MOSCOW TRIAL
235
have happened under Stalin, since people were never brought to open
trial until the authorities were absolutely certain that there would be
no departure from the script prepared in advance. It
has
been sug–
gested that the plea of
not
guilty
on this occasion
is
evidence of a gen–
eral improvement in the administration of Soviet justice. One could
find better instances to illustrate an improvement in the Soviet judicial
system-but this is a special case and proves nothing, except that Sin–
yavsky and Daniel perhaps hoodwinked their interrogators in order to
get as open a trial 'as possible. This may also be why Sinyavsky got the
maximum sentence demanded by the prosecutor (whereas Daniel, during
the course of the trial, apparently admitted partial guilt, and hence got
a lesser sentence, even though his work was demonstrably-in the eyes
of one of the "public accusers," Madame Kedrina-more
'~anti-Soviet.")
Sinyavsky totally denied his guilt in his final speech, and thus broke
the usual bargain made during the preliminary interrogation, according
to which the defendant will receive a lighter sentence if he facilitates
the task of the prosecution by confessing in open court.
2
The Aftermath
There is no need to describe in detail the foreign reaction to the
trial.
The following will suffice as an example of comparatively re–
strained comment:
The Soviet press attacks on the accused before the trial assumed
their guilt. So did the Tass versions of what went on in the
court. Since no full and objective version of the proceedings
of the trial has appeared, outside opinion cannot form a proper
judgment on the proceedings. The court has found the accused
guilty, but the full evidence for the prosecution and defence
which led the court to this conclusion has not been made public.
Justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, this cannot be said in the case of this trial.
These words were spoken by the general secretary of the British Com–
munist Party, John Gollan
(Daily Worker,
February 15).
Even Louis Aragon, who has never before in public deviated from
his unswerving loyalty to Moscow, could not contain himself, and after
a consultation with the head of the French Communist Party, Waldeck–
Rochet, issued a statement, which was prominently printed in
Humanite,
2. I must emphasize that this is no reflection on Daniel, only on the con–
duct of the case. Daniel stood by Sinyavsky throughout, and in regretting
that
he
had
rent his wor'k abroad, he was not seeking more favorable treatment for
himself.
