a ship of the first class and commanders enjoying authority equal to theirs -when the officers to be relieved of their official duties are battalion commanders, commanders of combat units of a ship (except commanders of the second and fifth combat units), those corresponding to them and lower;
(c) To the corps commander, the commander of a brigade of ships and commanders enjoying authority equal to theirs-when the officers to be relieved of their official duties are commanders of regiments, commanders of ships of the second class, those corresponding to them and lower;
(d) To the commander of an army, the commander of the troops of a military district or army group, the commander of a squadron or fleet, and to commanders enjoying authority equal to theirs-when the officers to be relieved of their official duties are division commanders, commanders of brigades of ships, those corresponding to them and lower.

A commander who relieves a subordinate of official duties is obliged immediately to report this through official channels, setting forth in detail in the report the reasons and circumstances which call for relieving him of official duties.

A commander who relieves a subordinate of official duties without sufficient basis for so doing shall bear responsibility for that.

22. Relieving of official duties of corps commanders, corps chiefs of staff, squadron commanders, squadron chiefs of staff, those corresponding to them and higher, shall be carried out by authority of the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

Chapter III. On Disciplinary Penalties Imposed on Privates, Sergeants, and Master Sergeants

23. The following penalties may be imposed on privates:
(a) Reprimand;
(b) Restriction to barracks, to the area of the unit, or to the ship-up to one month;
(c) Assignment to extra detail (with the exception of assignment to guard duty, or to watch) or to work -up to five assignments;
(d) Simple confinement -up to twenty days;
(e) Strict confinement -up to fifteen days;
(f) Deprivation of the rank of private first class (senior Red Sailor).

24. The following penalties are imposed on sergeants and master sergeants in the regular-term service:
(a) Reprimand;
(b) Restriction to barracks, to the area of the unit or to the ship-up to one month;
(c) Assignment to extra detail (with the exception of guard duty or watch) – up to three assignments;
(d) Simple confinement – up to twenty days;
(e) Strict confinement – up to ten days;
(f) Demotion in command;
(g) Reduction in military rank – to rank of private inclusive. The penalties indicated in paragraphs (c) and (e) shall not be imposed on sergeants in the rank of master sergeants and on master sergeants in the rank of warrant officer.

25. The following penalties may be imposed on sergeants and master sergeants of the extra-term service:
(a) Reprimand;
(b) Simple confinement up to twenty days;
(c) Demotion in command;
(d) Transfer to the reserve for the remainder of the term of service.

Chapter IV. Rights of Commanders to Impose Disciplinary Penalties on Their Subordinates of the Ranks of Private, Sergeant and Master Sergeant

26. The commander of a squad, the commander of a gun, and the master sergeant of a section shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;
(b) To deprive privates of one regular pass from the barracks, from the area of the unit or from ship to shore;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work -one assignment.

27. The assistant platoon commander shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;
(b) To deprive of a pass from the barracks or from the area of the unit, privates – up to two regular passes, sergeants – one regular pass;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work up to two assignments; sergeants to extra detail-one assignment.

28. The master sergeant of a company, of a battery, of a troop, of an air group, of a ship’s crew shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;
(b) To deprive of a pass from the barracks, from the area of the unit or from the ship, privates up- to three regular passes, sergeants and master sergeants – one regular pass;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work up to three assignments; to assign sergeants and master sergeants to extra detail – one assignment;
(d) To place privates under simple arrest up to two days.

29. The commander of a platoon shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;
(b) To deprive of a pass from the barracks or from the area of the unit, privates up to three regular passes, sergeants up to two regular passes;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work up to four assignments; to assign sergeants to extra detail up to two assignments;
(d) To place under simple arrest; privates up to three days, sergeants – one day.

30. The commander of a company, battery, troop, flight, ship of the fourth class, or independent platoon shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;
(b) To deprive of a pass from the barracks, from the area of the unit or from the ship: privates up to one month, sergeants and master sergeants up to three regular passes;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work up to five assignments; to assign sergeants and master sergeants to extra detail up to three assignments;
(d) To place privates under simple arrest up to ten days, under strict arrest up to four days; sergeants and master sergeants under simple arrest up to five days, under strict arrest up to two days; a master sergeant or warrant officer under simple arrest up to three days.

31. The commander of a battalion, artillery battalion, air group, ship of the third class, the commander of an independent company, battery, or troop, shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;

(b) To deprive of a pass from the barracks, from the area of the unit, or from the ship, privates, sergeants, and master sergeants up to one month;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work up to five assignments; to assign sergeants and master sergeants to extra detail up to three assignments;
(d) To place privates under simple arrest up to fifteen days, under strict arrest up to seven days; sergeants and master sergeants -under simple arrest up to ten days, under strict arrest up to five days.

32. The commander of a regiment, ship of the second class, and the commander of an independent battalion, artillery battalion, or air group, shall have the right:
(a) To reprimand;

(b) To deprive of a pass from the barracks, from the area of the unit, or from the ship, privates, sergeants, and master sergeants up to one month;
(c) To assign privates to extra detail or work up to five assignments; to assign sergeants and master sergeants to extra detail up to three assignments;
(d) To place privates under simple arrest up to twenty days, under strict arrest up to fifteen days; sergeants and master sergeants under simple arrest up to twenty days, under strict arrest up to ten days.
(e) To deprive of the rank of private first class (seaman first);
(f) To reduce in official duties sergeants and master sergeants.

33. The commander of a division, independent or attached brigade, ship of the first class, and independent regiment, shall have, beyond the rights assigned to the commander of a regiment, the right:
(a) To reduce sergeants and master sergeants in regular-term service to the rank of private;
(b) To retire to the reserves sergeants and master sergeants in extra-term service for the remainder of the term of service.

34. The commander of a corps, independent division, brigade of ships, the commander of an army, squadron, flotilla, the commander of troops of a military district or army group, and the commander of a fleet shall enjoy disciplinary authority to the full extent of the present code with respect to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants subordinate to them.

Chapter V. On Disciplinary Penalties Imposed on Officers, Generals, and Admirals

35. The following penalties may be imposed on officers:
(a) Admonition and reprimand administered orally or in writing, before an assembly of officers or in the order of the day;
(b) Arrest in quarters with performance of service duties up to twenty days;
(c) Arrest and confinement in the guardhouse up to twenty days;
(d) Warning of inadequate discharge of duty;
(e) Assignment with a demotion in command;
(f) Reduction in military rank.

36. Deputies (assistants) of commanders of subdivisions of units or ships, and chiefs of staff of units, with the exception of senior officers in the rank of colonel and commodore, can be placed under arrest in quarters or under arrest with confinement in the guardhouse by a commander who has authority one grade higher than their immediate commanders.

37. The commanders of regiments, commanders of ships of the first class and also senior officers of the rank of colonel and commodore who occupy official duties of commanders of large units, of their deputies or of chiefs of staffs of commands, may be placed under arrest in quarters or under arrest with confinement in the guardhouse only by order of the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

38. Senior officers in the rank of colonel and commodore not indicated in Article 37 may be placed under arrest under disciplinary procedure by authority of the commander of the troops of a military district or army group, the commander of a fleet, and commanders enjoying authority equal to theirs.

39. The following penalties may be imposed on generals and admirals:
(a) Admonition and reprimand, administered orally, in writing, or in the order of the day;
(b) Warning of inadequate discharge of duty;
(c) Assignment with demotion in command.

40. Officers, generals, and admirals of guards units and commands who are assigned with a reduction in official duties in a disciplinary procedure shall be deprived of guards rank and transferred out of the guard.

Chapter VI. Rights of Commanders to Impose Disciplinary Penalties on Their Subordinate Officers, Generals, and Admirals

41. The commander of a company, battery, squadron, flight, or ship of the fourth class shall have the right:
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally;
(b) To place junior officers under arrest in quarters and under arrest with confinement in the guardhouse-up to two days.

42. The commander of a battalion, artillery battalion, air group, ship of the third class, the commander of an independent company, battery, or troop, shall have the right:
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally or before an assembly of officers;
(b) To place junior officers under arrest in quarters and arrest with confinement in the guardhouse for five days.

43. The commander of a regiment, ship of the second class, the commander of an independent battalion, artillery battalion, or air group, shall have the right:
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally, before an assembly of officers or in the order of the day;
(b) To place under arrest in quarters and arrest with confinement in the guardhouse, junior officers up to ten days, senior officers up to five days.
(c) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty.

44. The commander of a division, independent or attached brigade, ship of the first class, or separate regiment shall have the right with respect to officers:
(a) To admonish and to reprimand orally, in writing, before an assembly of officers or in the order of the day;
(b) To place under arrest in quarters and under arrest with confinement in the guardhouse, junior officers up to fifteen days, senior officers up to ten days;
(c) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty.

45. The commander of a corps, independent division, or brigade of ships, shall have the right:

(1) With respect to officers –
(a) To admonish and to reprimand orally, in writing, before an assembly of officers or in the order of the day;
(b) To place under arrest in quarters and arrest with confinement in the guardhouse, junior officers up to 20 days, senior officers up to 15 days;
(c) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty;

(2) With respect to generals and admirals –
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally, in writing, or in the order of the day.

46. The commander of an army, squadron, or flotilla, shall have the right:

(1) With respect to officers
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally, in writing, before an assembly of officers or in the order of the day;
(b) To place under arrest in quarters and arrest with confinement in the guardhouse up to twenty days;
(c) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty;

(2) With respect to generals and admirals –
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally, in writing, or in the order of the day;
(b) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty.

47. The commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet shall have the right:
(i) With respect to officers –
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally, in writing, before an assembly of officers, or in the order of the day;
(b) To place under arrest in quarters and under arrest with confinement in the guardhouse up to twenty days;
(c) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty;
(d) To assign with a reduction in official duties commanders of battalions, commanders of ships of the third class, those corresponding to them and lower;

(2) With respect to generals and admirals –
(a) To admonish and reprimand orally, in writing, or in the order of the day;
(b) To warn of inadequate discharge of duty.

48. Commanders of chief administrations directly subordinate to the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR, and also commanders of arms of the service, with respect to all servicemen subordinate to them, shall enjoy the disciplinary authority of a commander of the troops of a military district or army group, or the commander of a fleet.

49. Chief Inspectors of the Ground Troops, Military Air Forces, and Naval Forces, at the time of inspection, shall enjoy with respect to all servicemen of troops, military installations and institutions which they are inspecting, the disciplinary authority of a commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet.

50. Deputy Ministers of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the Commander-in-Chief of Ground Troops, Military Air Forces, and Naval Forces, and the Commander of the Rear of the Armed Forces of the USSR shall have, beyond the rights assigned to the commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet, with respect to all servicemen of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the right to reduce by one grade the military rank of officers from lieutenant colonels down.

51. The Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR shall enjoy disciplinary authority to the full extent of the present code with respect to all servicemen of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

Chapter VII. On the Imposition of Disciplinary Penalties in Special Cases

52. Commanders of garrisons (senior naval commanders), commanders of training camps, commanders of troop movements, commanders of military automobile roads, and military commandants of all designations, shall have, within the limits of the authority assigned to them with respect to their subordinates, the right to place under arrest servicemen not subordinate to them (Article 8) in the following cases:
(a) When the offense concerns a violation of general security or order;
(b) When the offense is committed while on garrison guard duty or when carrying out other obligations of garrison service;
(c) When the offense is committed while on leave, on detached service, during recuperation in a medical institution, or while confined in the garrison guardhouse;
(d) When the offense is committed while traveling by rail, water, or other means of communication;
(e) When the direct commander of the guilty person enjoys less authority in comparison with them.

53. Commanders imposing arrest in accordance with Article 52 shall inform thereof the commanders of those units and ships and the commanders of those installations and institutions to whose personnel the serviceman who committed the offense belongs.

A serviceman upon arrival at the place of permanent service is obliged to report to his immediate commander the imposition of a penalty upon him.

A serviceman who does not report the imposition of a penalty upon him shall bear responsibility for that in the disciplinary procedure.

54. In case of a violation of military discipline or the general order by officers, generals, and admirals in the reserve or retired, while wearing the military uniform, the following disciplinary penalties may be imposed:
(a) On officers – admonition and reprimand, administered orally or in writing, arrest in quarters or arrest with confinement in the guardhouse, for junior officers up to seven days, for senior officers up to 3 days;
(b) On generals and admirals – admonition and reprimand, administered orally or in writing.

