Interview with Lion Feuchtwanger

– J.V. Stalin –

The German writer Lion Feuchtwanger visited the Soviet Union in 1937. Afterwards, he wrote a book which he simply called “Moscow 1937.” In it he recalled his conversation with J.V. Stalin, which is being published in full by NEPH in English for the first time.

Feuchtwanger: I would ask you to further define the functions of a writer. I know you have called writers “engineers of the soul.”

Stalin: A writer, if they grasp the essential needs of the broad masses of the people at a given moment, can play a very important role in the development of society. They summarize vague ideas and unconscious feelings of the progressive sections of society and make the instinctive actions of the masses conscious.

He shapes the public opinion of his era. He helps the progressive forces of society to realize their tasks and hit the target more accurately. In short, he can be a good service element of society and its progressive aspirations. But there is another group of writers who, failing to understand the new trends of the era, attack everything new in their works and thus serve the reactionary forces of society. The role of such writers is also not small, but from the standpoint of the balance of history, it is negative. There is a third group of writers who, under the banner of falsely understood objectivism, try to sit between two chairs, refusing to join either the progressive layers of society or the reactionary ones. Such a group of writers is usually shot at from both sides: by progressive and reactionary forces. They usually do not play a significant role in the history of the development of society and nations, and history forgets them as quickly as it forgets last year’s snow.

Feuchtwanger: I would ask you to explain how you understand the difference between the calling of a scientific writer and a writer-artist who conveys their perception of the world, their own self.

Stalin: Scientific writers usually operate with concepts, while fiction writers use images. They depict what interests them in a more concrete way, through artistic images. Scientific writers write for selected, more qualified people, while artists write for broader masses. I would say that the actions of so-called scientific writers have more elements of calculation. Writer-artists are more direct; there is much less calculation in their activities.

Feuchtwanger: I would like to ask what your definition of the intelligentsia as an intermediate class in the report on the Constitution of the USSR means. Some people think that the intelligentsia is not connected with any class, has fewer prejudices, greater freedom of judgement, but less rights. As Goethe said, only the one who contemplates is free, not the one who acts.

Stalin: I have presented the typical Marxist understanding of the intelligentsia. I have not said anything new — a class is a social group of people who occupy a certain stable and permanent position in the process of production. The working class produces everything without owning the means of production. Capitalists own capital. Without them, under the capitalist system, production is impossible. Landlords own land — the most important means of production. Peasants own small plots of land and lease it, but occupy certain positions in agriculture. The intelligentsia is a serving element, not a social class. It does not produce anything and does not occupy an independent place in the process of production. The intelligentsia exists in factories and plants — serving capitalists. The intelligentsia also exists in economies and estates — serving landlords. As soon as the intelligentsia starts to misbehave, they are replaced by others. There is a group of intelligentsia that is not associated with production, such as writers, cultural workers, etc. They consider themselves the “salt of the earth,” a commanding force standing above the social classes. But nothing serious can come out of this. In the 1870s in Russia, there was a group of intelligentsia that wanted to rape history and, disregarding the fact that the conditions for the republic had not matured, tried to drag society into the struggle for the republic. None of this worked out. This group was defeated — this is an example of the independent power of the intelligentsia!

The role of the intelligentsia is a service role, quite honourable, but service-oriented. The better the intelligentsia recognizes the interests of the dominant classes and the better it serves them, the greater its role. Within these boundaries and on this basis, its role is serious.

Does all of this mean that the intelligentsia should have fewer rights? In capitalist society, yes.

In capitalist society, they look at capital — whoever has more capital is considered smarter, better, and has more rights. Capitalists say: the intelligentsia is making noise, but they don’t have any capital. Therefore, the intelligentsia is not equal there. In our society, things are completely different.

If in capitalist society a person consists of body, soul and capital, then for us, a person consists of soul, body and the ability to work. And anyone can work: having capital does not give any privileges for us, and even causes some irritation. Therefore, the intelligentsia is fully equal to workers and peasants in our society. An intellectual can develop all their abilities, work just like a worker and a peasant.

Feuchtwanger: If I understand you correctly, you also believe that a writer-artist appeals more to the reader’s instinct than to their reason.

But then the writer-artist should be more reactionary than the scientific writer, since instinct is more reactionary than reason. As we know, Plato wanted to remove writers from his ideal state.

