Andrei Vyshinskii, Act of Accusation in the Case of Citizens: Vasilii Ivanovich Belavin, Nikandr Grigorevich Fenomenov, Arsenii Grigorevich Stadnitskii, Petr Viktorovich Gur'ev. 1923

Original Source: Moscow: Glavlit, 1923.

Resume of Conclusion of Accusation in case of Patriarch Tikhon

1. The "Accusatory Conclusion" commences by giving a description of the Sobor, held in Moscow on the 15th August, 1917, at which Patriarch Tikhon presided. The Sobor is stated to have been a collection of delegates representing the political aspect of Orthodox Russia. Statistics regarding the membership of the Sobor are incorrect. For instance, Kerenskii and Avksentiev are stated to have been present as members--besides a well known figure in Moscow, Princess Trubetskaia, a former agent of the Cheka, and later mad. The two first named were never members of the Sobor; and the last named, as a woman, could not have been. Other persons (Count Tristov, for example) are also mentioned as having been members who did not attend although they were elected.

2. In order to prove that the Sobor did not represent the Russian people but a certain group of persons, chiefly belonging to the Church, the statistics concerning the number of members taking part are also incorrect; for instance the total number of clergy taking part is given as 277, whereas the actual number who did take part was 239. All other figures given are distorted in some way.

3. In recording the speeches, only those are mentioned which can be with advantage for the aims of the "accusatory Conclusion," all others being left out.

4. The final characterization of the Sobor is based not upon the resolutions and decisions of the Sobor, but upon some speeches actually made by members and other speeches by members who were not even present.

5. The actual speeches and conclusion of the Patriarch himself are left out, these clearly not being suited to the purpose of the "Conclusion."

6. The persons drawing up the "Conclusions" have not hesitated to include in it a direct lie, stating that the Patriarch himself renounced his post in favor of the Supreme Church Council, whereas it was known to the Soviet Government and the public generally (on the basis of documents) that the Patriarch had merely handed over authority temporarily to the Senior Metropolitan, Agafangel.

7. In reading the act of accusation it becomes clear that the actions of the church authorities and the Patriarch were known to the Soviet government in all details throughout the years 1917 to 1922. Since no action had been taken and all persons implicated in former cases in this connection had been released, it is clear that the present case is actuated by political considerations only. Concerning their own motives the Bolsheviks themselves write in the "'Act of Accusation": "It is necessary to prove to everyone that the Soviet Government of 1923 is not that of the earlier years." Thus the accused are victims not of their own political activities but of the Bolsheviks who now considered themselves strong enough to deal with them.

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).