55. The right of imposing disciplinary penalties on officers, generals, and admirals in the reserve or retired (Article 54) belongs:
(a) On junior officers – to commanders of garrisons (senior naval commanders) and county (city) military commissars who enjoy the authority of a commander of a battalion (commander of a ship of the third class);

(b) On senior officers – to garrison commanders (senior naval commanders), to regional (area, republican) and city (county) military commissars who enjoy the authority of the commander of a regiment (commander of a ship of the second class); colonels and commodores in the reserve or retired can be placed under arrest only by order of the commander of the troops of a military district or the commander of a fleet;
(c) On generals and admirals-to commanders of the troops of military districts or commanders of fleets.

56. Officers, generals, and admirals in the reserve or retired, in case of their committing offenses which degrade the honor and dignity of their military rank, may be deprived of the right to wear the military uniform by authority of the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

57. When servicemen not subordinate one to the other perform service jointly, the senior in official duties or, when equal in official duties, the senior in rank, shall be acknowledged as the commander and shall enjoy the disciplinary authority assigned him according to the official duties occupied.

58. For a violation of military discipline, the general order, or the rules of saluting, by a junior in the presence of a senior, the senior is obliged to remind the junior and if this is not successful, he can arrest the junior.

The right of arrest in these cases belongs: with respect to senior officers (with the exception of persons indicated in Articles 37 and 38 of the present code), to generals, admirals, and senior officers; with respect to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants, to generals, admirals, and all officers.

The procedure for carrying out an arrest is defined in Appendix 4, paragraph 16.

59. Persons not fulfilling the requirements of a senior or his order to place themselves under arrest (Article S8) are subject to responsibility as for not carrying out an order of their commander.

Chapter VIII. Procedure for the Imposition of Disciplinary Penalties

60. Every disciplinary penalty must correspond to the degree of guilt and the importance of the offense committed. In defining the kind and the measure of the penalty there shall be taken into consideration the character of the offense, the circumstances under which it was committed, the previous conduct of the guilty one, and also the length of service and degree of knowledge of the system of service.

61. When imposing a disciplinary penalty or reminding a subordinate of his obligations, a commander must not lower the personal dignity of the subordinate or permit rudeness.

62. It is forbidden to impose several penalties for one and the same offense or to combine one penalty with others. It is forbidden also to place a person under arrest in the form of a disciplinary penalty without defining the term of arrest.

63. The severity of a disciplinary penalty shall be increased when the guilty person has committed an offense of the same character more than once, when the offense is committed while carrying out service obligations, or when it results in a substantial breach of order.

64. A commander who considers the disciplinary authority assigned to him as insufficient for the importance of the offense committed by a subordinate shall submit a petition for the imposition of a penalty on the guilty person by authority of a senior commander.

65. A commander who exceeds the disciplinary authority assigned to him shall bear responsibility for that.

66. A senior commander shall not have the right to reverse or decrease a disciplinary penalty imposed by a junior commander, by reason of the severity of the penalty, if the latter has not exceeded the authority assigned to him.

A senior commander shall have the right to increase a disciplinary penalty, if he finds that the penalty imposed by the junior commander does not correspond to the seriousness of the offense committed.

67. Every disciplinary penalty must be imposed within five days from the day when the offense committed became known to the commander, and if an investigation or inquiry is conducted, then from the day of its completion.

68. The imposition of a penalty on a guilty person who is in a drunken condition shall be postponed until he becomes sober, for, which purpose he can be placed, if necessary, under preliminary arrest in the guardhouse.

Chapter IX Procedure for Carrying out Disciplinary Penalties

69. A disciplinary penalty shall be carried out, as a rule, immediately, and in exceptional cases not later than a month from the day of its imposition. After a period of a month, the penalty shall not be carried out but an entry shall be made on the record card of penalties and rewards.

70. The carrying out of an imposed penalty shall not be suspended when an appeal from it is taken, until instructions of the senior commander for its reversal are received.

71. Disciplinary penalties which are imposed shall be announced as follows: to privates, personally or in formation; to sergeants and master sergeants, personally or before sergeants and master sergeants in formation; to officers, personally, in writing, before an assembly of officers, or in the order of the day.

72. The procedure for carrying out an arrest of privates, sergeants, master sergeants, and officers is set forth in Appendix 4.

Chapter X. On Rewards Applicable to Privates, Sergeants and Master Sergeants

73. The following rewards shall be applied to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants:
(a) Expression of appreciation in formation or in the order of the day;
(b) Removal of a disciplinary penalty previously imposed;
(c) Award to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants in regular-term service of a pass from the area of the unit or from the ship, up to two days;
(d) Award to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants in regular-term service of a short-term leave, up to ten days, not counting travel time to the place of leave and back;
(e) Award of testimonials of merit on completion of the course of study in training units and subdivisions and on return to the reserves;
(f) Award of valuable gifts or money;
(g) Award of a personal photograph of the serviceman, taken before the unfurled banner of the unit;
(h) Notification to the home town or place of former employment of the serviceman of his exemplary performance of service duties and of rewards received;
(i) Award of military decoration.

74. In military academies, besides the rewards enumerated in Article 73, inscription on the honor roll of the names of students who have completed the course of study with honor shall be applicable,

Chapter XI. Rights of Commanders in Applying Rewards to Subordinate Privates, Sergeants, and Master Sergeants

75. The commander of a squad (commander of a weapon, master sergeant of a squad), assistant platoon commander, and the master sergeant of a company (battery, cavalry troop, air group, ship’s crew) shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation before the formation;
(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by them.

76. The commander of a platoon shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation before the formation;
(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by him.

77. The commander of a company (battery, cavalry troop, flight, ship of the fourth class, independent platoon) and the commander of a battalion (artillery battalion, air group, ship of the third class, independent company, battery, cavalry troop) shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation before the formation;
(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by them;
(c) To award a pass from the area of the unit or from the ship to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants in regular term service, up to two days.

78. The commander of a regiment (ships of the first and second class, separate battalion division, air group) shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation before the formation or in the order of the day;

(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by him;

(c) To award a short-term leave to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants in regular-term service, up to ten days;

(d) To award testimonials of merit on completion of regimental schools and on retirement into the reserves;

(e) To award valuable gifts or money;

(f) To award a personal photograph of the serviceman, taken before the unfurled banner of the unit;

(g) To notify the home town or place of previous employment of the serviceman of his exemplary performance of service duties and of rewards received.

79. The commander of a division (independent or attached brigade, independent regiment, training detachment, and the commander of an independent school of the Naval Forces), the commander of a corps (independent division), and the commander of an army, beyond the powers enumerated in Article 78, shall have the right to award testimonials of merit to those who have successfully finished the course of training in training units.

80. The commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet shall have, beyond the powers enumerated in Articles 78 and 79, the right:
(a) To award military decorations to privates, sergeants, and master sergeants;
(b) To inscribe on the honor roll the names of students of military academies who have completed the course of study with honor.

Chapter XII. On Rewards Applicable to Officers, Generals, and Admirals

81. The following rewards shall be applicable to officers, generals, and admirals:
(a) Expression of appreciation orally, before an assembly of officers, or in the order of the day;
(b) Removal of a disciplinary penalty previously imposed;
(c) Award of valuable engraved gifts or money;

(d) Nomination for premature advancement to the next military rank;
(e) Award of an engraved blank and operating firearm;
(f) Transfer to guard units commands.

82. In military academies (officer schools and courses), beyond the rewards enumerated in Article 81, there shall be applicable by authority of commanders of academies the inscription on the honor roll of the names of students who have completed the course of study with honor.

Chapter XIII. Rights of Commanders in Applying Rewards to Subordinate Officers, Generals, and Admirals

83. The commander of a company (battery, cavalry troop, flight, ship of the fourth class) shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation orally;
(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by him.

84. The commander of a battalion (artillery battalion, air group, ship of the third class, independent company, battery, cavalry troop) shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation orally or before an assembly of officers;
(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by him.

85. The commander of a regiment (ship of the second class, independent battalion, artillery battalion, air group), the commander of a division (independent or attached brigade, ship of the first class, independent regiment), the commander of a corps (independent division, brigade of ships), and the commander of an army (squadron, flotilla) shall have the right:
(a) To express appreciation orally, before an assembly of officers, or in the order of the day;
(b) To remove disciplinary penalties previously imposed by them;
(c) To award valuable engraved gifts or money;
(d) To nominate for premature advancement to the next military rank.

86. The commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet shall have, beyond the rights enumerated in Article 85, the right to transfer junior officers to guard units (commands).

87. Deputy Ministers of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Troops, the Military Air Forces and the Naval Forces, and the Commander of the Rear of the Armed Forces of the USSR shall have, beyond the rights assigned to the commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet, with respect to all servicemen of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the right in applying rewards to award side arms and firearms with name engraved.

88. The Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR shall have, with respect to all servicemen of the Armed Forces of the USSR, the right to apply rewards to the full extent of the present code.

Chapter XIV. Keeping Records of Disciplinary Penalties and Rewards

89. Direct commanders must report or inform through official channels concerning disciplinary penalties and rewards:
(a) For privates, sergeants, and master sergeants-to commanders of companies and those corresponding to them;
(b) For officers-to commanders of units and ships;
(c) For commanders of units and ships, generals, and admirals -to the headquarters of the next higher unit.

90. Record cards of penalties and rewards shall be kept:
(a) In the company-for privates and sergeants;
(b) In the headquarters of the unit-for officers;
(c) On ships of the first class: for privates and master sergeants-in groups, batteries, and turrets of combat units, in service units and separate ship’s crews; for officers – by the assistant commander of the ship;
(d) On ships of the second class: for privates and master sergeants-in combat units, service units, and independent units; for officers-by the assistant commander of the ship;

(e) On ships of the second class and submarines: for all personnel of the ship – by the assistant commander of the ship;

(f ) For all personnel of ships of the fourth class – in this administration of the flotilla.

91. Records of penalties and rewards for commanders of unit! and ships, generals, and admirals shall be kept in the headquarters of the next higher unit.

92. Each disciplinary penalty, with the exception of admonitions and reprimands administered orally, and also all rewards, shall be entered in the record of penalties and rewards (Appendix 2).

93. Each entry in the record of penalties and rewards for privates, sergeants, and master sergeants must be certified by the commander of the company (and of corresponding subdivisions).

On the record of penalties and rewards for officers each entry shall be certified by the chief of staff of the unit (assistant commander of a ship, commander of a flotilla of ships of the fourth class); and for commanders of units or ships and generals and admirals-by the chief of staff of the unit.

94. Commanders of battalions, regiments, and ships and those corresponding to them are obliged to inspect periodically the records of penalties and rewards for the purpose of checking the correctness of the penalties imposed and the rewards applied.

95. In case of travel or transfer of the serviceman, his record of penalties and rewards shall be sent to his new place of service.

Chapter XV. On Complaints and Reports

96. All servicemen shall have the right to make complaints about illegal actions and orders of commanders with respect to them, about violations of rights and benefits established by service, or non-issuance of their authorized allowances.

97. A complaint shall be made directly to the commander of the person against whose actions the complaint is made, and if the person making the complaint does not know through whose fault his rights have been violated, then the complaint shall be made through channels.

98. A complaint may be presented orally or turned in written form. In the latter case it must be signed.

99. A complaint against the commander of a regiment, commanders of ships of the first and second class, and commanders superior to them shall be turned in only in written form, with the exception of complaints made in response to an inspecting officer (Article 108).

100. Servicemen shall have the right to turn in complaints only for themselves personally. To turn in group complaints or complaints on behalf of another shall be forbidden.

101. It shall be forbidden to turn in a complaint while in formation, on guard duty, on watch, on twenty-four-hour detail and while in classes or in training courses.

102. It shall be forbidden to complain of the severity of a disciplinary penalty if the commander has not exceeded the disciplinary authority assigned to him.

103. When the superior commander conducts an inspection, a complaint may be made orally or turned in writing directly to the person making the inspection.

104. Servicemen not present for any reason when the superior commander conducts an inspection may turn in a complaint in written form directly addressed to the person making the inspection.

105. If a serviceman discovers anywhere misappropriation or damage of military property, illegal expenditure of funds, or other obvious abuses in the supplying of troops, he is obliged to report this through official channels and may send a written report to a superior commander.