Stalin: One cannot play with the word “instinct.” I spoke not only about instinct, but also about moods, about unconscious moods of the masses. This is not the same as instinct, it is something greater. Besides, I do not consider instincts to be immutable or motionless. They change.

Today, the masses don’t want to wage their struggle against oppressors in a religious form, in the form of religious wars. This was the case in the 17th century and earlier in Germany and France. Later, they carry out a more conscious struggle against oppressors, for example, the French Revolution.

Plato had a slave-owning psychology. Slave owners needed writers, but they turned them into slaves (there are enough examples of many writers being sold into slavery throughout history) or expelled them when the writers poorly served the needs of the slave-owning system.

As for the new Soviet society, here the role of the writer is immense. The writer is all the more valuable because he directly, almost without any reflex, reflects the new moods of the masses. And if you ask who more readily reflects new moods and currents, it is the artist rather than the scientific researcher. The artist is at the very source, at the very cauldron of new moods. He can therefore direct moods in a new direction, while scientific literature comes later. It is unclear why a writer-artist should be a conservative or reactionary. This is wrong. History does not justify this. The first attempts to attack the feudal society were made by artists — Voltaire, Moliere attacked the old society earlier. Then the encyclopedists came.

In Germany, there were Heine, Börne, and then Marx and Engels came. It cannot be said that the role of all writers is reactionary. Some writers may play a reactionary role, defending reactionary moods.

Maxim Gorky reflected the vague revolutionary moods and aspirations of the working class long before they erupted in the revolution of 1905.

Feuchtwanger: What are the limits of criticism in Soviet literature?

Stalin: We must distinguish between constructive criticism and criticism aimed at propagating opposition to the Soviet system.

For example, there are writers who disagree with our national policy and equal rights for nations. They would like to criticize our national policy, and it’s okay to criticize once. However their aim is not criticism but propaganda against our policy of equal rights for nations. We cannot allow propaganda that pits one part of the population against another, one nation against another. We cannot allow a constant reminder that Russians were once a dominant nation.

There is a group of writers who do not want us to fight against fascist elements, and such elements do exist among us. To allow propaganda in favour of fascism and against socialism is impractical.

If we eliminate attempts at propaganda against Soviet government policy, fascism and chauvinism, then our writers have the widest freedom, more than anywhere else.

We welcome business criticism that exposes shortcomings for the purpose of their elimination. We, the leaders, ourselves conduct and provide the widest possible opportunity for any such criticism to all writers.

But criticism that seeks to overthrow the Soviet system does not find sympathy with us. We have such a sin.

Feuchtwanger: There seems to be some misunderstanding. I do not believe that a writer must necessarily be reactionary. But since instinct lags behind reason, it can happen that a writer becomes reactionary without intending to. For example, in Gorky’s works, sometimes images of murderers and thieves evoke sympathy. And in my own works, there are reflections of backward instincts. Perhaps that’s why they are read with interest. It seems to me that there used to be more literary works criticizing certain aspects of Soviet life. What are the reasons for this?

Stalin: Your works are read with interest and well received in our country not because they contain elements of backwardness, but because they truthfully reflect reality. Whether or not you intended to give impetus to the revolutionary development of Germany, in reality, regardless of your intentions, you showed the revolutionary prospects of Germany. After reading your books, the reader said to himself: “Living in Germany like this cannot continue.”

Ideology always lags a bit behind actual development, including literature. Hegel said that the owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk.

First there are facts, and then their reflection in the mind. It is impossible to mix a writer’s worldview with their works.

Take, for example, Gogol and his “Dead Souls.” Gogol’s worldview was undoubtedly reactionary. He was a mystic. He did not think that serfdom should be abolished. It is incorrect to assume that Gogol wanted to fight against serfdom. His correspondence is full of very reactionary views. And yet, despite his intentions, Gogol’s “Dead Souls” had a tremendous impact on whole generations of revolutionary intellectuals in the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s with their artistic truth.

One should not mix a writer’s worldview with the influence of one or another of their artistic works on the reader. Were there more critical works in the past? Possibly. I have not studied two periods of the development of Russian literature.

Before 1933, few writers believed that the peasant question could be solved on the basis of collective farms. Then there were more critics.

Facts convince. The Soviet government’s policy of collectivization, which united the peasantry with the working class, was victorious.

The problem of the relationship between the working class and the peasantry was the most important and caused the greatest concern for revolutionaries in all countries.

