Date
Author
Беседовала Юлия КАНТОР; Доктор Исторических Наук
Source
Preserved copy
Translated material
You will know them by their deeds
— Vasily Stepanovich, your department, or rather, the division of the Cheka, which became its basis, was created 90 years ago. What functions did it initially perform and who became its first employees?
-- On September 1, 1918, the registration and reference department began working in the Cheka. Initially, his functions were quite modest: he kept records of those arrested, as well as cases that arose in the Cheka. There was no archive yet, since there was nothing else to put there: the structure was just being formed. The first head of our unit was Viktor Kingisepp, already well-known at that time, the investigator of the revolutionary tribunal under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the All-Russian Cheka. He investigated the case of the Left Socialist-Revolutionary rebellion, the Lockhart case and the attempt on Lenin's life. And in 1919, the former Latvian rifleman Jan Rotzen, who came from the Special Department of the Cheka, became the head of the department. The staff of the department consisted of only 14 people, their functions included recording and issuing certificates - both for the Cheka and for citizens who addressed various issues to the emergency commission.
— Over time, the structure and, obviously, the functions of your unit changed, which was reflected in its name. What is the historical and political logic of these changes?
— Already in May 1920, the registration and reference department was renamed the registration and statistical department and it was entrusted with all the statistical development of data on the Cheka and the management of this work for all gubchekas. In 1922, the Central Registration Department was created within the structure of the Secret Operational Directorate of the GPU. He was engaged in collecting and systematizing personal information about hiding and wanted citizens and persons put on trial and under investigation. And, of course, storage of archival files. In 1926, a department for investigation and prison supervision was added to the staff of the department. In July 1934, another department was formed within the department - the Special Archive. His task included systematizing the personal archives of Dzerzhinsky and Menzhinsky, processing orders, circulars and letters of the Cheka-OGPU. As paradoxical as it may seem, it was in the 1930s that more attention began to be paid to archival work. It was prescribed that “the accounting, storage and processing of archival materials of political and historical value, secret files and documents for all departments and departments of the NKVD should be concentrated in the Accounting and Archive Department of the GUGB NKVD of the USSR.” Later it became known as the 1st Special Department of the NKVD of the USSR. In addition to the traditional functions of operational accounting, statistics and storage of archival materials, the 1st Special Department was assigned new tasks: announcing and ending the search; storage and delivery of confiscated literature to the state fund. The unit carried out work on applications received from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Based on them, conclusions were drawn up for the commission on the application of amnesties; responses were being prepared to statements coming from prisons and camps. In 1954, the Accounting and Archival Department was created, then over the course of several decades there were some transformations; in 1991, the Bureau of Registration and Archival Funds arose, which became a department in 1993. Currently, about 80 people work in the FSB Central Archive - these are professional historians and archivists who know the specifics of our activities.
-- Documents from your archive - reports, messages to the country's leadership, reviews, etc. - a specific historical source. To what extent did they objectively reflect the situation in the country and to what extent was the perspective of “reflecting reality” dictated by the political order of the party?
-- The information department prepared reports on the state of affairs in the country, reviews, and comments.
- When was it created?
-- In 1921. The Kronstadt uprising revealed the unpreparedness of the political leadership to react to this excess. That is, the action threatening the new government matured, took shape and was well prepared within several months. But the party and government leadership knew nothing about it. And when the events began, I found myself practically helpless.
“I can’t believe that among the rebels there were no informants who promptly informed the authorities about the impending uprising.”