Officers, generals, and admirals shall have in addition the right to turn in reports through official channels concerning abuses and inadequacies in the condition of technique and supply, and concerning facts which damage the combat efficiency of the armed forces and also concerning their suggestions for elimination of these inadequacies. Concurrently with turning in reports through official channels, it shall be permitted in these cases to turn in a report to a superior commander up to and including the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

106. A commander is obliged to examine a complaint or report received and if he considers the complaint or report to be correct immediately to take measures for the satisfaction of the request of the person turning in the complaint or request.

If a commander receiving a complaint or report does not have sufficient authority to satisfy the request of the person turning in the complaint, he shall immediately send the complaint or report through channels.

107. Servicemen who discover an abuse or any kind of serious inadequacy and who through their reports make possible its elimination, shall be eligible for a reward.

108. A serviceman who knowingly turns in a false complaint or report shall be made responsible for that.

109. A commander who permits an obvious injustice or an illegal action with respect to a subordinate on account of a complaint or petition turned in by him shall be subject to strict responsibility.

110. Complaints and reports of servicemen shall be entered by commanders of companies, commanders of combat units (service units), assistant commanders of ships, and commanders of flotillas of ships of the fourth class, in the book of complaints and reports (Appendix 3).

A book of complaints and applications shall be kept:
(a) In each company;
(b) In each combat unit of ships of the first class;
(c) On each ship of the second and third class;
(d) In the administration of a flotilla of ships of the fourth class.

In the book of complaints and applications shall be entered all complaints and reports of privates, sergeants, and master sergeants with the exception of complaints against officers of the rank of commander of a company, those corresponding to him and higher, and also complaints made when the superior commander conducts an inspection.

111. Complaints and reports of servicemen against officers of the rank of the commander of a company, those corresponding to him and higher, and also complaints made when the superior commander conducts an inspection, shall be entered personally by the chief of staff of the unit (senior assistant commander of a ship, assistant commander of a ship, chief of staff of a command of ships of the fourth class) in a separate book of complaints and reports which shall be also kept by him.

112. In books of complaints and reports an entry shall be made of the decision which followed each complaint or report.

Books of complaints and reports shall be presented every month to the commander of the unit for inspection, and also to the person inspecting for verification of the correctness of the dispositions made.

113. Books of complaints and reports must have the pages numbered, sewn together, and fastened together with stamped sealing wax, and be certified by the commander of the unit.

Chapter XVI. On Officers’ Courts of Honor

114. Courts of honor shall be established for the guarding of the dignity and honor of the rank of officer. To them shall be entrusted the trial of offenses which are unworthy of the rank of officer, or degrading to military honor or incompatible with the concept of morality.

115. The decision of the question whether or not a case is subject to trial by a court of honor shall belong to the commander who has jurisdiction over the court.

116. Courts of honor shall be organized:
(a) In a regiment, on a battleship, and also in other independent units of troops, for trial of cases involving junior officers;
(b) In the administration of a division, for trial of cases involving senior officers of units of the division except commanders of regiments and those corresponding to them;
(c) In the administration of a brigade of ships and units corresponding to them and higher, in the administration of naval bases and sea frontiers, for the trial of cases involving junior officers, and separately for senior officers, except commanders of ships of the first and second class and those corresponding to them.

117. Courts of honor shall also be organized for junior officers and separately for senior officers:

(a) In the administration of corps, armies, military districts, army groups, fleets, and flotillas;

(b) In institutions of military education;
(c) In military installations and institutions (military commissariats hospitals, depots, etc.);
(d) In chief and central administrations of the Ministry of the Armed Forces of the USSR.

118. Trial of cases involving commanders of regiments, commanders of ships of the first and second class, and those corresponding to them shall be conducted in a court of honor organized under the commander of the troops of a military district or army group of the commander of a fleet or flotilla.

119. Depending on the number of officers, courts of honor shall be organized in independent units of troops of district and army group administrations, installations, and institutions, and also in administrations, establishments, and institutions of fleets and flotillas. The decision as to the sufficiency of the number of personnel shall rest with the commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet or flotilla.

120. The commander of the troops of a military district or army group or the commander of a fleet or flotilla shall have the right to transfer for consideration to one of the courts of honor offenses of officers of those units (institutions, installations) of the army group, fleet, and flotilla in which a court of honor has not been established because of the small number of personnel.

121. Depending on the number of officers, courts of honor for junior and senior officers shall be organized in chief and central administrations of the Ministry of the Armed Forces of the USSR. The decision of the question as to the sufficiency of the number of personnel shall rest with the commanders of the corresponding chief and central administrations.

122. Courts of honor for the trial of cases involving junior officers shall consist of five members elected at an assembly of officers of the unit (battleship, brigade of ships, units corresponding to them and higher) from among the senior officers (except commanders of independent units, ships) and captains (lieutenant captains) who have served in the unit for not less than one year before the day of the elections. However, at least one senior officer must be elected to the court of honor for junior officers.

The court of honor for trial of cases involving senior officers shall consist of five members elected at an assembly of the senior officers of the division (independent brigade, brigade of ships, units corresponding to them and higher) from among the senior officers.

Beyond the number of members indicated above, there shall be elected to each court of honor two alternate members of the court.

123. Each independent unit of a division (independent brigade) and ship whose representatives are not included in the court of honor shall elect from its senior officers one member of the court. At the trial of a case involving an officer of that unit (ship), the member from that unit (ship) shall automatically replace one of the other members, who shall retire in such a case so that the court of honor will always consist of five members.

124. The court of honor for the trial of cases involving regimental commanders, commanders of ships of the first and second class and those corresponding to them shall consist of five members to be appointed each time for the trial of the particular case by the commander of the troops of the military district or army group or the commander of the fleet or flotilla.

In such cases, commanders of commands, except those to whom the accused is directly subordinate, shall be designated as members of the court of honor.

125. Officers under investigation or trial cannot be elected as members of courts of honor.

126. The selection of the members of the court of honor shall be carried out by secret vote.

Each elector has the right to nominate and to challenge any candidate. A question of a challenge shall be decided by voice vote.

The seven who receive the greatest number of votes shall be considered elected to the court of honor, and of these the two who receive the smallest number of votes shall be the alternate members of the court.

127. The members of a court of honor shall elect from among their number the president of the court and his deputy.

128. Elections to the court of honor shall be conducted each year, and the time for conducting the elections shall be set by the commander of the troops of a military district or army group, or the commander of a fleet or flotilla. Officers already on the court can be re6ected. Announcement shall be made concerning the results of the elections and also concerning the time the elected members enter upon fulfillment of their new obligations: for courts of junior officers, in an order of the day to the unit (ship); for courts of senior officers, in an order of the day to the division (independent brigade, brigade of ships, and units corresponding to them and higher). If the members of the court leave the unit before the end of the term for which they were elected, or are recalled from the court by the electors, then new elections shall be set for the election of new members.

129. An inquiry concerning the offenses with which the accused is charged must precede the examination of a case in the court of honor.

The inquiry shall be conducted by officers appointed by the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor according to the rules established for conducting inquiries.

130. For the conduct of the inquiry the accused and witnesses shall be called by order of the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor.

131. Upon examining the record of the inquiry, the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor shall decide whether or not the accused should be turned over to the court of honor. In case he is turned over to the court, the case shall be transferred to the president of the court of honor.

132. In case he is turned over to the court of honor, the accused shall be presented with the record of the inquiry which was conducted, and shall be given the right to ask the president of the court that new witnesses be called, to demand documents and other sources of information. In proper cases the president of the court shall grant such a request and in case of refusal shall write a resolution indicating the basis of the refusal.

133. Trial of a case in the court of honor shall be conducted as a rule in an open session, which may be attended by officers of rank not below that of the accused.

134. The actions of the court of honor shall consist of consideration of all the information brought together for the case, calling the accused into court, hearing him out, and verifying the evidence presented by him.

135. If the accused without valid reason does not appear in accordance with the demand of the court, the court without postponing trial of the case shall render a verdict by default. A special resolution concerning the failure of the accused to appear in court shall be composed and appended to the verdict.

136. The accused can offer a challenge against any of the members of the court; likewise the members of the court can disqualify themselves from participation in the trial. Upon hearing the explanations, the court shall decide whether to consider the challenge valid or not. A member of the court against whom a challenge is offered cannot take part in the decision concerning the challenge.

The decision of the court concerning the challenge shall be set forth in a special resolution, appended to the sentence of the court.

137. In rendering a verdict the court shall declare a recess and remove to a separate place. If a substantial need for additional information arises, the court shall have the right to adjourn without rendering a verdict.

138. The verdict of the court shall be rendered by a majority of the votes cast by voice vote.

139. The court of honor may decide:
(a) To acquit the accused;
(b) To admonish him;
(c) To reprimand him;
(d) To reprimand him severely;
(e) To petition for postponement of his regular promotion to the next military rank;

. (f) To petition for his reduction in official duties or in military rank;
(g) To petition for his transfer to another military district, fleet, or flotilla;
(h) To petition for his retirement into the reserves.

Courts of honor in guards units and commands may in addition petition to deprive the accused of guards rank with his transfer out of the guards unit.

140. The sentence of the court of honor, signed by the president and all the members of the court, shall be announced immediately to the accused and presented with the entire record in a report by the president of the court personally to the commander by whom the order for calling the court was issued.

141. An appeal from the verdict of a court of honor based on the substance of the case shall not be allowed. An appeal shall be allowed only for violation of the procedure established for courts of honor. An appeal shall be taken directly to the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor within three days after the day of the announcement of the verdict to the guilty person.

142. If the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor finds such an appeal (Article 141) justified, or if he himself observes in the conduct of the case a substantial violation of the established procedure, he shall have the right to set aside the verdict and order the president of the court to reconvene the court of honor, observing the established procedure.

143. In case the officer is sentenced to reduction in official duties or in military rank, or to transfer to another military district, fleet, or flotilla, or out of the guards, or to retirement into the reserves, the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor shall present through official channels a petition with the original of the verdict and the entire record of the case appended.

144. At the discretion of the commander who has jurisdiction over the court of honor, the verdict of the court of honor may be announced: for junior officers, at an assembly of junior and senior officers; for senior officers, at an assembly of senior officers.

Source: Harold J. Berman and Miroslav Kerner, ed., Documents on Soviet Military Law and Administration (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 50-82.

 

Labor Correction Code

Central Executive Committee and Sovnarkom R. S. F. S. R., Labor Correction Code (RSFSR). August 1, 1933

 

Part II

Deprivation of Freedom

Chapter 1

Places of Detention

28. Places of detention are:

  • (a) Isolators for those under investigation.
  • (b) Deportation prisons.
  • (c) Corrective colonies; factory colonies, agricultural colonies, colonies of mass work and penalty colonies.
  • (d) Institutions for applying measures of a medical nature to those deprived of freedom (institutes of psychiatric examination, colonies for tubercular and other patients).
  • (e) Institutions for minors (persons under age) deprived of freedom (factory schools of the industrial and agricultural type).

A. Isolators for Persons Under Investigation

29. Isolators for those under investigation are intended only for persons who are under investigation or on trial, and are organized as independent places of detention or as departments at other places of detention.

In isolators the above-mentioned persons are detained only until the sentence of the court or a resolution of some other competent organ comes into force.

In accordance with this, the regime and the rules of confinement and of internal order of the isolators are framed accordingly.

B. Deportation Prisons (Forwarding Prisons)

30. Deportation prisons are organized either as independent institutions or as departments at other places of detention.

31. Persons under investigation are placed in deportation prisons separately from convicts.

32. All deported prisoners (prisoners en route to their place of exile), if they are still under investigation, are subject to all regulations of the system established for persons under investigation, and to those who have been already sentenced are applied all the regulations of the system established for those prisons in which these convicts were confined before they were moved.

C. Corrective Colonies

33. Factory colonies are organized for the purpose of inculcating labor habits to the prisoners and raising their labor qualification; in order to bring a political-educational and disciplinary influence to bear on them; and to secure their adaptation to life and work in an organized collective on the basis of industrial labor.

Agricultural colonies are organized for the same purpose on the basis of agricultural labor.

Prisoners of working class origin are sent to various colonies according to their labor habits.

The production of agricultural colonies is used for the needs of the system of corrective institutions. Any surplus of goods is delivered to trading organizations.

34. To colonies for mass work [lumber camps, road construction camps] which are situated in district localities, are sent prisoners who belong to class hostile elements, and also prisoners who are toilers but who are especially class dangerous by the nature of the crime committed by them, necessitating the application to them of a more severe regime.