It seemed insoluble: the peasantry was reactionary, tied to private property, dragging the country backwards, while the working class was moving forward. This contradiction had led to revolution on numerous occasions. This is how the revolution in France in 1871 and the revolution in Germany failed. There was no connection between the working class and the peasantry.

We successfully resolved this problem. Naturally, after such victories, there was less ground for criticism. Perhaps we should not have strived for these successes, so that there would be more criticism? We think differently. The problem is not so great.

Feuchtwanger: I’ve only been here for 4-5 weeks. One of my first impressions is that some forms of expression of respect and love for you seem to me exaggerated and tasteless. You give the impression of being a simple and modest person. Are these forms an unnecessary burden for you?

Stalin: I completely agree with you. It’s unpleasant when things are exaggerated to hyperbolic proportions. People get into a frenzy over trivial matters. Out of hundreds of greetings, I only respond to 1-2, I don’t allow most of them to be printed, and I don’t allow overly enthusiastic greetings to be printed as soon as I learn about them. In nine out of ten of these greetings, there is truly complete tastelessness. And they make me feel uncomfortable.

I would like to explain, in human terms, where this unrestrained, even cloying, adoration for me comes from. Apparently, we have managed to solve a great task in our country, for which generations of people fought for centuries — the Babuvists, Gerbertists, various sects of French, English and German revolutionaries. Apparently, the resolution of this task (which was cherished by the working-class and peasantry): the liberation from exploitation, causes immense enthusiasm. People are so happy that they have managed to free themselves from exploitation that they literally don’t know what to do with their joy.

Liberation from exploitation is a very big deal, and the masses celebrate it in their own way. They attribute all of this to me, which is, of course, untrue. What can one person do? They see in me a collective concept and kindle a bonfire of calf-like enthusiasm around me.

Feuchtwanger: As a person sympathetic to the USSR, I see and feel that the feelings of love and respect for you are completely sincere and elementary. Precisely because you are so loved and respected, could you not use your words to put an end to these forms of enthusiasm that embarrass some of your friends abroad?

Stalin: I have tried to do this several times. But nothing comes of it. You tell them it’s not good, it’s not appropriate. People think I’m saying this out of false modesty.

They wanted to organize a celebration for my 55th birthday. I issued a ban on it through the CC of the CPSU(B). Complaints started to come in that I was hindering them from celebrating, expressing their feelings, that it was not about me. Others said that I was being obstinate. How can we prohibit these expressions of enthusiasm? We cannot use force. There is freedom of expression of opinions. We can ask as friends.

This is a manifestation of a certain lack of culture. With time, it will become tiresome. It is difficult to prevent people from expressing their joy. It’s a pity to take strict measures against workers and peasants.

There have already been great victories. In the past, the landowners and capitalists were the demiurge, and the workers and peasants were not considered human beings. Now the cabal from the working people has been removed. This is a huge victory! The landowners and capitalists have been expelled, and the workers and peasants are the masters of their lives. They are overjoyed.

Our people are still lagging behind in terms of general culture, which is why expressions of joy come out like this. We cannot do anything with laws or prohibitions. We might end up in a ridiculous situation. And as for the fact that some people abroad are upset about this — there’s nothing we can do about it. Culture is not achieved overnight. We do a lot in this area: for example, in just 1935 and 1936, we built over two thousand new schools in cities alone. We’re doing everything we can to raise culture, but the results will show in 5-6 years. The cultural uplift is slow. The outbursts of enthusiasm grow rapidly and ungracefully.

Feuchtwanger: I’m not talking about the feeling of love and respect from the workers and peasants, but about other cases. Your busts, displayed in various places, are ugly and poorly made. What’s the point of having a bad bust at the Moscow city planning exhibition, where you are the first thing people think about? What’s the point of having a bad bust at the Rembrandt exhibition, which is arranged with great taste?

Stalin: The question is logical. I was referring to the broad masses, not the bureaucrats from various institutions. As for the bureaucrats, one cannot say that they have no taste. They are afraid that if there is no Stalin bust, they will be criticized by the newspaper, their boss, or the visitors. This is an area of careerism, a peculiar form of “self-defence” for bureaucrats: to avoid being criticized, they have to display Stalin busts.