- I didn't say that. There was no information for senior political leadership that would give a complete picture of what was happening. It remained within the department, without being brought together and processed for analysis. Kronstadt was, in fact, the first precedent of mass discontent with Soviet power after the Civil War. Then the peasantry began to protest, and a workers’ protest was brewing. Information was collected by the OGPU throughout the country, using a variety of sources - from agents to the open press. And since 1921, this information began to be combined into reports and reviews for the country’s leadership. The volume of such a monthly review is on average 60 typewritten pages. There are just as many applications. The reports were sent to the entire senior political leadership, that is, there were several dozen copies. After reading the reviews, divided into several sections - city, village, political parties (while they existed), intelligentsia, clergy - one could get an objective idea of what was happening in the country. Another question is what measures the management took to change it and in what direction these changes were directed. The reviews were not preserved in the archives of the structures to which they were sent, since they were labeled “keep along with the code.” They were ordered to be destroyed two to a maximum of three months after receipt, which is what happened. But we kept them because we didn’t have any instructions to destroy them. The quality of this analytical work is revealed, in particular, in our collection “Top Secret”: Lubyanka to Stalin about the situation in the country. (1922--1934)". Eight volumes of the publication have already been published - until the thirtieth year. We are currently preparing a volume about the events of 1931. We have been conducting this documentary publication for several years together with the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
— The department you head has in recent years become a serious archaeographic center, surpassing similar activities of the largest federal archives in terms of the quantity and quality of documentary publications. Your name can be found among the authors of academic journals and participants in scientific, including international conferences. The role is unexpected for the head of one of the most non-public divisions of Lubyanka. Is this, so to speak, a departmental image project?
— I would say that this is a return to the good tradition established by our department back in 1918. (Smiles) . As an example: Peters published about 20 articles and interviews in central and regional newspapers from July 1918 to May 1919. Latsis for the same period - more than a dozen. In 1920, the publication of two volumes “The Red Book of the Cheka” was prepared, it included archival materials related to the disclosure of large counter-revolutionary organizations, mainly in Moscow, Petrograd and Yaroslavl: Savinkov’s “Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom”, the speech of the left Socialist Revolutionaries in Moscow in July 1918, the case of the explosion by anarchists of the building of the Moscow Committee of the RCP (b) in Moscow. True, such activities stopped quite quickly... So I, as a researcher and as a curator of archaeographic projects, am not the pioneer of this type of activity. Let our compatriots and foreign citizens know about us. According to the documents. And they have the opportunity to form an objective picture of our work and our history.
-- “History must be respected” - how do you interpret this thesis and how does it relate to the currently fashionable ideologeme “history must be proud”?
- To begin with, I would say that you need to know history. Otherwise, it’s difficult to figure out what to be proud of and what not to be proud of. Of course, there is a lot of heroism and a lot of tragedy in our history. If a person claims to respect history, then the first point of this respect I would put knowledge in its entirety - with grief and with joy.
-- During periods of political cataclysms, the history of the state inevitably suffers - “inconvenient” documents are confiscated or destroyed. Did such state (departmental) practice apply to your archive - for example, in the 20s-30s, 50s and 90s?
- Touched. In 1991, orders were issued to destroy certain documents. For example, some veterans in their memoirs spoke about how the documents of the notorious 5th, “dissident” KGB department were destroyed. Decisions were made not by the KGB leadership, but by the country's top leadership. If we talk about earlier periods, the most striking example is Katyn. Documents in our archives relating to important aspects of this action were destroyed.
-- Which?
- All files on Polish detainees as part of the Katyn Affair were destroyed. For each of several thousand Polish citizens - military, prosecutors, siege officers, priests, etc. - a case was opened in the NKVD. And they were shot, in fact, guided by one document - Beria’s memorandum, approved by the Politburo, on the need to sentence almost all of these detainees to capital punishment as inveterate enemies of Soviet power. And the “troikas”, which conducted the so-called “trial” even without calling the accused and passed death sentences that were not subject to appeal, were only a procedural formality.