To other colonies of mass work can be sent both the abovementioned categories of prisoners and also toilers who have committed crimes which are not of an especially class-dangerous nature; to this latter category of prisoners the regime applied is the same as that established for prisoners in agricultural colonies.

Penalty Corrective Colonies

35. To penalty corrective colonies are sent those prisoners who previously were confined in other colonies and who have shown a systematic insubordination to the established regime or labor discipline.

36. Transfer to penalty colonies is effected as a disciplinary measure exclusively by order of the Chief Department of Corrective Institutions for those republics, both on the initiative of these institutions and on the initiative of Inspection Commissions.

37. The regime in penalty colonies is framed on the basis of strict isolation of the prisoners within the limits established by the present Code.

Prisoners who are sent to penalty colonies for the purpose of household service in them are subject to the regime established for factory colonies.

Part III

Exile Combined with, Corrective Labor

100. Serving of the sentence of exile combined with corrective labor is organized in places of exile by departments of correction institutions of the krai, oblast, autonomous republic or autonomous oblast.

101. Those sentenced to exile with corrective labor do such work

  • (a) as hired workers in state, cooperative and social institutions and enterprises, by contracts entered into by these enterprises and institutions with correction institutions;
  • (b) in industrial enterprises, especially organized for this purpose by correction institutions;
  • (c) on mass work organized by contracts between correction institutions and government and cooperative organs;
  • (d) in colonies for mass labor.

102. Those who are serving a term of exile with corrective labor cannot leave the boundaries of the locality intended for their dwelling without the permission of correction organs, and within the boundaries of this locality they are not limited in the choice of place where they and their families may reside.

Those who are serving a sentence of exile with corrective labor in colonies of mass labor are not subject to any restrictions such as are established for prisoners.

103. Those who are serving a term of exile with corrective labor are placed on the same basis in respect of conditions and payment of labor as workers of corresponding qualification working on labor contracts with a deduction of 15 to 5% from their basic earnings in order to cover the organizational expenses of correction organs (depending on the time passed in exile).

107. Should the person who is serving a term of exile with corrective labor lose his working capacity, the Inspection Commission on the basis of conclusions of medical experts files a petition to the nearest People’s Court to replace the remaining term of exile by other measures of social protection.

108. The following disciplinary measures are applied to those who are serving a term of exile with corrective labor and violate the established order and labor discipline:

(a) remark,

(b) reprimand,

(c) arrest up to twenty days,

(d) transfer to a more distant place of exile.

109. In case of a willful avoidance of work the correction institution sets before the People’s Court at the place of execution of the sentence the question of replacing exile by confinement in prison.

Collection of Acts of the RSFSR, 1933, No. 48, Art. 208.

Supplement

On the transfer of labor correction institutions of People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR Resolution of the TsIK and SNK of the USSR

October 27, 1934

The Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars have decided:

1. All correction institutions (prisons, isolators, correction colonies and the bureau of correction work without deprivation of freedom), which are at present managed by the People’s Commissariat of Justice of each constituent republic, are to be transferred to the competence of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs and its local organs.

2. All chief departments of correction institutions at People Is Commissariats of Justice of the constituent republics are here-, by dissolved.

3. For the guidance of correction institutions, taken over from the People’s Commissariats of Justice, a Department of Prisons is formed within the Chief Department for corrective labor camps, exile settlements and places of detention at the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs.

On the transfer of correction institutions of the People’s

Commissariat of Justice of the RSFSR to the competence of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR

Resolution of the VTsIK and SNK of the RSFSR

November 10, 1934

In accordance with the Resolution of the TsIK and SNK of the USSR of October 27, 1934, on the transfer of all corrective labor institutions of the People’s Commissariats of Justice to the competence of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR (Collection of Laws of the USSR, 1934, No. 56, Item 421), the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR have decreed:

1. To request the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the R. S. F. S. R. to transfer to the competence of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR and its local organs all correction institutions, prisons, isolators, correction colonies, bureaus for correction work, institutions for minor criminals and hospitals in the system of the principal board of corrective labor institutions of the People’s Commissariat of Justice.

2. The Chief Department of Corrective Labor Institutions of the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the RSFSR, and boards of correction institutions of People’s Commissariats of Justice in autonomous republics, krais and oblasts, are hereby dissolved.

3. To request the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the R. S. F. S. R. to present for the consideration of the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR a project of changes in the legislation of the RSFSR, which follow from the transfer of correction institutions to the competence of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR.

Source: The Labor Correction Code of the RSFSR (London: Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd., 1936), pp. 11-13, 30-32, 43-45.

Guiding Principles of Criminal Law

People’s Commissariat of Justice, Guiding Principles of Criminal Law in the RSFSR. December 12, 1919

 

Order of the People’s Commissariat of Justice

Original Source: Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii raboche-krestian’skogo pravitel’stva, No. 66, 18 December 1919.

Introduction

Having taken power in the October revolution, the proletariat broke up the bourgeois governmental apparatus, which had the aim of oppressing workers through all of its agencies, its army, its police, its courts, and its church. It is self-evident that such an aim was also served by all codes of bourgeois law, as systems of norms (rules, formulae) of organized force to establish a stability of interests among social classes designed to serve the ruling classes (the bourgeoisie and the landowners). But just as the proletariat could not immediately transform the bourgeois state machine to serve its own ends, and smash it, as it should have, into pieces, creating in its place its own state apparatus, so it also could not adapt for its own aims the bourgeois legal codes of past epochs, and consign them, as it should have, to the archives of history. An armed people tries to cope with its oppressors without special rules, without codes. In the course of struggling with class enemies, the proletariat adopts various forceful measures, applying them at first without a special system, randomly, from case to case. The experience of struggle, however, trains the proletariat to follow general rules, leads it to systematization, creates, in other words, a new law. Almost two years of such struggle has now given us the ability to develop concrete formulations of proletarian law and to draw appropriate generalizations. In the interest of economic might and in accordance with the centralization of various activities, the proletariat must work out rules to keep its class enemies in check, develop methods to struggle with its enemies, and govern them. And first of all, this must be done by means of criminal law, the task of which is to struggle with those who violate the conditions laid down by the new social order in the transitional period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only when the resistance of the deposed bourgeois and propertied classes has finally been broken, and a communist order established, will the proletariat be able to do away with the state as organized force and law, as a function of the state. To assist in this task by aiding the organs of Soviet justice fulfill their historic mission in the area of struggling with class enemies of the proletariat, the People’s Commissariat of Justice issues the following guiding principles of criminal law for the R. S. F. S. R.

I. Criminal Law

1) Law is a system (order) of social relations corresponding to the interests of the ruling class, and secured by the organized power of that class.

2) Criminal law has as its content legal norms and other legal measures by which the system of social relations of a given class society protects itself from violations (crimes) by means of repression (punishments).

3) Soviet criminal law has the task, by means of repression, of protecting the system of social relations corresponding to the interests of the laboring masses, organized into the ruling class under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transitional period from capitalism to communism.

II. Criminal Justice

4) Soviet criminal law in the RSFSR is carried out by organs of Soviet Justice (People’s Courts and Revolutionary Tribunals).

III. Crime and Punishment

5) Crime is a violation of the order of social relations protected by criminal law.

6) A crime is an act of commission or omission dangerous for the given system of social relations, and makes struggle by governmental power necessary against the person (criminal) who perpetrates such acts or allows them to occur as a result of a failure to act.

7) Punishment consists of those compulsory measures by which the government protects a given order of social relations against the actions of those who violate its rule (criminals).

8) The purpose of punishment is to protect the social order from those who commit crimes or attempt to commit them, and from future possible crimes of these or other individuals.

9) To protect the social order from future criminal acts by persons attempting to commit crimes, a person can either be socialized into the given social order, or isolated, if that person refuses socialization, or, in exceptional circumstances, physically eliminated.

10) In selecting a punishment it should be kept in mind what crime in a class-based society means in terms of the order of social relationships in which the criminal has lived. Punishment is not retribution for blame, nor atonement of guilt. It is only a defensive measure which should be expedient, and at the same time lack any traces of martyrdom, and it should not cause the criminal useless and extraneous suffering.

11) In determining the measures to be applied against those who commit crimes, the court must evaluate the degree and character (nature) of the danger for society of both the criminal himself and the act. To these ends the court must first, conduct an unrestricted investigation of all circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime; clarify the personality of the criminal insofar as it will help explain the commission of the crime and its motives, and insofar as it will help explain the crime on the basis of the criminal’s life and past; and second, establish how much that act, in the given conditions of time and place, violated the bases of social security.

12) In determining the measures of punishment in each instance it is necessary to distinguish a) whether the crime was committed by a person belonging to the propertied classes in the interests of restoring, saving, or obtaining some kind of privilege linked with the rights of ownership, or by an unpropertied person, in hungry or needy circumstances; b) whether the act was committed in the interests of restoring power to the deposed class, or in the personal interests of the person committing the act; c) whether the act was committed consciously, or in ignorance and unconsciousness; d) whether the act was committed by a professional criminal (recidivist) or by a first offender; e) whether the act was committed by a group, gang, band, or by a single person; f) whether the act involved bodily harm-, g) whether the act involved premeditated intent, cruelty, maliciousness, cowardice, or was committed in a burst of passion as a result of ignorance or a lack of thought.

13) Minors under 14 years of age are not subject to the courts and their punishment. Rehabilitative measures are to be used for them. Such measures are also to be used against those in the transitional ages of 14 to 18 who act unconsciously.

14) Judgment and punishment are not to be applied against persons who have committed crimes in a state of chronic mental illness, or who are in such mental straits that in committing the crime, they are not aware of their own actions, or who, although in their right senses at the time of the act, are, at the time of sentencing, mentally deranged. To such persons, only medical and preventative measures can be applied.

15) Punishments shall not be applied when the acts were committed in order to prevent a danger which in the circumstances could not have been prevented by any other means, provided that the harm caused does not exceed the limits of necessary defense.

16) If conditions have changed such that an act or the person who committed it is no longer a danger to the established order, punishment shall not be applied.

IV. Stages in the Commission of a Crime

17) A crime is considered to have taken place completely when an intentionally committed criminal act is perpetuated in its entirety.

18) An attempt to commit a crime shall be considered equivalent to a crime when the criminal has done everything considered necessary for the perpetration of the crime, but failed due to circumstances beyond his control.

19) Criminal intent is the search for, acquisition of, or adaptation of tools, weapons, etc. needed for the completion of a crime by a person preparing to commit it.

20) The stage of commission of an intended crime shall not by itself influence the measures of repression, which are to be determined by the degree of danger posed by the criminal.

V. Complicity

21) In the case of an act committed jointly by a group of persons (gang, band, crowd), the perpetrators as well as the initiators and accomplices shall be punished. Their punishment shall depend not upon the degree of their participation, but upon the degree of danger represented by the criminal and the act committed.

22) Perpetrators shall be considered those who take part in the implementation of a criminal act however it turns out.

23) Initiators shall be considered those who incite crimes.

24) Accomplices shall be considered those who, while not taking direct part in the completion of a criminal act, assist in its completion by word or deed, by advice, the elimination of obstacles, concealing the criminal or the traces of the crime, or by acquiescence, that is, by not hindering the accomplishment of a crime.

VI. Types of Punishment

25) In accordance with the task of protecting the social order from being violated, and considering the necessity of reducing as much as possible the personal suffering of the criminal, punishment should vary in accordance with the particular characteristics of the situation and the personality of the criminal.

Examples of types of punishment: a) reprimand b) social censure c) compulsory activities, without physical hardship d) boycott e) temporary or permanent exclusion from an association f) restitution, or, if this is impossible, indemnity g) suspension of duties h) restrictions on filling a post, or doing other kinds of work i) confiscation of all belongings j) deprivation of political rights k) being declared an enemy of the revolution or of the people 1) compulsory labor without imprisonment m) imprisonment for a set period or for an unspecified period until the occurrence of certain events n) being declared outside the law o) execution by firing squad p) combination of the above forms of punishment.

Annotation: People’s Courts, may not apply the death penalty.

VII. Conditional Sentences

26) When a court has ordered imprisonment for a crime committed (a) as a first offense; (b) under exceptionally difficult personal circumstances; (c) when the convicted person poses no danger to those around him sufficient to require immediate isolation, the court may substitute a conditional sentence, that is, issue a suspended sentence for a period corresponding to the conviction or appropriate to the crime. On repetition of such an act, the suspended sentence loses its conditional character and the primary sentence immediately takes effect.