To any party that wins, foreign elements and careerists attach themselves. They try to protect themselves by means of mimicry — displaying busts and writing slogans they don’t believe in. As for the poor quality of the busts, this is not only done intentionally (I know it happens), but also because of a lack of skill in choosing. For example, I saw portraits of myself and my comrades in the May Day demonstration that looked like everyone else. People carry them with enthusiasm and don’t realize that the portraits are unsuitable. It’s not possible to issue an order to display good busts — to hell with them! We don’t have time for such things, we have other things and concerns to attend to and we don’t even look at these busts.

Feuchtwanger: I’m afraid that your use of the word “democracy” — I fully understand the meaning of your new constitution and welcome it — is not entirely successful. In the West, for 150 years, the word “democracy” has been understood as formal democracy. Could the misunderstanding be due to your use of the word “democracy,” which abroad has become accustomed to a certain meaning? Everything boils down to the word “democracy.” Can’t we come up with another word?

Stalin: We don’t just have democracy transferred from bourgeois countries. We have an unusual democracy, we have an addition — the word “socialist” democracy. It is different. Without this addition, there will be confusion. With this addition, it can be understood. However, we don’t want to abandon the word democracy, because in a certain sense, we are students and continuers of European democrats, students who have proved the insufficiency and ugliness of formal democracy and turned formal democracy into socialist democracy. We don’t want to hide this historical fact.

In addition, we don’t want to abandon the word democracy because now in the capitalist world, a struggle for the remnants of democracy against fascism is unfolding. In these conditions, we don’t want to abandon the word democracy, we unite our front of struggle with the front of workers, peasants and intellectuals against fascism for democracy. By preserving the word “democracy,” we reach out to them and tell them that after victory over fascism and the strengthening of formal democracy, we will still have to fight for the highest form of democracy, for socialist democracy.

Feuchtwanger: Perhaps as a writer, I attach too much importance to the word and the associations that come with it. It seems to me that bourgeois criticism based on a misunderstanding of the word “democracy” is harmful. The Soviet Union has created so much that is new, why not create a new word here as well?

Stalin. You are wrong. The positive aspects of keeping the word democracy outweigh the drawbacks associated with bourgeois criticism. Take the united front movement in France, in Spain. Different layers have united to defend the pitiful remnants of democracy. The united front against fascism is a front for the struggle for democracy. Workers, peasants and intellectuals ask: how do you Soviet people feel about our struggle for democracy? Is this struggle correct? We say: “Correctly, fight for democracy, which is the lowest level of democracy. We support you, having created a higher stage of democracy — socialist democracy. We are the heirs of the old democrats — French revolutionaries, German revolutionaries, heirs who did not stay in place but raised democracy to a higher stage.”

As for the critics, they must be told that democracy was not invented for small groups of writers but created to give a new class — the bourgeoisie — the opportunity to fight against feudalism. When feudalism was defeated, the working class wanted to use democracy to fight against the bourgeoisie. Democracy became dangerous for the bourgeoisie at this point. It was good for the bourgeoisie to fight against feudalism, but it became bad when the working class began to use it to fight against the bourgeoisie.

Democracy became dangerous, and fascism emerged. Some bourgeois groups agree to fascism for good reason because democracy was useful before but has now become dangerous.

Democracy creates the opportunity for the working class to use various rights to fight against the bourgeoisie. That is the essence of democracy, which was not created so that writers could talk in print.

If you look at democracy this way, then our workers use all rights imaginable. Here you have freedom of assembly, the press, speech, unions and so on.

This needs to be explained to our friends who are wavering. We prefer to have fewer friends but steadfast friends. Many friends, but wavering ones, are a burden.

I know these critics. Some of these critics ask: why don’t we legalize a group or, as they say, a Trotskyist party? They say: if you legalize the Trotskyist party, then you have democracy, if you don’t, then there is no democracy. And what is a Trotskyist party? As it turned out, we knew this for a long time — they are spies who, together with agents of Japanese and German fascism, blow up mines, bridges, cause train wrecks. In case of war against us, they were preparing to take all measures to organize our defeat: blow up factories, railways, kill leaders and so on. They suggest legalizing spies, agents of hostile foreign states.

No bourgeois state — America, England, France — will legalize spies and agents of hostile foreign states.

So why are they proposing it to us? We are against such “democracy.”

Feuchtwanger: Precisely because democracy in the West is already so eroded and smells bad, we should abandon that word.

Stalin: But what about the Popular Front fighting for democracy? In France, in Spain, the government of the Popular Front — people are fighting, shedding blood, not for illusions, but for parliament, the freedom of strikes, freedom of the press, unions for workers.