- You recently published an array of previously secret documents, also directly related to the Katyn crime - the deportations of Poles after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
- We were repeatedly reproached for publishing the collection “Deportation of Polish citizens from the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in 1940.” They say that the publication of such “unflattering” documents only adds fuel to the fire. I am convinced that we made the right decision in implementing this project. It is important not only to introduce unknown documents into scientific circulation, but also to rid society - Russian and Polish - of some obsessive political myths and historical distortions. Voices were heard in Poland that during those deportations the flower of the nation was forcibly resettled - the best intellectual forces of independent Poland, which ceased to exist after the signing of the pact. In Polish historical literature and political speeches the number of resettled people was stated as a million people. Together with our Polish colleagues, we were able to identify a reliable figure - 292 thousand 513 people. Also a huge number, also a tragedy. But since it turned out to be less than what was usual for Polish society, we were also accused of speculation from that side. After all, exaggerations can be beneficial to certain political forces... The Soviet state security agencies can be blamed for anything, but not for their inability to count. In the top secret documents: intended for an extremely narrow circle of leadership - certificates on the number of trains departing from the border to the east, on the number of people who showed up at registration points, on criminal cases opened, there could not be any serious errors. The control was the strictest. At the presentation of the book in Warsaw, the question was asked how reliable and comprehensive the data presented in it were. I asked Polish colleagues with whom we worked on the publication to answer it. And they answered: yes, these documents can be trusted completely, they are reliable. By the way, we left the priority right to select documents for the collection to Polish historians. So that we are not accused that we did not want to include this or that document, that we “retouched” this or that fact.
— Were there any attempts to destroy any documents from your archive relating to the Great Patriotic War?
— In the 50s and 60s, there were quite active calls to destroy all filtration files on Soviet citizens returning from fascist captivity, concentration camps and ghettos, from occupied territory, emerging from encirclement. It's no secret that during the Great Patriotic War, filtration points were created in almost all our armies. And in the depths of the country there are filtration camps. All military personnel and civilians who emerged from encirclement or from occupied territory, as well as those captured by our opponents, were subject to state inspection. A filtration case was opened for each such person. From the point of view of an archivist, the matter is quite meager. It contained a questionnaire, a survey protocol and a minimum of documents. At filtration points, the inspection was carried out in a short time - 3-5 days, no more. Millions of such cases were filed. They were called to be destroyed.
- For what purpose?
- So that there is no dark spot in the biography of a Soviet citizen - being in captivity or in occupied territory. After all, such information cast a shadow on a person, even if after passing the filtering he was above suspicion. It took the archivists of that time great efforts to preserve these materials. In the 90s, Germany and Austria began to pay compensation to Soviet citizens who were deported during the war for forced labor, who ended up in concentration camps, prisoner of war camps, and citizens of several other categories. It turned out that often there is no other evidence of being in captivity, except for filtration files. This is how these cases turned out to be in demand and brought benefits.
- Those who insisted on preserving these documents could not imagine that they would be in demand in such an unexpected capacity. What were they guided by then?
- Of course, they could not assume that filtration cases would be needed to pay compensation or for rehabilitation. But there is a principle - what is stored in the archive cannot and should not be destroyed.
— Have there never been calls to destroy archival investigative files from the times of Stalinism?
-- No. Of course, these documents make an extremely difficult impression on both professional researchers and relatives of the repressed. But they are the most valuable source for the study of Stalinism and the cult of personality. Whatever the document, no matter what dramatic plots of the history of the state or a particular citizen, or the relationship of the state to the citizen it reveals, it must be preserved. As for access to these documents, there is a law on the rehabilitation of victims of political repression, according to which the repressed themselves, their relatives or persons who have a notarized power of attorney from them can familiarize themselves with these files.
— Didn’t NKVD documents disappear during the war?
— You know, there is such a myth: archival and investigative files were destroyed in the fall of 1941, when the Germans were advancing on Moscow. The NKVD, they say, could not evacuate the archives, did not have time. And fearing that Moscow would be surrendered, the security officers destroyed documents day and night. I myself had to hear “true stories” that fires were burning in the courtyards of the NKVD, and the ashes from burned documents covered Dzerzhinsky Square knee-deep.
-- Beautiful.