VIII. Territory Covered by Criminal Law

27) The criminal law of the RSFSR applies to the whole territory of the Republic, both in terms of the action of its citizens and also those of foreigners who commit crimes on its territory, and likewise shall affect citizens of the RSFSR and foreigners who commit crimes on the territory of another government, but avoid judicial punishment in the location where the crime was committed, and subsequently are found within the boundaries of the RSFSR

12 December 1919.
Signed: Deputy Commissar of People’s Justice, P. Stuchka

Source: William G. Rosenberg, ed., Bolshevik Visions: First Phase of the Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1984), pp. 229-233.

Solzhenitsyn Deported

The Deportation of Solzhenitsyn, 17 July 1974

 

Although the leading dissidents would all eventually meet with retaliation, there was a hierarchy of disloyalty that placed Solzhenitsyn, the religious nationalist who found nothing of value in the Soviet experience, outside the limits of salvage. On 13 February 1974, after publication of Gulag Archipelago in the West, he and his family were summarily deported, their final destination to be the United States.

Original Source: Khronika tekushchikh sobytii, No 32: 17 July 1974.

On 13 February, after a prolonged and large-scale persecution campaign in the press, Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn was deported from the Soviet Union. The immediate cause was the publication of his GU Lag Archipelago by the YMCA Press (see Chronicle 30).

The circumstances surrounding the publication of this book, as well as the events following it, are described in detail in the samizdat collection “Live not by the Lie”. The collection has been in fairly wide circulation, and so the Chronicle will confine itself to presenting the main course of events.

* * *

At the end of August 1973, after five days of interrogation in the Leningrad offices of the KGB, 70-year-old E. D. Voronyanskaya revealed the place where a copy of A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s GULag Archipelago was being kept. If the K G B report on the case of Professor Etkind is to be believed (see this issue), Voronyanskaya also disclosed that Solzhenitsyn had transmitted two copies of the GU Lag manuscript to her through Etkind.

Shortly after, E. D. Voronyanskaya committed suicide.

* * *

“With a feeling of inner frustration I refrained for years from releasing this completed book, my duty to those still living outweighed my duty to those who had perished. But now that the State Security has, notwithstanding, got hold of the book, I have no alternative but to publish it immediately.”

September 1973, A. Solzhenitsyn.

 * * *

In December 1973 the YMCA Press published the book in Paris.*

The first articles about the publication in Soviet newspapers appeared at the beginning of January. Initially these were extracts from the foreign press and TASS statements.

The TASS threats perturbed many people. On 5 January V. Voinovich, A. Galich, V. Maximov, A. Sakharov, and I. Shafarevich issued an appeal for the defence of Solzhenitsyn.

On 13 January the newspaper Pravda published an article by Solovyov, ‘The Path of Treachery’. It became a guiding document: practically all the central and local newspapers reprinted the article. Subsequently the newspapers printed comments in response to Solovyov’s article.

In an interview given to American television on 25 June 1974 A. I. Solzhenitsyn spoke, among other things, about a deal proposed to him by the authorities. They had promised Solzhenitsyn that they would print Cancer Ward in the USSR in exchange for his undertaking not to publish GULag for a period of 20 years [Chronicle’s note].

On 18 January 1974 Solzhenitsyn made a statement in which, with characteristic passion, he pointed out that the Soviet press had distorted the facts and presented false interpretations. Amongst other things, Solzhenitsyn wrote: “To which pages can they point, from which volume? For the Literary Gazette has been caught red-handed: it quotes from the seized copy, from the fourth and fifth parts of GULag, which have not yet been published. So it was in State Security that the suspect “Litterateur” copied his extracts!”

Meanwhile the first reactions to the work and the first statements of indignation regarding the press persecution had appeared in samizdat.

An article by H. Boll about the work’s publication, ‘It is Necessary to Go Further and Further’, appeared.

A wide-ranging review by Roy Medvedev appeared…

The following made written protests, individually and collectively: B. Mikhailov, E. Barabanov, V. Borisov, 13.Shragin, L. Chukovskaya, V. Dolgy, Gusyakova, V. Zaitsev, I. Ovchinnikov, V. Osipov, V. Repnikov, V. Rodionov, and M. Agursky.

* * *

On 8 February 1974 an attempt was made to deliver a summons to Solzhenitsyn’s wife Natalya Svetlova, summoning her husband to the USSR Procuracy, but Svetlova refused to accept it.

On 11February the summons was repeated.

* * *

‘TO THE USSR PROCURACY, in reply to its repeated summons.

Given the unending and general lawlessness which has reigned for many years in our country (and has affected me personally in the form of an eight- year campaign of slander and persecution), I refuse to recognize the legality of your summons and will not appear for interrogation at any state institution.

Before demanding that citizens obey the law, learn to execute it yourselves.

Free the innocent from imprisonment. Punish the perpetrators of the mass exterminations and the authors of the false denunciations. Punish the administrators and the special detachments which carried out genocide (the deportation of whole peoples). Deprive today the local and departmental satraps of their limitless power over citizens, of their controlling sway over law courts and psychiatrists. Satisfy the millions of lawful, yet suppressed statements of com plaint.

11 February A. Solzhenitsyn.

* * *

At five o’clock in the evening on 12 February eight men burst into Solzhenitsyn’s flat, led by a senior counselor of justice, Zverev.

A resolution empowering them to take Solzhenitsyn to the Procuracy was shown to him. One of the participants in the operation assured his wife that Alexander Isayevich would soon return.

Solzhenitsyn was led away, but two ‘guests’ stayed in the flat, took up posts by the door and the telephone, and remained there for about half an hour.

It is no more than ten minutes’ walk from Solzhenitsyn’s home to the USSR Procuracy, so already at this point the writer’s family suspected that he had not been taken to the Procuracy.

 * * *

“Statement of A. Solzhenitsyn, written by him beforehand, for use in the event of arrest In advance I declare as incompetent any criminal trial of Russian literature, of a single book of it, of any Russian author. If such a trial is prescribed for myself, I shall not go there on my own two feet — they will deliver me there in a Black Maria, with my arms twisted behind me. I shall not answer a single question at such a trial. Sentenced to imprisonment, I shall not submit to the sentence except in handcuffs. In imprisonment itself, having already lost my best eight years to forced labour for the state, and contracted cancer in the process, I shall not work for the oppressors even half an hour more.

“In this way I leave open for them the straightforward option of overt tyrants: to bump me off quickly for writing the truth about Russian history.”

* * *

At nine o’clock in the evening it became known that Alexander Solzhenitsyn had been arrested.

* *

4… The fifth act of the drama has begun.

Shame on the country that allows its greatness and its glory to be abused. Wretchedness on the country whose tongue they tear out with tongs.

Misery on the nation which is deceived.

Blessing and support to the man who now, rudely separated from family and friends, slandered before his people, is — yes now, at this very minute! — conducting his silent duel with the lawless violence.

12 February 1974. 12.00 hours. Moscow. Lydia Chukovskaya.

 * * *

On the evening of 12 February in Lefortovo prison Solzhenitsyn was charged with treason (Article 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code). The charge was signed by the senior counsellor of justice Zverev; Deputy Procurator-general of the USSR Malyarov was present when the charge was presented.

* * *

On the day after the arrest, 13 February, the ‘Moscow Appeal’ appeared. Its authors, A. Sakharov, E. Bonner, V. Maximov, M. Agursky, B. Shragin, P. Litvinov, Yu. Orlov, Father S. Zheludkov, A. Marchenko and L. Bogoraz, demanded:

That GULag Archipelago be published in the USSR and made available to every compatriot;

That archival and other materials be published which would give a full picture of the activity of the Cheka, NKVD and M G B [Previous titles of the organization now known as the KGB].

* * *

That an international public tribunal be set up to investigate the crimes perpetrated;

That Solzhenitsyn be protected from persecution and allowed to work in his homeland.

The authors of the ‘Moscow Appeal’ called for national committees to be set up in various countries to collect signatures in support of the appeal.

* * *

At 13.00 on 13 February, in a solitary-confinement cell of Lefortovo prison, Malyarov read Solzhenitsyn a Decree depriving him of his Soviet citizenship. On the same day he was forcibly deported from the Soviet Union to the Federal Republic of Germany.

After the deportation the campaign flared up in the Soviet press with new vigor and lasted another week.

* * *

On 14 February M. Landa published [in samizdat] her support for the ‘Moscow Appeal’. On 17 February a letter supporting the ‘Moscow Appeal’ was published by E. Barabanov, T. Velikanova, S. Kovalyov, T. Khodorovich, and V. Borisov. Pointing to the attempts of Soviet newspapers to represent Western commentators and certain celebrities in the West as supporters of Solzhenitsyn’s deportation, the authors write:

“Will the free world really reconcile itself to the presentation of another falsification of its views to a deceived and confused people? . . . What is described in Solzhenitsyn’s book . . . involves a portion of blame for the West too. . . . Is it not time to recognize with full responsibility that by exploiting the separateness of our worlds and exploiting our mutual lack of information they are turning you into accomplices? . . . The solidarity of people cannot be limited to words. It must be effective. In this lies our hope.”

Later the following people associated themselves with the ‘Moscow Appeal’: E. S. Andronova, L. Aptekar, V. Bakhmin, N.Ya. Ioffe, O. Ioffe, I. Kaplun, A. Lavut, A. Levitin (Krasnov), G. Podyapolsky, S. Khodorovich, and L. Tymchuk.

According to the writer Vladimir Maximov, 50,000 people in the Federal German Republic and West Berlin have associated themselves with the ‘Moscow Appeal’.

* * *

On 30 March Solzhenitsyn’s family left the USSR. A letter by his wife was made public. In bidding farewell to her friends in this letter, she said with confidence that Alexander Isayevich, she herself and their children would return.

Source: Chronicle of Current Events, translated from the Russian to the English.

Liubers, the Firm

Vladimir Iakovlev, Liubers, the Firm (January 1987)

 

This article in the sensational journal Ogonek brought this disturbing report of youth violence and crime to national attention. Clashes between toughs and punk, metalheads and hippies, in the argot of the time, were taken by many to be stand-ins for the stand-off of conservative and liberalizing political forces. They were taken by most to represent the decline of the moral fabric of Soviet society.

Original Source: Ogonek, January 1987.

f23d95f3-701c-a81a-2765-553d2dc53756A light autumn rain sprinkled the sleeping city. Flashes of neon light were mirrored on the wet asphalt. I glanced at the clock – the last train to Liubertsy had just set off from the Kazan Station platform. It was at that moment that they appeared at the far end of the boulevard, when waiting would seem to have made no sense. Four of them … Hands clasped sternly behind the back. The characteristic long swaying stride. Unseasonably light jackets and funny-looking, clownishly wide plaid pants that don’t hamper your movements in a fight.

– Hey, man, come here! – they stopped ten meters away.

I got up from the wet bench.

– What’s that pin that you’re wearing?

It was a pin from a rock festival, and I had put it on specially to catch their interest. I didn’t count on anything else. Narrow black ties against white shirts were the last thing I noticed before ducking from a sudden blow …

“Liubers”. This name is somewhat contrived. We know remarkably little about them. And even the police have somewhat fragmentary information. In the evenings, they come from Liubertsy into Moscow and split up in small groups in the city center. How many of them are there? Hard to say. How are they organized? Unknown. Why come to the city? This is probably the only thing we can say with certainty.

AN ENCOUNTER ON NOGIN SQUARE. Three guys in their plaid uniforms. Igor Dmitriev is fifteen, Sergei Smirnov and Dmitrii Liakhov are sixteen years old. All have strong, ripped biceps visible even beneath a jacket.

– Why do you come to Moscow?

– We come to beat up punks, hippies and metalheads and break dancers too …

Three or four years ago, “Liubers” were almost unknown. However, in a short time they’ve accomplished a lot. It took me several days to make the rounds of gathering spots for Moscow informal youth associations: usually it was a cafe or bar, less often the public gardens which quiet old people and mothers with carriages leave in the late afternoon, and their places on benches are taken by guys with multi-colored hair and medallions around their necks. My questions did not vary.

– What do you know about Liubers? – I asked.

The answers didn’t vary much either. The “metalheads”, “punks” and “breakers” excitedly told about skirmishes with “Liubers”. Petty fights took place literally every night. However, the issue wasn’t only the fights. Fights between gangs had happened before. The surprise was something else – “Liubers” fought one against all. Moreover, they always started the fights. They attacked, forcing the “enemy” to defend themselves as best they could. They were looking for conflicts. They looked for them even though they didn’t have the slightest reason. What for?

