in such a way as to have less cotton, because it was an industrial crop which most of all bound Uzbekistan with the Union; secondly, we planned to develop agriculture in Uzbekistan so as to have more grain farming not only on the non-irrigated lands, but also on the irrigated lands, in order to be independent of Russian grain, and lastly, we planned the development of industry, road building, etc., in such a way as to be more economically independent than ever of Soviet Russia, of the Soviet Union, at the end of the First Five-Year Plan.
The economic side of “bourgeois nationalism” was thus well shown, and Khodzhayev made it explicit:
I do not know whether the court is aware that the bourgeois nationalists, particularly in Central Asia, had a theory of organizing a self-contained economy, that is to say, of making the economy of the republic develop independently of the other parts of the Soviet Union, of making it possible for the republic to live without need for the rest of the Soviet Union in the event of possibilities arising for active, direct struggle.81
Ikramov gave similar evidence. He had had contacts with Zelensky, Antipov, and A. P. Smirnov, and Bukharin had stayed with him for a few days in 1933. Bukharin, called on, admitted discussing with him the Ryutin Platform, and “a vague allusion to terrorism,” but denied any talk of wrecking.82 At a further meeting, in 1935, the sinister point was raised that both Bukharin’s and Ikramov’s wives had been present, though the seditious conversation had taken place in their absence. Bukharin denied that on this occasion politics had been discussed at all. Here came a sharp exchange with Vyshinsky:
And you, the leader of an underground organization, met a member of your organization, one whom you enlisted, met him two years later, and did not try to verify whether he still adhered to your counter-revolutionary organization, you showed no interest in this, but began to discuss the weather in Uzbekistan. Is this how it was, or not?
No, this is not how it was. You are putting a question which contains in itself an ironical reply. As it happens, I figured I would meet Ikramov again, but by chance this meeting did not take place because he did not find me in.
You have an extraordinarily good memory for exactly those meetings which did not take place.
I do not remember the meetings which did not take place, because they are a phantom, but I do remember those which did materialize.
83
Ikramov gave a long account of Antipov’s vital role in organizing Central Asian subversion. Antipov had insisted on terrorism, and personally boasted that “whoever the Rights had decided to kill would never reach Central Asia.”84 And Ikramov, too, implicated the polygamist Rakhimbayev and his Tadzhik group.
TO RUIN THE ECONOMY
The examinations of Rosengolts and Krestinsky on the evening of 4 March were satisfactory to the prosecution. Rosengolts and Krestinsky testified that they, with Rudzutak and Gamarnik, had constituted the main center of the conspiracy after the arrest of Rykov and Bukharin in February 1937. They had then relied almost entirely on the projected Army coup.
Their connections with German espionage, arranged through Trotsky, had dated back to 1922–1923. Krestinsky admitted to the meeting with Trotsky in person which he had denied on 2 March. Trotsky had given full instructions for all types of treason, espionage, sabotage, and terror.
The only slightly awkward moments were when Krestinsky said that he, Rosengolts, and Gamarnik had “discussed the necessity for a terrorist act” against Molotov, but had made no actual preparations for it (Vyshinsky commented sharply that this amounted to the same thing), and when Rykov, again called on briefly to confirm conversations with and about Tukhachevsky, denied them.85
Rykov and Bukharin, too, were incidentally all but exculpated of all the recent activity attributed to them by Krestinsky’s remark that “Trotsky said that we should not confine ourselves to Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky, because although they were the recognized leaders of the Rights, they had already been compromised to a great extent and were under surveillance,” so that Rudzutak, whom no one suspected, should be the connection. But this “surveillance,” and the admission that it made Rykov and Bukharin unsuitable conspiratorial colleagues, in effect disposes of the possibility of their guilt—and this from 1933 on, covering the whole period of the Kirov and other alleged murders.
Rosengolts confessed to various embezzlements, including sabotage in the export of iron. This seems to refer to pig-iron exports, which in fact had been under a directive bearing Stalin’s signature, with the deliveries superintended by Yezhov.86