-- Very. I can say with full responsibility: not a single file was burned. Of course, they burned something - mostly routine office work, which was of neither historical nor scientific value. But all archival documents, including investigative files, were evacuated long before the Germans reached Moscow, back in July 1941. And it was our unit that was involved in the evacuation. Employees evacuated archival materials to Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, and Ufa. In 1944, all this returned to Moscow to the Lubyanka safe and sound.
-- You declassify and publish unique documents concerning the most painful subjects of domestic and often foreign history, often changing stereotypical ideas about them. These documents, or rather their authenticity, raise doubts among a certain part of historians and politicians. How do you explain this paradox?
- Sometimes it happens straight out of Stanislavsky: “I don’t believe it!” Well, what can I answer to a person who does not provide any argument in this case? As a rule, a negative reaction is due to the fact that this person has already changed about this or that event or fact, or, conversely, confirms that such a fact took place, when I would like to have no existing.
- Recently I stumbled upon the eastern saying, formulated more than a thousand years ago: "The contagious disease of our time is to confuse knowledge with beliefs." Soviet historical science instilled in society this particular “disease”.
- A significant part of the society, for known reasons, is, in principle, confident that nothing true, reliable can come out of the walls of Lubyanka. There is another motive: 70 years, our society has been brought up on well -defined sources and, so to speak, facts. Several generations have grown. It is difficult and naive to assume that the emergence of new, undisputed materials from previously completely inaccessible archives instantly transforms the prevailing stereotypes of consciousness. It's a long way. And very difficult.
- Researchers have recently encountered- both at the federal level and on the regional- with a situation where access to documents in the archives is becoming more and more difficult. There are precedents and “reverse classification” of documents. What, in your opinion, is it connected with?
- I cannot talk about other archives, I will be responsible for my own. Every year, for consideration by the Central Expert Commission, which is deigned of documents, we submit approximately 190 thousand documents. Of these, about two -thirds are declassified. In order to classify the document, you need to go through the reverse procedure that ends again with the decision of the Central Expert Commission. For seven years that I have been leading the registration and archival funds, we have not prepared a single application for reverse classification.
-How can a researcher gain access to the documents of your archive, if these are not archival investigative cases, but, say, reports on the situation in the country, orders of special services, any reference materials?
- He must send us a request with an indication on what topic, on what events or personalities he would like to receive documents. We will consider such a request, and if this does not contradict the specifics of our activity, we can talk about the provision of documents. Of course, first of all, we work with researchers representing any scientific institution.
- By allowing, in accordance with the legislation, researchers work with the documents of the Central Archive of the FSB, you are not safe from the situation where the researcher who studied them combines or interprets- for the sake of his own concept or his own worldview- the information received that it becomes misinformation. What are you doing in such cases?
- If the author, so to speak, peculiarly interprets the information contained in our documents provided to him, we are simply entering: we publish these documents. So that people can draw conclusions themselves.
- How many Russian citizens are addressing you? What topics are most interested in researchers?
- Every year we receive more than two thousand requests. About two -thirds of them are somehow connected with the political repressions of the Stalin's time. If in the early 90s the victims themselves or their children addressed us, now-grandchildren and great-grandchildren. About a third of requests concerns the Great Patriotic War. A number of appeals come from our former employees: they are mainly asked to confirm work in the bodies. Of the "average annual" two thousand, the requests of foreign citizens are about 10%. We receive about two thousand requests per year from various institutions. Research requests is a small part. Still, great interest among historians remain in the analytical materials of the special services about the development of the socio-political situation in the country in different periods. Many requests come to us on the problems of the history of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.
- Your archive is engaged in ensuring the activities of various departments of Lubyanka. Is there a period after which “hot” documents get from operational units to you?
- As a rule, this happens shortly after this or that event ceases to be relevant for our department. Our practice shows that “hot”, as you put it, can become documents or collections of materials that seem to have long become the property of history. There is such an aphorism: the future is a story that will begin tomorrow.