AN ENCOUNTER ON GOGOL BOULEVARD. There were about fifty people. They came out of the “Kropotkin” metro station and took seats on benches in the dark, waiting for something.

– What are you doing here?

– Waiting for hippies. They have a get-together today. We’ll break it up – answers a young man of seventeen, who identified himself as Boris Taranov.

– What for?

– Hippies, punks and metalheads are a disgrace to the Soviet way of life. We want to clear them out of the capital.

I frankly admit that this was the first time I had heard such an answer, and I did not believe in its sincerity. But when the answer was repeated once, twice, and a third time, I had no cause to doubt.

We are not accustomed to hear such statements from young people. How long had we judged informal youth groups mostly in the negative, how many years had we grappled with the intractable question: how best to deal with them? It’s hard to believe otherwise. But why not believe it, “Liubers” don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs, as far as we know. They train themselves in gyms that they created with their own hands. Of course, fighting is no way to educate peers who think differently. But these boys don’t understand many things. You can take corrective measures. Or maybe you shouldn’t? “Hippies”, “punks”, “metalheads”, all of those people wearing chains and bracelets and with colored strands of hair to their shoulders, they won’t heed your words. Or maybe they’ll understand them differently? And what is wrong if your peers relate to each other in their own way? You should positively rejoice, rejoice in it!

But for some reason they didn’t want to rejoice. Or even believe it. With a strange facility and uniformity the “Liubers” explained their actions, as if they had once and for all memorized their cliched formulation by heart. The selection of sports that they practiced in their gyms was odd: gymnastics, karate, boxing, sambo. Yes, they had good intentions. But one’s goal isn’t everything.

EYEWITNESS TALES. Evgenii Dmitriev (“hippy”): “They stopped me on Marx Prospect and asked why I had long hair and would I like money for a haircut, and then punched me. And then they began to stop passers-by, to bring them to me and ask if they can look at such an abomination unfazed. Then two of them held me while the third cut all my hair off with scissors. Then they beat me up… ”

Elena Borisova (“punk”): “They came up to me in a park when I was coming home from a disco in the evening. One said:

– Slut, I like you. Will you come with me!

Later, friends told me that it happens a lot. And I was lucky that they didn’t beat me to within an inch of my life. They beat girls up badly because they can’t defend themselves … ”

Boris Sergachev (“Liuber”): “What did we do tonight? Lots of things! Here we just took out a punk. What? No, not too badly. We didn’t even kick him after he fell.

I had heard lots of similar stories. Too many to treat them as unpleasant exceptions to the rule. These stories do not square with good intentions, nor do lofty goals, for example, fit with the fact that “Liubers” attack only when they have a large and absolute numerical superiority. Three on one. Ten on three. One cannot avoid the impression that we are talking about normal, not unintelligent teenagers who had figured out how to pass hooliganism off as exalted ideals. But such an impression was simplistic. Most of the “Liubers” I met really believed that one day they would achieve their goal and purge the city of “punks”, “hippies” and “metalheads”. And some were even making plans for the near future, in their view, when they would “bury the hatchet” with their rehabilitated enemies. And they all without exception believe in the importance and social benefit of their cause. No, “Liubers” weren’t being deceptive when they spoke of good intentions. But if you think about it, how big is the difference between an ordinary bully and a bully, acting on “ideological” principles? There is a limit to the choice of means, beyond which a good cause is debased, turning into vulgar mimicry to prevent society and your own conscience from condemning you.

AN ENCOUNTER IN GORKY PARK. Five of them are in the lobby of the “Seasons” cafe, chatting with girls. Obviously they had just met them at the dance.

– We have few discos in Liubertsy. And they’re bad. Generally evenings are depressing. Here it’s great!

There really are few discos in Liubertsy. Few cinemas and clubs. Evenings in Liubertsy are boring. He had pumped up his biceps out of boredom, learned some “joint locks” and went on to defend their right to a “place under the sun.” Like that? More precisely – if only they could!

Liubertsy is a town of narrow streets, gray five-story buildings and a train station, around which the whole of life somehow turns. A town where people go to bed early and get up early. I understood this as I had barely gotten off the train. But my first impression was destined to vanish quickly.

For a good hour, wandering through the streets, we looked for any basement gym we could find to get acquainted with its inhabitants. Having found one of them — in the town center, near the “Slavyanka” café – they explained that they had been watching us from the very moment we asked for directions from the first guy we ran into.

The inhabitants of the basement, rosy-cheeked, muscular, confident guys were kicking a large punching bag with all their strength and demonstrating a huge arsenal of hand weights and exercise equipment … Тheir actions can hardly be explained as the actions of kids from the outskirts, which is a long familiar story, but not enough to explain this …

Over the past year the city Komsomol committee and the city Department of Internal Affairs have done much to solve the problem that we are studying. A raiding team checked all the city’s cellars and found all the “underground” groups. They closed down some, and the rest were redirected into mainstream organized sports. They appointed a manager for each section. They recruited coaches from sports academies and youth sports leagues. They were just as serious about the cultural program: they opened more discos, and those were better. But there were still no fewer “Liubers” in Moscow. Moreover, it turned out to be quite easy to evade the raids and the attention of the police. After all the control checks, there were almost 500 people on lists of the basement guys. These lists were compared with lists of teenagers who the Moscow police had recently detained. Only three names matched …

– Don’t think that we’re doing nothing, – they told me in the Liubertsy city committee of the Komsomol. – We took control of the basement gyms, but does that mean that the problem is solved? The problem isn’t just in the gyms. You can do karate at home. You can’t control it or forbid it there!

Paradoxically, I came back from Liubertsy, still without a clear answer to the question, who are the “Liubers”? Who are these guys who go every evening into Moscow in the first car of the seven o’clock train? Who is hiding under the nicknames: Hare, Cupboard, Iron, Flabs?

ENCOUNTER ON THE TRAIN. Six of them in their checkered clown pants, white shirts and narrow black tie. About fifteen minutes chatting in the vestibule on various subjects. When the train is coming into Moscow, one of them asks:

– Have you heard our anthem?

And he quoted the first verse:

We were born and raised in Liubertsy.
The center of brute strength.
And we believe our dream will come true:
Liubertsy will become the center of RUSSIA.

Childishness? Quite possibly. But why does a chill run down my spine?

I spent three hours walking nighttime Moscow with one “Liubers”, Igor Seregin.

– We call ourselves the “firm” – he told me.- We split up into groups. Each has its own chief. Getting into the firm is tough. It’s not enough to meet the guys. You need to be in a big fight. You have to prove yourself.

– How’s that? – I ask, and couldn’t help slowing down.

– You have to show that you are smart, polite and nasty – he says in a staccato.

So they’re the “firm,” not just scattered groups of teenagers from the outskirts in clown pants. And is it not the case that having pumped up their muscles out of boredom, out of boredom they then look for someone to test their strength on. They are training specifically to beat people up.

AN ENCOUNTER IN THE “GLORIA” BAR. “Liubers” occupied most of the tables. I sat down at one of them. The guys are very cheerful, but not from drinking. They start off giving honest answers. Then they ask questions themselves:

– Let’s take, say, punks, for example, why should they be like that? Or why breakers? After all, not only don’t we like them. Nobody likes them.

“Liubers” consider themselves normal, what everyone should be like. “Punks” are different. “Hippies” and “metalheads” are different.- That’s quite enough from the “firm’s” point of view, to ask the basic question: why are they like that? Do they have the right to exist? That’s enough to be able to answer with a stern consciousness of their own rightness: no! Down with uncertainty! Not every person can be considered a person. Beat up anyone who thinks otherwise! Because anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and guilty!

A curious detail: “Liubers” have enough money to go to bars, discos, restaurants, and to take a taxi home if they miss the last train, enough even for expensive gym equipment. No less curious is another detail – the “firm” doesn’t just beat up “hippies”, “punks” and “metalheads”. With uncommon consistency they take away their pins, leather bracelets, key rings – all distinctive signs of belonging to a particular association. These are, in the “Liubers” own words, the distinguishing signs of an “alien way of life.” But given the mass levies, the question inevitably arises: where does it all go? The question is all the more reasonable because a pin with the symbol of a popular rock band is worth ten rubles or more amongst the initiated. And we’re not only talking about pins. What about the riveted denim jackets of “metalheads”? The bright neckerchiefs of sports fans? A record with music “unworthy of Soviet man”? Where does all this go?

AN ENCOUNTER IN GORKY PARK. A rare instance – there are only two of them. When I ask, one shows his day’s loot – eight bright pins.

– What am I going to do with them? – He warily repeats my question.- Well, this. Throw them out!

And he carefully places the pins back in his pocket.

“Liubers” who are older, past twenty years old, don’t wear the overly conspicuous plaid pants, and no longer trade in “junk”. They rob speculators, confiscating their goods. They rob dealers, taking their Vneshposyltorg checks [which buy foreign goods]. Do they also throw that away?

EYEWITNESS TALES. Igor Menshikov: “Two months ago I was robbed by “Liubers”. They took some CDs and a bag of stuff. So I have a friend in Liubertsy. I called him to complain. After a week the discs, and the bag were returned … ”

Oleg Panin: “I was caught once, beaten and my company pin was stolen. Тhree weeks later I happen see this pin on my friend.

– Where did you get it? – I ask.

– I bought it! – He says. – For ten rubles … ”

Add to this the fact that “Liubers” were arrested multiple times for profiteering in the Moscow commission stores. Needless to say, the picture is quite clear. Still other facts call for comment. Is “The Firm” just an organized group of adolescents who are familiar with each other, sharing common views? Maybe so. But really? There is a strange, though thoughtful consistency in the actions of “Liubers”: both the young and older. The types of incidents that happen in Moscow don’t happen in Liubertsy itself. The “Liubers” place their attention only on groups of teenagers who can not, for whatever reasons, seek help from the police authorities. This inevitably makes me think: their actions are not random; are they controlled by a skilled and experienced hand?

No, I will not deceive the reader, I didn’t manage to learn much about the current kings of the “Firm”. Information about them is incomplete, fragmentary. They are said to have criminal pasts. I could not meet with the kings. I did manage to meet with someone who, if you stick with monarchical terms, would be considered a prince. The prince was twenty-seven years old, tall, broad-shouldered and laconic. Vanity wrestled in his soul with caution. Do the guys obey him? Yes, you could say that. How many people could he summon in, say, two hours? One hundred? Two hundred? No, two hundred – more than that.

– Tell me – I asked him – do you really believe that you can re-educate hippies, punks and metalheads?

The prince did’t answer. He just smiled indulgently and immediately lost interest in the conversation. He did not believe it, of course, as an grown up, serious person. The boys needed faith because it gave them a sense of their own rightness. But faith was only a means to an end. In essence, dozens of young “Liubers” go to school every night on the streets of the city, a kind of school of violence, where “the simple truth” becomes very clear and obvious — you can rob a person, can beat him up if you are stronger than him. Beat, rob – with impunity. Let’s for a moment ignore speculators and dealers affected by the “Liubers” actions, according to the ancient principle of “thief stole a club from a thief.” But here’s the question! Why put “hippies”, “punks” and “metalheads” alongside the middlemen and speculators? Sure, we condemn these trends. Yes, we would like them not to take such ugly forms. But all this under no circumstances means that juvenile “hippies” or juvenile “metalheads” are outside the law. Just let “Liubers” try to take ten rubles from passers-by on the street – it would lead to immediate and unequivocal consequences. But if they take the exact same thing away from their peers, or something of even greater value, there will be no unequivocal consequences. “The Firm” guys are commiting something that in the language of the Criminal Code has only one name: robbery. And so? This year in Moscow more than two hundred young people from Liubertsy were detained: for smoking in the wrong place and disturbing the peace, for appearing in public in a state of intoxication. Only a few on suspicion of committing a crime. In most cases those suspicions remained suspicions.

Police are aware of crimes that the “Liubers” are responsible for, but the police are powerless. Why is that? For the simple reason that “hippies” or “punks” or “metalheads” victimized by “Liubers” don’t turn to the police. That, no doubt, is the basic calculation of the kings of the “Firm”. But let’s think: isn’t it we who have created a situation in which certain groups of teens don’t consider themselves entitled to turn to the protection of the law?