If democracy is not equated with the right of writers to drag each other by the hair in the press, but is understood as democracy for the masses, then there is something worth fighting for.

We want to keep the Popular Front with the masses in France and other countries. The bridge to this is democracy, as understood by the masses.

Is there a difference between France and Germany? Would German workers like to have a real parliament again, freedom of unions, speech and the press? Of course, yes. Käthe Kollwitz is in parliament, Ernst Thälmann is in a concentration camp, French workers can strike, in Germany they cannot and so on.

Feuchtwanger: Now there are three concepts — fascism, democratization, socialism. There is a difference between socialism and democracy.

Stalin: We are not on an island. We, Russian Marxists, learned democratization from the socialists of the West — from Marx, Engels, Jaurès, Ged, Bebel. If we created a new word, it would give more fodder to critics: Russians reject democracy.

Feuchtwanger: A report was issued on the trial of Zinoviev and others. This report was based primarily on the confessions of the defendants. Undoubtedly, there are other materials on this trial. Can they also be published?

Stalin: What materials?

Feuchtwanger: The results of the preliminary investigation. Everything that proves their guilt beyond their confessions.

Stalin: Among lawyers, there are two schools. One believes that the confession of the accused is the most significant evidence of their guilt. The Anglo-Saxon legal school believes that tangible elements such as a knife, revolver, etc. are insufficient to establish the perpetrators of a crime. The confession of the accused has greater value.

There is a German school that prefers tangible evidence, but it also gives due credit to the confession of the accused. It is unclear why some people or writers abroad are not satisfied with the confession of the accused. Kirov was killed — that is a fact. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky were not there. But people who committed this crime pointed at them as its instigators. All of them are experienced conspirators: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and others. They do not leave any documents in such cases. They were exposed during face-to-face confrontations with their own people, and then they had to confess their guilt.

Another fact — last year there was a military train crash at the Shumikha station in Siberia. The train was headed to the Far East. As was stated in court, the switchman set the switch incorrectly and directed the train onto the wrong track. Dozens of Red Army soldiers were killed in the crash. The switchman, a young woman, did not admit to her guilt and claimed that she was given such instructions. The station chief and the duty officer were arrested, and some of them admitted to their mistakes. They were sentenced. Recently, several people in this area were arrested — Boguslavsky, Drobny and Knyazev. Some of those arrested in connection with the crash, but not yet convicted, stated that the crash was carried out on the orders of a Trotskyist group. Knyazev, who was a Trotskyist and turned out to be a Japanese spy, showed that the switchman was not guilty. They, the Trotskyists, had an agreement with Japanese agents to arrange disasters. To cover up the crime, they used the switchman as a shield and gave her an oral order to set the switch incorrectly. Material evidence against the switchman: she set the switch incorrectly. Testimonies of people prove that she is not guilty. We not only have the testimonies of the defendants. But we attach great importance to testimonies. It is said that testimonies are given because they promise the defendants freedom. This is nonsense. These people are all experienced, they understand perfectly well what it means to implicate oneself in such crimes. Soon there will be a trial of Pyatakov and others. You can learn a lot of interesting things if you attend this trial.

Feuchtwanger: I wrote a play about life in India, in which Lord Hastings is depicted dealing with an opponent who really wanted to stage a coup, by accusing him not of that crime, but of a completely different one.

Critics abroad (not me) say that they do not understand the psychology of the defendants, why they do not stand up for their views and confess.

Stalin: First question — why did they fall so low? It should be said that all these people – Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Radek, Smirnov and others — all fought against Lenin during his lifetime. Now, after Lenin’s death, they call themselves Bolshevik-Leninists, but during Lenin’s lifetime, they fought against him.

At the 10th Congress of the Party in 1921, when he passed a resolution against factionalism, Lenin said that factionalism against the Party, especially if people insist on their mistakes, must throw them into the camp of counter-revolution against the Soviet system. The Soviet system is such that you can be for it, you can be neutral, but if you start fighting against it, it inevitably leads to counter-revolution.

These people fought against Lenin and the Party.

During the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations in 1918. In 1921, on the question of trade unions. After Lenin’s death in 1924, they fought against the party. They particularly intensified their struggle in 1927. In 1927, we held a referendum among party members. 800,000 party members supported the platform of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and 17,000 supported Trotsky’s platform.

These people deepened their struggle, created their own party. In 1927, they organized demonstrations against the Soviet government, went into exile and went underground. They had about 8 or 10 followers left.

