Alexander Ginzburg

A journalist and publisher, compiler of the first samizdat collections.

Alexander Ginzburg compiled a collection of documents entitled ‘The White Book’ in the case of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel. After the publication of ‘The White Book’, he was convicted on charges of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.

1960s

Dissidents Poets Trial of the Four

Reading time: 7 minutes.

The final statement

‘You may put me in prison, send me to a camp, but I am certain that no honest person will condemn me.’

I I want to begin my final statement by expressing my gratitude for the fact that the charge of personal dishonesty has been dropped — the accusation that, having written a letter to Kosygin in which I set out my point of view on the Sinyavsky and Daniel trial, I did not send this letter to its addressee. This accusation was insulting.

Then, much was said at this trial about the NTS. I believe that the opinion of the state prosecutor regarding this anti-Soviet émigré organization is not disputed by anyone. I only wish to thank the state prosecutor for separating us from those who killed, butchered, and exterminated Jews, and for the fact that these accusations were not directed at us.

Now I will turn to the substance of the case. At this trial, on January 9, 1968, I already tried to speak about my views and about the motives that led me to compile a collection of materials on the Sinyavsky and Daniel case. I will not repeat all of that now. I want only once again briefly to speak about the public reaction to the trial of Sinyavsky and Daniel, about the atmosphere in which I compiled my collection, which now forms the basis of the accusation against me.

When on January 9 I tried to speak about this and compared the public reaction throughout the world to the Sinyavsky and Daniel trial with the reaction to the persecution of Greek democrats, laughter broke out in the courtroom, more like growling. Nevertheless, I will speak of this again. The prosecutor spent a long time here trying to convince us that the NTS does not oppose aggression in Vietnam. What does this have to do with the collection of materials on the Sinyavsky and Daniel case?

I can refer to the first ninety pages of the collection lying before you. There is, for example, a protest signed, among others, by Norman, who is now lying with bayonet wounds received near the Pentagon during a demonstration against American aggression in Vietnam. In the same collection there are protests signed by many other progressive figures of the world. The state prosecutor may perhaps be right when speaking about the NTS’s attitude toward the war in Vietnam. But this is in no way connected with the collection in which I gathered all the materials accessible to me on the Sinyavsky and Daniel case in order to present an objective picture of this trial, the reaction of world public opinion, and to call for a review of this case.

I am accused of having included in my collection materials which the court considers anti-Soviet. I am speaking of the leaflet signed ‘Resistance’ and of the ‘Letter to an Old Friend’. Unfortunately, the defense made almost no attempt to refute this view of the prosecution and the court. I am compelled to speak about this because if the court recognizes these documents as criminal, then in the future they cannot be defended by anyone, as happened with Sinyavsky’s article ‘What Is Socialist Realism’. That is precisely why, as the compiler of this collection, I consider it my duty to speak about these two documents.

First, about the leaflet ‘Resistance’. What it is about is known to the court. The facts set out in it correspond to reality, as confirmed by witnesses, for example, Kushev. There was not a single witness statement claiming that these facts were fabrication or slander. During the court proceedings this leaflet was repeatedly quoted, in particular the words: ‘The ferocity of the dogs only underscores the inclinations of the trainers.’ This leaflet does not speak of Soviet power as a whole. It speaks only of those KGB officers who dispersed the rally for openness and then expelled forty students from the university who had taken part in that rally. These actions seem unlawful to me. If the court finds them lawful, responsibility for that rests with the court. I have already given explanations on this matter and said that, from my point of view, the rally in defense of Sinyavsky and Daniel was entirely lawful, and that no one had the right to expel its participants from the university. At the same time, all the actions of the KGB officers were carried out in a грубая and unacceptable manner, and they cast a dark stain on the reputation of this venerable organization. Thus, I believe that this leaflet may be harsh, but it is not directed against Soviet power, only against the actions of individual KGB employees. Moreover, the leaflet contains no slander, no distortion of facts; it merely reproaches representatives of the authorities for one specific action. I ask the court to exclude this document from the category of anti-Soviet.

Now about the ‘Letter to an Old Friend’. I have already said that I do not know who its author is, but I believe that this is a person who lived through the horrors of Stalin’s concentration camps. He writes: ‘You and I — we know the Stalinist time.’ And he speaks of that time in harsh terms. But this is insufficient grounds for declaring this document anti-Soviet. In the speech of KGB Chairman Andropov devoted to the fiftieth anniversary of the KGB it is said: ‘We must not forget the time when political adventurers wormed their way into the leadership of our organs.’ This is precisely what the author of the ‘Letter to an Old Friend’ calls for. Another quotation from this letter was also cited here: ‘Gorky put forward the cannibalistic slogan — if the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed.’ First, this refers to the time I have just spoken about. Second, criticism of one, even a major, writer is not criticism of the entire government. A person who has lived through the horrors of that time cannot help but be disturbed when it suddenly seems to him that in present-day life he sees relapses of the past, and then expressing this concern in harsh form is entirely legitimate. I assert that the ‘Letter to an Old Friend’ contains no slander against the Soviet system and no call for its overthrow, and I ask the court not to qualify this work as anti-Soviet.

As for the point of the indictment connected with my handing several newspaper clippings of anti-Soviet content to Gubanov, my lawyer presented a full and thorough argument, and I will not repeat it.

As for the allegation that the collection of materials on the Sinyavsky and Daniel case compiled by me was, with my knowledge, passed by Galanskov to the NTS, it has also been sufficiently convincingly and well argued that this version was not only unconfirmed, but contradicts the facts established during the court investigation.

Thus, I am accused of having compiled a tendentious collection of materials on the Sinyavsky and Daniel case. I do not consider myself guilty. I acted as I did because I am convinced of my own rightness. My lawyer asked for a just sentence for me. I know that you will convict me, because not a single person charged under Article 70 has yet been acquitted. I will calmly go to the camp to serve my term. You may put me in prison, send me to a camp, but I am certain that no honest person will condemn me. I ask the court for one thing only — to give me a sentence no shorter than Galanskov’s (laughter in the courtroom, shouts: ‘More!’ ‘More!’).

During Ginzburg’s speech, Judge Mironov repeatedly interrupted him and reprimanded him.

12 January 1968

Moscow City Court, Moscow, USSR.

Source: ‘My final statement: Speeches of the Defendants at Court Trials of 1966–1974’.