No doubt, our experience with informal youth associations has become quite varied. But there hasn’t been anything like these “Liubers”. When dozens of self-righteous, well-trained guys shed the psychological barriers to violence natural to every person, it is not just “a purely youth” problem. Recently, there have been cases when “Liubers” attacked perfectly normal teenagers who did not belong to any associations and they didn’t steal “attributes of an alien way of life”, but just expensive, fashionable things, calling it “the confiscation of surplus goods.” What will be the next step?

… After leaving the basement gym, on the road to the station, I went to a small cafe called “Slavyanka,” which for some reason is considered a young person’s café in Liubertsy. Music blared in the empty bar. Colored lights flashed in time. I could not help listening. The piercing female voice sang a song in English. A song about the “strong guys who know exactly what to do.” And therefore they get their way. Of course, this was just a coincidence. No more…

EDITORIAL. The article, of course, touches on a serious issue. Recently, there was a lot of so-called informal groups of young people. A fruitful, in our view, debate is taking place around them, which is especially important on the eve of the XXth Congress of the Young Communist League. Informalism and formalism, organization and over-organization: how to observe reasonable limits, not pushing young people away, but also not allowing any “fraternities” with dubious ideological underpinnings to develop. Ultimately the solution to this question is one of the most important aspects of working with youth.

Covering the problem of “Liubers” is our joint project with the weekly magazine Sobesednik. Its employees raided Liubertsy with the aim of understanding the problem in detail. Materials from the raid can be read in the next issues of the youth weekly.
Source: Translated by James von Geldern.

Gorbachev Speaks to the UN

Excerpts of Address by Mikhail Gorbachev. 43rd U.N. General Assembly Session, December 7, 1988

 

On December 7, 1988, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev addressed the United Nations General Assembly. After speaking about the recent changes in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev amazed the global community when he announced drastic cuts in the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe and along the Chinese border — a move that ultimately allowed Soviet satellites to choose their own paths.

Two great revolutions, the French revolution of 1789 and the Russian revolution of 1917, have exerted a powerful influence on the actual nature of the historical process and radically changed the course of world events. Both of them, each in its own way, have given a gigantic impetus to man’s progress. They are also the ones that have formed in many respects the way of thinking which is still prevailing in the public consciousness.

That is a very great spiritual wealth, but there emerges before us today a different world, for which it is necessary to seek different roads toward the future, to seek — relying, of course, on accumulated experience — but also seeing the radical differences between that which was yesterday and that which is taking place today.

The newness of the tasks, and at the same time their difficulty, are not limited to this. Today we have entered an era when progress will be based on the interests of all mankind. Consciousness of this requires that world policy, too, should be determined by the priority of the values of all mankind.

The history of the past centuries and millennia has been a history of almost ubiquitous wars, and sometimes desperate battles, leading to mutual destruction. They occurred in the clash of social and political interests and national hostility, be it from ideological or religious incompatibility. All that was the case, and even now many still claim that this past — which has not been overcome — is an immutable pattern. However, parallel with the process of wars, hostility, and alienation of peoples and countries, another process, just as objectively conditioned, was in motion and gaining force: The process of the emergence of a mutually connected and integral world.

Further world progress is now possible only through the search for a consensus of all mankind, in movement toward a new world order. We have arrived at a frontier at which controlled spontaneity leads to a dead end. The world community must learn to shape and direct the process in such a way as to preserve civilization, to make it safe for all and more pleasant for normal life. It is a question of cooperation that could be more accurately called “co-creation” and “co-development.” The formula of development “at another’s expense” is becoming outdated. In light of present realities, genuine progress by infringing upon the rights and liberties of man and peoples, or at the expense of nature, is impossible.

The very tackling of global problems requires a new “volume” and “quality” of cooperation by states and sociopolitical currents regardless of ideological and other differences.

Of course, radical and revolutionary changes are taking place and will continue to take place within individual countries and social structures. This has been and will continue to be the case, but our times are making corrections here, too. Internal transformational processes cannot achieve their national objectives merely by taking “course parallel” with others without using the achievements of the surrounding world and the possibilities of equitable cooperation. In these conditions, interference in those internal processes with the aim of altering them according to someone else’s prescription would be all the more destructive for the emergence of a peaceful order. In the past, differences often served as a factor in puling away from one another. Now they are being given the opportunity to be a factor in mutual enrichment and attraction. Behind differences in social structure, in the way of life, and in the preference for certain values, stand interests. There is no getting away from that, but neither is there any getting away from the need to find a balance of interests within an international framework, which has become a condition for survival and progress. As you ponder all this, you come to the conclusion that if we wish to take account of the lessons of the past and the realities of the present, if we must reckon with the objective logic of world development, it is necessary to seek — and the seek jointly — an approach toward improving the international situation and building a new world. If that is so, then it is also worth agreeing on the fundamental and truly universal prerequisites and principles for such activities. It is evident, for example, that force and the threat of force can no longer be, and should not be instruments of foreign policy. […]

The compelling necessity of the principle of freedom of choice is also clear to us. The failure to recognize this, to recognize it, is fraught with very dire consequences, consequences for world peace. Denying that right to the peoples, no matter what the pretext, no matter what the words are used to conceal it, means infringing upon even the unstable balance that is, has been possible to achieve.

Freedom of choice is a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions. We have not come to the conclusion of the immutability of this principle simply through good motives. We have been led to it through impartial analysis of the objective processes of our time. The increasing varieties of social development in different countries are becoming in ever more perceptible feature of these processes. This relates to both the capitalist and socialist systems. The variety of sociopolitical structures which has grown over the last decades from national liberation movements also demonstrates this. This objective fact presupposes respect for other people’s vies and stands, tolerance, a preparedness to see phenomena that are different as not necessarily bad or hostile, and an ability to learn to live side by side while remaining different and not agreeing with one another on every issue.

The de-ideologization of interstate relations has become a demand of the new stage. We are not giving up our convictions, philosophy, or traditions. Neither are we calling on anyone else to give up theirs. Yet we are not going to shut ourselves up within the range of our values. That would lead to spiritual impoverishment, for it would mean renouncing so powerful a source of development as sharing all the original things created independently by each nation. In the course of such sharing, each should prove the advantages of his own system, his own way of life and values, but not through words or propaganda alone, but through real deeds as well. That is, indeed, an honest struggle of ideology, but it must not be carried over into mutual relations between states. Otherwise we simply will not be able to solve a single world problem; arrange broad, mutually advantageous and equitable cooperation between peoples; manage rationally the achievements of the scientific and technical revolution; transform world economic relations; protect the environment; overcome underdevelopment; or put an end to hunger, disease, illiteracy, and other mass ills. Finally, in that case, we will not manage to eliminate the nuclear threat and militarism.

Such are our reflections on the natural order of things in the world on the threshold of the 21st century. We are, of course, far from claiming to have infallible truth, but having subjected the previous realities — realities that have arisen again — to strict analysis, we have come to the conclusion that it is by precisely such approaches that we must search jointly for a way to achieve the supremacy of the common human idea over the countless multiplicity of centrifugal forces, to preserve the vitality of a civilization that is possible that only one in the universe. […]

Our country is undergoing a truly revolutionary upsurge. The process of restructuring is gaining pace; We started by elaborating the theoretical concepts of restructuring; we had to assess the nature and scope of the problems, to interpret the lessons of the past, and to express this in the form of political conclusions and programs. This was done. The theoretical work, the re-interpretation of what had happened, the final elaboration, enrichment, and correction of political stances have not ended. They continue. However, it was fundamentally important to start from an overall concept, which is already now being confirmed by the experience of past years, which has turned out to be generally correct and to which there is no alternative.

In order to involve society in implementing the plans for restructuring it had to be made more truly democratic. Under the badge of democratization, restructuring has now encompassed politics, the economy, spiritual life, and ideology. We have unfolded a radical economic reform, we have accumulated experience, and from the new year we are transferring the entire national economy to new forms and work methods. Moreover, this means a profound reorganization of production relations and the realization of the immense potential of socialist property.

In moving toward such bold revolutionary transformations, we understood that there would be errors, that there would be resistance, that the novelty would bring new problems. We foresaw the possibility of breaking in individual sections. However, the profound democratic reform of the entire system of power and government is the guarantee that the overall process of restructuring will move steadily forward and gather strength.

We completed the first stage of the process of political reform with the recent decisions by the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet on amendments to the Constitution and the adoption of the Law on Elections. Without stopping, we embarked upon the second stage of this. At which the most important task will be working on the interaction between the central government and the republics, settling relations between nationalities on the principles of Leninist internationalism bequeathed to us by the great revolution and, at the same time, reorganizing the power of the Soviets locally. We are faced with immense work. At the same time we must resolve major problems.

We are more than fully confident. We have both the theory, the policy and the vanguard force of restructuring a party which is also restructuring itself in accordance with the new tasks and the radical changes throughout society. And the most important thing: all peoples and all generations of citizens in our great country are in favor of restructuring.

We have gone substantially and deeply into the business of constructing a socialist state based on the rule of law. A whole series of new laws has been prepared or is at a completion stage. Many of them come into force as early as 1989, and we trust that they will correspond to the highest standards from the point of view of ensuring the rights of the individual. Soviet democracy is to acquire a firm, normative base. This means such acts as the Law on Freedom of Conscience, on glasnost, on public associations and organizations, and on much else. There are now no people in places of imprisonment in the country who have been sentenced for their political or religious convictions. It is proposed to include in the drafts of the new laws additional guarantees ruling out any form or persecution on these bases. Of course, this does not apply to those who have committed real criminal or state offenses: espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and so on, whatever political or philosophical views they may hold.

The draft amendments to the criminal code are ready and waiting their turn. In particular, those articles relating to the use of the supreme measure of punishment are being reviewed. The problem of exit and entry is also being resolved in a humane spirit, including the case of leaving the country in order to be reunited with relatives. As you know, one of the reasons for refusal of visas is citizens’ possession of secrets. Strictly substantiated terms for the length of time for possessing secrets are being introduced in advance. On starting work at a relevant institution or enterprise, everyone will be made aware of this regulation. Disputes that arise can be appealed under the law. Thus the problem of the so-called “refuseniks” is being removed.

We intend to expand the Soviet Union’s participation in the monitoring mechanism on human rights in the United Nations and within the framework of the pan-European process. We consider that the jurisdiction of the International Court in The Hague with respect to interpreting and applying agreements in the field of human rights should be obligatory for all states.

Within the Helsinki process, we are also examining an end to jamming of all the foreign radio broadcasts to the Soviet Union. On the whole, our credo is as follows: Political problems should be solved only by political means, and human problems only in a humane way. […]

Now about the most important topic, without which no problem of the coming century can be resolved: disarmament. […]

Today I can inform you of the following: The Soviet Union has made a decision on reducing its armed forces. In the next two years, their numerical strength will be reduced by 500,000 persons, and the volume of conventional arms will also be cut considerably. These reductions will be made on a unilateral basis, unconnected with negotiations on the mandate for the Vienna meeting. By agreement with our allies in the Warsaw Pact, we have made the decision to withdraw six tank divisions from the GDR, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and to disband them by 1991. Assault landing formations and units, and a number of others, including assault river-crossing forces, with their armaments and combat equipment, will also be withdrawn from the groups of Soviet forces situated in those countries. The Soviet forces situated in those countries will be cut by 50,000 persons, and their arms by 5,000 tanks. All remaining Soviet divisions on the territory of our allies will be reorganized. They will be given a different structure from today’s which will become unambiguously defensive, after the removal of a large number of their tanks. […]

By this act, just as by all our actions aimed at the demilitarization of international relations, we would also like to draw the attention of the world community to another topical problem, the problem of changing over from an economy of armament to an economy of disarmament. Is the conversion of military production realistic? I have already had occasion to speak about this. We believe that it is, indeed, realistic. For its part, the Soviet Union is ready to do the following. Within the framework of the economic reform we are ready to draw up and submit our internal plan for conversion, to prepare in the course of 1989, as an experiment, the plans for the conversion of two or three defense enterprises, to publish our experience of job relocation of specialists from the military industry, and also of using its equipment, buildings, and works in civilian industry, It is desirable that all states, primarily the major military powers, submit their national plans on this issue to the United Nations.

It would be useful to form a group of scientists, entrusting it with a comprehensive analysis of problems of conversion as a whole and as applied to individual countries and regions, to be reported to the U.N. secretary-general, and later to examine this matter at a General Assembly session.

Finally, being on U.S. soil, but also for other, understandable reasons, I cannot but turn to the subject of our relations with this great country. … Relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America span 5 1/2 decades. The world has changed, and so have the nature, role, and place of these relations in world politics. For too long they were built under the banner of confrontation, and sometimes of hostility, either open or concealed. But in the last few years, throughout the world people were able to heave a sigh of relief, thanks to the changes for the better in the substance and atmosphere of the relations between Moscow and Washington.

No one intends to underestimate the serious nature of the disagreements, and the difficulties of the problems which have not been settled. However, we have already graduated from the primary school of instruction in mutual understanding and in searching for solutions in our and in the common interests. The U.S.S.R. and the United States created the biggest nuclear missile arsenals, but after objectively recognizing their responsibility, they were able to be the first to conclude an agreement on the reduction and physical destruction of a proportion of these weapons, which threatened both themselves and everyone else.

Both sides possess the biggest and the most refined military secrets. But it is they who have laid the basis for and are developing a system of mutual verification with regard to both the destruction and the limiting and banning of armaments production. It is they who are amassing experience for future bilateral and multilateral agreements. We value this.

We acknowledge and value the contribution of President Ronald Reagan and the members of his administration, above all Mr. George Shultz. All this is capital that has been invested in a joint undertaking of historic importance. It must not be wasted or left out of circulation. The future U.S. administration headed by newly elected President George Bush will find in us a partner, ready — without long pauses and backward movements — to continue the dialogue in a spirit of realism, openness, and goodwill, and with a striving for concrete results, over an agenda encompassing the key issues of Soviet-U.S. relations and international politics.

We are talking first and foremost about consistent progress toward concluding a treaty on a 50 percent reduction in strategic offensive weapons, while retaining the ABM Treaty; about elaborating a convention on the elimination of chemical weapons — here, it seems to us, we have the preconditions for making 1989 the decisive year; and about talks on reducing conventional weapons and armed forces in Europe. We are also talking about economic, ecological and humanitarian problems in the widest possible sense. […]

We are not inclined to oversimplify the situation in the world. Yes, the tendency toward disarmament has received a strong impetus, and this process is gaining its own momentum, but it has not become irreversible. Yes, the striving to give up confrontation in favor of dialogue and cooperation has made itself strongly felt, but it has by no means secured its position forever in the practice of international relations. Yes, the movement toward a nuclear-free and nonviolent world is capable of fundamentally transforming the political and spiritual face of the planet, but only the very first steps have been taken. Moreover, in certain influential circles, they have been greeted with mistrust, and they are meeting resistance.

The inheritance of inertia of the past are continuing to operate. Profound contradictions and the roots of many conflicts have not disappeared. The fundamental fact remains that the formation of the peaceful period will take place in conditions of the existence and rivalry of various socioeconomic and political systems. However, the meaning of our international efforts, and one of the key tenets of the new thinking, is precisely to impart to this rivalry the quality of sensible competition in conditions of respect for freedom of choice and a balance of interests. In this case it will even become useful and productive from the viewpoint of general world development; otherwise; if the main component remains the arms race, as it has been till now, rivalry will be fatal. Indeed, an ever greater number of people throughout the world, from the man in the street to leaders, are beginning to understand this.

Esteemed Mr. Chairman, esteemed delegates: I finish my first speech at the United Nations with the same feeling with which I began it: a feeling of responsibility to my own people and to the world community. We have met at the end of a year that has been so significant for the United Nations, and on the threshold of a year from which all of us expect so much. One would like to believe that our joint efforts to put an end to the era of wars, confrontation and regional conflicts, aggression against nature, the terror of hunger and poverty, as well as political terrorism, will be comparable with our hopes. This is our common goal, and it is only by acting together that we may attain it. Thank you.

Source: CNN Cold War (1998).

Zamiatin’s Letter to Stalin

Evgenii Zamiatin. Letter to Stalin (June 1931)

 

Hounded out of the literary world by his proletarian enemies, Zamiatin, unable to pursue the only craft he knew, ultimately appealed to Stalin for the right to travel abroad. Permission was surprisingly granted, and Zamiatin soon departed for the West as a Soviet citizen on an extended tour. His letter below paints a vivid picture of the literary politics in Russia at the outset of the Stalin revolution.

June, 1931

Dear Iosif Vissarionovich,

The author of the present letter, condemned to the highest penalty, appeals to you with the request for the substitution of this penalty by another. My name is probably known to you. To me as a writer, being deprived of the opportunity to write is nothing less than a death sentence. Yet the situation that has come about is such that I cannot continue my work, because no creative activity is possible in an atmosphere of systematic persecution that increases in intensity from year to year.

I have no intention of presenting myself as a picture of injured innocence. I know that among the works I wrote during the first three or four years after the revolution there were some that might provide a pretext for attacks. I know that I have a highly inconvenient habit of speaking what I consider to be the truth rather than saying what may be expedient at the moment.

Specifically, I have never concealed my attitude toward literary servility, fawning, and chameleon changes of color: I have felt and I still feel that this is equally de grading both to the writer and to the revolution. I raised this problem in one of my articles (published in the journal Dom Iskusstv, No. 1, 1920) in a form that many people found to be sharp and offensive, and this served as a signal at the time for the launching of a newspaper and magazine campaign against me.

This campaign has continued, on different pretexts, to this day, and it has finally resulted in a situation that I would de scribe as a sort of fetishism. Just as the Christians had created the devil as a convenient personification of all evil, so the critics have transformed me into the devil of Soviet literature.

Spitting at the devil is regarded as a good deed, and everyone spat to the best of his ability. In each of my published works, these critics have inevitably discovered some diabolical intent. In order to seek it out, they have even gone to the length of in vesting me with prophetic gifts: thus, in one of my tales (“God), published in the journal Letopis in 1916, one critic has managed to find… “a travesty of the revolution in connection with the transition to the NEP” in the story “The Healing of the Novice Erasmus,” written in 1920, another critic (Mashbits-Verov) has discerned “a parable about leaders who had grown wise after the NEP.” Regardless of the content of the given work, the very fact of my signature has become a sufficient reason for declaring the work criminal.

Last March the Leningrad Oblit took steps to eliminate any remaining doubts of this. I had edited Sheridan’s comedy The School for Scandal and written an article about his life and work for the Academy Publishing House. Needless to say, there was nothing of a scandalous nature that I said or could have said in this article. Nevertheless, the Oblit not only banned the article, but even forbade the publisher to mention my name as editor of the translation. It was only after I complained to Moscow, and after the Glavlit had evidently suggested that such naively open actions are, after all, inadmissible, that permission was granted to publish the article and even my criminal name.

I have cited this fact because it shows the attitude toward me in a completely exposed, so to speak, chemically pure form. Of a long array of similar facts, I shall mention only one more, involving, not a chance article, but a full-length play that I have worked on for almost three years. I felt confident that this play, the tragedy Attila would finally silence those who were intent on turning me into some sort of an obscure artist. I seemed to have every reason for such confidence. My play had been read at a meeting of the Artistic Council of the Leningrad Bolshoi Dramatic Theatre.

Among those present at this meeting were representatives of eighteen Leningrad factories. Here are excerpts from their comments (taken from the minutes of the meeting of May 1, 1928). The representative of the Volodarsky Plant said: This is a play by a contemporary author, treating the subject of the class struggle in ancient times, analogous to that of our own era… Ideologically, the play is quite acceptable… It creates a strong impression and eliminates the reproach that contemporary playwrights do not produce good plays… The representative of the Lenin Factory noted the revolutionary character of the play and said that “in its artistic level, the play reminds us of Shakespeare’s works…. It is tragic, full of action, and will capture the viewer’s attention.” The representative of the Hydro-Mechanical Plant found “every moment in the play strong and absorbing,” and recommended its opening on the theater’s anniversary.

Let us say that the comrade workers overdid it in regard to Shakespeare. Nevertheless, Maxim Gorky has written that he considers the play “highly valuable both in a literary and social sense,” and that “its heroic tone and heroic plot are most useful for our time.” The play was accepted for production by the theater; it was passed by the Glavrepertkom; and after that… Was it shown to the audience of workers who had rated it so highly? No. After that the play, already half-rehearsed by the theater, already announced in posters, was banned at the insistence of the Leningrad Oblit.

The death of my tragedy Attila was a genuine tragedy to me. It made entirely clear to me the futility of any attempt to alter my situation, especially in view of the well-known affair involving my novel We and Pilnyak’s Mahogany, which followed soon after. Of course, any falsification is permissible in fighting the devil. And so, the novel, written nine years earlier, in 1920, was set side by side with Mahogany and treated as my latest, newest work.

The manhunt organized at the time was unprecedented in Soviet literature and even drew notice in the foreign press. Everything possible was done to close to me all avenues for further work. I became an object of fear to my former friends, publishing houses and theaters. My books were banned from the libraries. My play (The Flea), presented with invariable success by the Second Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre for four seasons, was withdrawn from the repertory. The publication of my collected works by the Federation Publishing House was halted. Every publishing house which attempted to issue my works was immediately placed under fire; this happened to Federatsiia [“Federation”], Zemlia i Fabrika [“Land and Factory”], and particularly to the Publishing House of Leningrad Writers. This latter took the risk of retaining me on its editorial board for another year and ventured to make use of my literary experience by entrusting me with the stylistic editing of works by y young writers including Communists. Last spring the Leningrad branch of the RAPP succeeded in forcing me out of the board and putting an end to this work. The Literary Gazette triumphantly announced this accomplishment, adding quite unequivocally: “. . . the publishing house must be preserved, but not for the Zamiatins.”

The last door to the reader was closed to Zamiatin. The writer’s death sentence was pronounced and published. In the Soviet Criminal Code the penalty second to death is deportation of the criminal from the country. If I am in truth a criminal deserving punishment, I nevertheless do not think that I merit so grave a penalty as literary death. I therefore ask that this sentence be changed to deportation from the USSR and that my wife be allowed to accompany me.

But if I am not a criminal, I beg to be permitted to go abroad with my wife temporarily, for at least one year, with the right to return as soon as it becomes possible in our country to serve great ideas in literature without cringing before little men, as soon as there is at least a partial change in the prevailing view concerning the role of the literary artist. And I am confident that this time is near, for the creation of the material base will inevitably be followed by the need to build the superstructure, an art and a literature truly worthy of the revolution.

I know that life abroad will be extremely difficult for me, as I cannot become a part of the reactionary camp there; this is sufficiently attested by my past membership in the Russian Social Democratic Party (Bolshevik) in Tsarist days, imprisonment, two deportations, trial in wartime for an anti-militarist novella).

I know that while I have been proclaimed a Right winger here because of my habit of writing according to my conscience rather than according to command, I shall sooner or later probably be declared a Bolshevik for the same reason abroad.

But even under the most difficult conditions there, I shall not be condemned to silence; I shall be able to write and to publish, even, if need be, in a language other than Russian. If circumstances should make it impossible (temporarily, I hope) for me to be a Russian writer, perhaps I shall be able, like the Pole Joseph Conrad, to become for a time an English writer, especially since I have already written about England in Russian (the satirical story “The Islanders” and others), and since it is not much more difficult for me to write in English than it is in Russian.

Ilya Ehrenburg, while remaining a Soviet writer, has long been working chiefly for European literature for translation into foreign languages. Why, then, should I not be permitted to do what Ehrenburg has been permitted to do? And here I may mention yet another name that of Boris Pilnyak. He has shared the role of devil with me in full measure; he has been the major target of the critics; yet he has been allowed to go abroad to take a rest from this persecution. Why should I not be granted what has been granted to Pilnyak?

I might have tried to motivate my request for permission to go abroad by other reasons as well more usual, though equally valid. To free myself of an old chronic illness (colitis), I have to go abroad for a cure; my personal presence is needed abroad to help stage two of my plays, translated into English and Italian (The Flea and The Society of Honorary Bell Ringers, already produced in Soviet theaters); moreover, the planned production of these plays will make it possible for me not to burden the People’s Commissariat of Finances with the request for foreign exchange.

All these motives exist. But I do not wish to conceal that the basic reason for my request for permission to go abroad with my wife is my hopeless position here as a writer, the death sentence that has been pronounced upon me as a writer here at home. The extraordinary consideration which you have given other writers who appealed to you leads me to hope that my request will also be granted.

Source: Evgeny Zamyatin: Letter to Stalin. A Soviet Heretic: Essays Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.