They were descending step by step. Some people do not believe that Trotsky and Zinoviev collaborated with Gestapo agents. Their supporters are being arrested along with Gestapo agents. This is a fact. You will hear that Trotsky made an alliance with Hess to blow up bridges and trains, etc. when Hitler goes to war against us. Because Trotsky cannot return without the defeat of the USSR in the war.

Why do they confess to their crimes? Because they became delusional in their belief that they were right, seeing successes everywhere. They want to at least tell the truth to the people before they die or receive their sentence. They want to do at least one good thing — to help people learn the truth. These people have abandoned their old convictions and now hold new ones. They believe that building socialism in our country is impossible, a lost cause.

They think that all of Europe will be engulfed by fascism and we, the Soviet people, will perish. To save their supporters who follow Trotsky, they must make an agreement with the most powerful fascist states to preserve their cadres and the power they will receive from these agreements. I am relaying what Radek and Pyatakov are saying directly. They consider Germany and Japan to be the most powerful fascist states. They held negotiations with Hess in Berlin and the Japanese representative in Berlin. They came to the conclusion that the power they will receive as a result of the defeat of the USSR in the war must make concessions to capitalism: cede the territory of Ukraine or part of it to Germany, the Far East or part of it to Japan, and allow broad access for German capital to the European part of the USSR and Japanese capital to the Asian part. They want to dissolve a large part of the collective farms and give way to “private initiative,” as they put it, and reduce the state’s coverage of the industry. They want to give part of it to concessionaires. These are the conditions of the agreement, as they tell it. They “justify” their departure from socialism by indicating that fascism will win anyway, and these “concessions” must preserve the maximum that can remain. They try to justify their actions with this “concept.” It is an idiotic concept. Their “concept” is driven by panic over fascism.

Now that they have thought everything through, they believe all of this is wrong and want to reveal everything before their sentence.

Feuchtwanger: If they have such idiotic concepts, don’t you think they should be sent to a mental institution rather than to the defendant’s bench?

Stalin: No. There are many people who say that fascism will conquer everything. We have to go against these people. They have always been panic-mongers. They were afraid of everything when we took power in October, during Brest and during the collectivization. Now they’re afraid of fascism.

Fascism is nonsense, a temporary phenomenon. They’re in a panic, and that’s why they create these “concepts.” They are for the defeat of the USSR in the war against Hitler and the Japanese. That’s precisely why, as supporters of the defeat of the USSR, they deserve the attention of the Hitlerites and the Japanese, to whom they send information about every explosion and every subversive act.

Feuchtwanger: Returning to the old trial, I want to say that some people are surprised why not 1, 2, 3, 4 defendants, but all of them admitted their guilt.

Stalin: How does it happen in practice? They accuse Zinoviev. He denies it. They give him face-to-face confrontations with his caught and exposed followers. One, another, a third exposes him. Then he is finally forced to confess, being exposed at face-to-face confrontations by his own supporters.

Feuchtwanger: I myself am convinced that they really wanted to carry out a coup d’état. But too much is being proven here. It would be more convincing if less were proven.

Stalin: These are not quite ordinary criminals. They still have some conscience left. Take Radek, for example. We trusted him. Zinoviev and Kamenev had already slandered him long ago. But we didn’t touch him. We had no other evidence, and in relation to Kamenev and Zinoviev, it could be thought that they were intentionally slandering people. However, after some time, new people, two dozen lower-level people, partly arrested, partly giving testimony themselves, found out the picture of Radek’s guilt. He had to be arrested. At first, he stubbornly denied everything, wrote several letters claiming that he was clean. A month ago, he wrote a long letter again, proving his innocence. But apparently, he himself found this letter unconvincing, and the next day he confessed to his crimes and revealed much of what we did not know. When you ask why they confess, the general answer is, “we are tired of all this, we have lost faith in the righteousness of our cause, it is impossible to go against the people — this ocean. We want to help reveal the truth before we die, so that we are not such wretched, such Judases.”

These are not ordinary criminals, not thieves, they still have something left of their conscience. After all, Judas, having committed betrayal, then hanged himself.

Feuchtwanger: About Judas — this is a legend.

Stalin: This is not a simple legend. The Jewish people have invested their great national wisdom in this legend.

RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 11. D. 820. L. 3-22.

One thought on “Interview with Lion Feuchtwanger

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *