CC BY
25
У КНИЖНОЙ ПОЛКИ Book Reviews
N.G. Kats and C.J. Storella
PERSISTENCE AND COURAGE DURING THE YEARS OF STALIN'S TERROR: ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE ARTISTIC-DOCUMENTARY
ESSAY
"THE CASE OF YAKOV LIMANSKY"*
Н.Г. Кац, К.Дж. Сторэлла
Стойкость и мужество в годы сталинского террора: К публикации художественно-документального очерка «Дело Якова Лиманского»
The approach of the one-hundred year anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution provides an opportunity not only to tally up the results of Russia's turbulent twentieth-century history and to analyze its fundamental developments - Stalinism and the terror in particular - but also to consider the fates of those defenseless individuals who for no obvious reason fell into the crushing machinery of this terror and who battled not just to survive, but also to save their loved ones. Interest in the fate of the individual during the years of Stalinist terror, and the efforts of people to find their "niche" and thereby preserve their reason in this seeming madness, has been an important feature of Russian fiction ever since the so-called "thaw" that followed Stalin's death. Sixty years after his first appearance, A.S. Solzhenitsyn's hero, Ivan Denisovich, for example, remains for many the definitive portrait of the Gulag prisoner.
Working with American students, the authors of the present article constantly hear the same question from students when discussing Solzhenitsyn's book: "What are the human qualities that one must possess to endure and to survive this type of ordeal?" Of course, it is as difficult to provide a definitive answer to this question as it is to imagine oneself in similar circumstances. Nonetheless, one cannot but note that fiction, like memoirs and historiographic resources on the victims of Stalinist terror, possesses enormous educational power that compel the reader not only to empathize, but also, and most of all, to think critically.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that American historians tradi-
* The authors wish to express their deepest gratitude to Professor Wendy Goldman (Carnegie Mellon University) for her advice and help in editing this article.
166
tionally held the opinion that terror in the USSR emerged as a result of the anti-democratic ideology to which the Bolsheviks allegedly adhered. They believed that from the moment they seized power, the Bolsheviks undertook an assault against pre-revolutionary civil society and its institutions, and that terror enabled them to consolidate power in their hands and to suppress "dissension" in every strata of the population. As a result, for a long time the attention of American researchers primarily focused on the activities of party leaders and they wrote precious little about the terror's effect on the lives of the principal groups that comprised the population of the USSR.
Researchers in the United States only gradually began to consider the terror in the full context of Soviet history in the 1920s and 1930s taking into consideration questions of class and regional interests.1 This approach was greatly facilitated by the opening of Soviet archives in the 1990s and enabled historians to attend to the long saga that began in the early 1920s with large-scale operations in cities against so-called "socially harmful" elements and that saw the introduction of "expedited" trials before the notorious troikas.
Nevertheless, until recently, the fate of ordinary Soviet citizens who fell victim to the terror machine has remained outside the frame of reference. For this reason, the appearance of the first research in this direction cannot but generate a new discussion on the goals of the terror, its evolution, totalitarianism, and the deformation of the very idea of socialism and social equality in the USSR.
The heroes of this research are rank-and-file party members, non-communists, workers, engineers, administrators and office workers, heads of production, all those who were not only carriers, but also victims of a political culture of violence that sought out enemies and destroyed the lives and destinies of anyone identified as such.
Recent works, notably the publications of Wendy Goldman, clearly prove that not only the organizers and leaders of production, together with the local party apparatuses, but also ordinary workers at the bench and their families became victims of this policy, and experienced the full weight of the terror. At times it is difficult to say whose fate was worse, those who suffered the rigors of logging, mining, and other forms of forced labor in the far-flung camps of the GULAG, or their spouses and children who were hurled from their normal life, exiled, and often separated from one another.2
Grasping the "human factor" imbedded within the crucial moments of the Soviet Union's tragic historic panorama has always been, and remains, the most important principle for Russian historiography. Although rare even today, unique stories of individual opposition to, and victory over, the Stalinist machinery of terror do occasionally come to light.
It is for this reason that the essay, "The Case of Yakov Limansky," published in 2009 in the Moscow journal, Novyy istoricheskiy vestnik (The New Historical Bulletin), is of such interest.3 An expanded version of the essay appeared as, "The Case of Yakov Limansky: Everyday Operations of the Saratov UNKVD (1936 - 1938)," in the 2011 anniversary
collection of Novyy istoricheskiy vestnik.4 The essay's authors - the well-known journalist, A.I. Simonov, and the historians, A.A. Simonov and S.V. Karpenko - employ an artistic-documentary format to tell the story of Yakov Limansky and his unusual fate.
Yakov Limansky supported the revolution and faithfully served its ideals, yet was engulfed by the tidal wave of the Great Terror. He was arrested by the organs of state security in 1937 and accused, like thousands of others, of organizing an underground, anti-Soviet group of wreckers. Well-educated and possessing extraordinary powers of will and self-control, he did not succumb to fear and self-doubt in circumstances designed to instill just such emotions. Secure in his innocence, Yakov still remained unbroken after a year of investigation and prison. Despite the sophisticated methods used against him by experienced investigators, he refused to admit his guilt thereby saving his own life and the lives of his subordinates.
The essay is based on materials uncovered in Russian central state archives and in archives located in Astrakhan and Saratov oblasts. Through this wealth of documents Yakov's thorny path, from his birth on 6 October 1896 into the peasant Limansky clan in Malorossiya, to his arrest in the wee hours of 21 November 1937 can be traced.
The Limansky family was from the Poltava area. During the reign of Nicholas I, the Limanskys moved to Novouzensk uezd establishing, along with their fellow countrymen a new settlement that they named Staraya Poltavka. In an effort to preserve their roots, the Limanskys continued to speak in their native tongue, wore colorful clothing, and maintained their national traditions.5
Yakov Limansky's parents died while he was still young, victims of a malaria outbreak. His father's younger brother took the orphan in and raised him putting him to work immediately on the family farm. In the village school, the boy mastered the Russian language and became an avid reader. The essay relates the changes that occurred in Staraya Pol-tavka with the start of the First World War. As in all Russian villages, the mobilization of the men folk into the active army transformed the settlement into a "female kingdom." At this time Yakov married Varvara, a girl from a neighboring street, and together they settled into the dilapidated home of his parents. He labored on a parcel granted to him by the village community. Soon Yakov and Varvara had a son whom they named Ivan.
At the beginning of 1916, Yakov was conscripted into the tsarist army. Educated and bright, Yakov was sent to Saratov where the 4th Reserve Artillery Brigade was stationed. After several months of intensive preparation involving the study of regulations, weapons, and practical field exercises, the cadets comprising the division were transferred to the South-Western Front. Here, the division took part in the bloody Brusilov breakthrough, and Yakov, in command of a gun crew, fought honorably. In 1917, the division, having acquitted itself well in Galicia and the Carpathians, was transferred to the Western front becoming part of the 2nd army.6
Like all soldiers, Yakov cheerfully greeted the February Revolution,
and by the summer of 1917, he had joined the Bolsheviks. With the victory of the October Revolution, his brigade, under the command of Ensign Krylenko, took part in the taking of the imperial headquarters in Mogilev. The battery in which Yakov served became part of a special unit entrusted with the defense of the headquarters. Yakov was demobilized in February 1918, but in May he left to fight in the Civil war on the Eastern front where his battery was attached to the 25th rifle division commanded by the legendary Chapaev. It was here that he became a candidate member of the Russian Communist Party and was sent to the party school attached to the political department of the Southern Group of the Eastern front.
Later Yakov fought on the Eastern front together with his younger brother Peter. In spring 1920, the Chapaev division was transferred to the South-Western front, enabling Yakov to participate in the liberation of Kiev and other Ukrainian cities. At the end of the Civil war, Yakov was sent for additional artillery training in Kiev. Before the end of 1921, the cadets were in pursuit of Nestor Makhno's well-trained bands that, according to the essay's authors, "encompassed almost all rural Ukraine -wherever there was a village there was a band." As the essay emphasizes, through all this, Yakov, who had grown up in the village, could not avoid casting a critical eye on the legality of grain requisitioning. The political courses he attended were designed to intensify students' ideological ardor. Likewise, the plan of study included subjects like "the struggle with banditry," and participation in raids against so-called "bandits," undertaken with the participation of the Cheka and the internal security troops were viewed as a practical part of students' training.7
By the time he had finished his studies, Yakov Limansky had received a military and a general education that opened before him the chance to rise quickly through the ranks of the Red Army. He, however, dreamed of returning to his rural roots and working the land. So, in June 1924, he decided to demobilize and return to his home in Staraya Poltavka which had become a raion (district) center in the newly created Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.
The experience and education he had received in the army served Yakov well, and in Staraya Poltavka he soon became a party member and was assigned to work as a senior militiaman in the administrative department of the local executive committee directly subordinate to the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR. The following year, Yakov was named an instructor in the executive committee, and in the summer of 1926 was sent to the two-year Soviet-Party school of the Volga German Republic. His graduation attestation enumerates 18 different subjects he successfully studied there. This preparation helped in saving his own life ten years later when he was arrested by the NKVD. Knowledge of economics, agronomy, propaganda, and other subjects enabled him to effectively defend himself and to prove his innocence.8
The authors also discuss the political climate in the USSR during the years Yakov attended the soviet-party school. By the end of the 1920s, hopes in the victory of international socialist revolution had collapsed,
and it became clear that the USSR would have to build socialism on its own. In addition, as is well known, following Lenin's death sharp factional struggles erupted at the apex of power over the succession to the late leader and the course socialist construction should follow.9 By late 1927, Politburo support for the New Economic Policy seriously began to fracture leading the Central Committee to initiate actions that would ultimately result in the wholesale collectivization of agriculture and the destruction of independent peasant farming throughout the country.
At this historically fateful moment, the prospect of a rapid advance to the top rungs of the Soviet state apparatus suddenly opened before Limansky, whose military service, administrative experience, and party education endowed him with impeccable credentials. It was a path that would lead, however, to a fall and a terrible ordeal.10
The essay traces Yakov's work in the Soviet organs of the Pokrovsky executive committee, and his appointment as chairman of the "Komintern" collective farm situated on the outskirts of Pokrovsky. At this time, his personal life also took a positive turn when he met Anna Zolotukhina, a teacher at the local school. Soon a daughter, Iza, was born to the couple. Yakov worshipped her, but did not forget his son, Ivan, from his first marriage. He cared for him and tried to spend his free time with him.
In December 1931, as collectivization and famine spread through the land, Yakov was removed from work and expelled from the party "for right opportunist activity on the question of grain requisitioning and for carrying out a kulak line." On this occasion, however, the truth quickly triumphed, and Yakov was soon working in the Pokrovsky city executive committee, and restored to membership in the VKP(b) by the Party Collegium of the Volga German Republic. Shortly after this, he was transferred to the people's court and entered the nomenklatura of the RSFSR People's Commissariat of Justice. In December 1932, Yakov was appointed procurator of Pokrovsky canton whose function was to observe the maintenance of legality in places of detention.11
This appointment and his subsequent transfer, in 1934, to the post of chief of the Engels factory corrective-labor colony was an important step in his professional career. He once again entered the service of the NKVD at a time of acute internal party struggle. Within three years he would be arrested, confined to prison, and subjected to interrogation.12
Limansky was now working in the city of Balashov on the outskirts of which stood the corrective-labor colony whose detainees, according to the documents presented in the essay, were primarily former collective and state farmers sentenced to terms of from three to seven years for work-related crimes and crimes involving domestic violence. From his very first day of work, Yakov, given his peasant background, could see that the colony was a complete shambles: there were no trained agronomists, the silos were inadequate, cows were infected with brucellosis, etc. In addition, the Saratov oblast UNKVD ignored the requirements of the colony. The UNKVD saw its main task as the recruiting of agents from among the administration and guards of the colony, as well as among the detainees.13 Yakov tried to revamp the work and productivity of the
colony. He also saw to the leisure time of the detainees, trying to relate to them as human beings.
However, the overall political situation in the country, particularly after the February-March 1937 Central Committee plenum, was tense. Stalin, Yezhov, and other state and party leaders at the plenum emphasized the intensifying class struggle in the country. They claimed that opposition to socialist construction was increasingly taking the form of wrecking and sabotage by "double-dealing" internal enemies. For any official engaged in production, Limansky included, this meant that any failure or disruption in achieving plan goals could now be considered a political crime.14
Limansky and his NKVD colleagues soon felt the sting of political developments in the center. At least once a month, Yakov was called to meetings of the Saratov UNKVD where People's Commissar Yezhov's instructions regarding the situation in the oblast were made known and reports given on the unmasking of alleged enemies. Within a short time, the entire leadership of the Saratov UNKVD was placed under arrest, and a new chief, Ya. Agranov, Yezhov's former deputy, arrived from Moscow. Soon after the execution of Marshal Tukhachevsky and other military leaders in June, however, Agranov, himself, was arrested and yet another official, A. Stromin, took up the reins of the Saratov UNKVD.15
The authors detail how the so-called "troikas," created on Yezhov's orders, were made to accelerate the review of cases involving "enemies of the people," absent the accused and counsels for the defense. Most of those convicted were shot; only a few "lucky ones" received terms of 15 to 20 years in the camps.
Among the "enemies of the people" were individuals whom Yak-ov and his wife Anna knew well as decent, respectable citizens. Yakov, therefore, understood that such a fate might be in store for him, and he began to prepare himself and Anna for the worst. He began to instruct her seriously on what should and should not be done in case of his arrest. Above all, he counseled, do not file an appeal, do not go to the NKVD, do not attempt to meet with the investigator or the procurator, do not correspond with relatives. He advised Anna to rent a room on the outskirts of Balashov, not to look for work teaching school, but to seek employment as a custodian, cleaning woman, or dishwasher. As events would show, Anna followed her husband's advice and this not only helped her, but saved her life and that of her daughter.16
The authors describe how the clouds now thickened over Limansky's head. Seeking compromising information on the independent-minded head of the corrective-labor colony, the plenipotentiary of the Saratov UNKVD, Baryshev, kept busy investigating instances of diversion and wrecking in production that were becoming more and more frequent in the colony. He sought out those dissatisfied with the leader of the colony, collecting compromising facts about them, and subjecting them to the pressure and authority of the NKVD. He succeeded. Yakov Limansky was arrested on 21 November 1937. The search of Limansky's flat at the time of his arrest turned up no compromising material, rather it attested
to his upright conduct. Among his meager possessions the report noted an iron bed, a bookcase containing books and gramophone records, and one luxury item - a gramophone.
Baryshev conducted the first interrogations himself. It is difficult to say if he felt any sympathy for Limansky. One does notice when reading the report that the investigator, who was quite familiar with the details of Limansky's educational background, indicated that in Limansky's own words he had a lower-level education. Perhaps this appealed to the vanity of the uneducated investigator. It should be noted, that from the very beginning to the very end of his ordeal, Limansky never admitted his guilt. It seems that the success of this defense strategy during the interrogations was informed by his work experience as a judge, and his knowledge of the tactics and methods the NKVD employed to pressure those they arrested.
Yakov had prepared his defense well. He knew not to be fearful. One could admit one's own flaws, but taking responsibility for the blunders of others was out of the question. Any interaction with subordinates regarding political matters had to be categorically denied. Most important, he needed to avoid the trap laid by the investigator, and to always deny the existence of any prearranged plan for group action that the investigator could depict as sabotage or wrecking. Limansky understood that it was dangerous to offend the investigator's pride and place him in a ridiculous position.17 Still, as the authors emphasize, "in Limansky's spot a fainthearted, less resolute person would have yielded to the pressure and threats, and given in to the temptation to save his own life at the cost of admitting to [crimes] that he did not commit, and even at the cost of false testimony against "confederates," and within a week another case would be closed."18
Readers of the essay will follow all the twists and turns of the investigation with extreme interest as the "servitors of Themis," those executors of the Yezhovshchina who were capable of any crime in pursuit of promotion or additional stripes, and whose hands were stained with the blood of innocent victims, parade before them. The authors effectively delve into the psychology of the NKVD investigators and apparatchiks each of whom was aware that their status might change in a deadly instant from arbiter of individual destinies to victim. This is a particularly fascinating aspect of the essay.
One of the climactic moments of the investigation comes when Yakov Limansky encounters his former coworkers who had also been arrested for "wrecking" at the corrective-labor colony. The meeting occurred ac-cidently when, due to a lapse on the part of the supervisors of isolation bloc of the Saratov UNKVD Prison No. 1, all five were placed in the same cell. (The case, it is worth noting, largely took place in Saratov since Baryshev, the investigator in Balashov, had failed to elicit "a sincere confession" from Limansky.) Yakov took advantage of the opportunity not only to lift the spirits of his former subordinates, but also to explain to them the dangers of an investigation seeking to convict the accused under article 58 of the RSFSR Criminal Code: "the organization of acts
directed at the preparation or conduct of counterrevolutionary crimes."19 He impressed on his prison mates the need to deny all accusations, not to testify against anyone else no matter how the investigators threaten, and to refrain from signing the written record of the investigation.
The interrogation in Saratov proceeded with particular severity over the course of five days. Investigators employed the conveyor technique, succeeding one another as they worked over each defendant for hours on end. They failed, however, to extract an admission of guilt, and none of the accused signed the protocols of the interrogation. Nevertheless, on 20 December 1937, Limansky was informed that his guilt had been proved and that the case had been transferred to the judicial investigators.20 Yak-ov used his last meeting with Baryshev to declare that he had been confined in a cell with other accomplices in the case and that one of them, Nebasov, had told his prison mates that in the course of the investigation, under pressure of the investigator, he had given false testimony, and that if the affair should go to court he would deny everything.
The authors try to answer the question, "just what saved Limansky?" They point to the unexpected hand of Yakov Genkin, a senior major of state security, who began working in the Vecheka-OGPU apparatus during Feliks Dzerzhinsky's tenure as chairman. Genkin's appointment to the Saratov UNKVD in 1937 saved him from the outbreak of arrests occurring in Moscow but, as an experienced apparatchik, Genkin could see how the case against Limansky and his colleagues had the potential to ricochet and turn him into a target for "unmasking." The Saratov chekists were eager to report to their superiors in Moscow that they had discovered enemies of the people among their own colleagues. If established, Limansky and his co-conspirators' guilt could provide Genkin's enemies the ammunition to bring him down, too.
For this reason the authors come to the conclusion that Genkin, most likely, managed to convince his boss not to send the case to a troika. Thus, they reason that Genkin, by saving himself, also alleviated the circumstance in which Limansky and his "co-conspirators" found themselves and enhanced their chances of escaping death.21
In early 1938, the chairman of the Saratov okrug tribunal of internal security troops, after thoroughly examining the case and finding it of enormous social significance, decided to review it in open court declaring, "Those who reeducate criminals must also be educated."22 The hearing proceeded unhurriedly in a club in the corrective-labor camp in Ba-lashov. The tribunal members became convinced of the lack of evidence of anti-Soviet agitation and wrecking against the accused. However, the case was passed for further inquiry to the military procuracy, and the accused were returned to Saratov prison No. 1.23So, the case was sent back to the military procuracy of Saratov oblast, but under a new investigator, Neronov. Failing to get an admission of guilt from Limansky, he subjected one of his coworkers, Pliavin, with torture and threatened to arrest his wife. Under Neronov's pressure, Pliavin gave false testimony and signed the protocol.
During this time, Limansky sent out three appeals about violations
of legality and his rights during the investigation. Fearing for his own skin, Genkin once more entered the case and took control over it. On his insistence, agricultural specialists were brought in to provide expert testimony that disproved the charge of wrecking. Genkin then sent the case, including the expert testimony, on to the military procuracy of the NKVD internal security troops of Saratov oblast.
The essay also discusses the changes in the security organs that occurred in 1938 following the ouster of Yezhov as NKVD head and the naming of L.P. Beria as his successor. A purge of the local NKVDs followed. In Saratov, Genkin's friend and direct superior, Stromin, was arrested and N. Kiselev, who had moved on to the central NKVD apparatus in the summer of 1937, arrived as acting head of the UNKVD at the height of the repressions.24
These events could not but affect Yakov Limansky's fate. The military procuracy lifted the article 58 charges against him and his "co-conspirators," changing them to article 193, section 17, point a: "criminally negligent relation to duty." The procuracy also changed his terms of confinement. Yakov was released from custody 20 December 1938 on the condition that he would remain in Balashov until his case was heard.25 Within a month, on 20 January 1939, the military tribunal of the internal security troops of the NKVD of Volga okrug, Saratov oblast, heard his case and those of his former subordinates. Limansky, like many others, prepared diligently for the hearing, refuting the accusations with documented facts and figures26. Here his knowledge of economy acquired in the party school was especially useful. Moreover, Yakov did not blanch from pointing to the many violations that had occurred during the investigation including, for example, the five-day interrogation by "conveyor" without any written record.
The military tribunal completed its review of the case in four days. In its decision it found that not one of the charges had been confirmed and that the case had not uncovered a single punishable act. All the defendants in the case were found not guilty and acquitted.27
Of significant interest in understanding the political processes that occurred within the NKVD after Yezhov's removal are the accompanying documents from the so-called special consideration compiled by the chairman of the military tribunal, among which are documents on the work of the Department of Local Confinement of the Saratov UNKVD. These documents confirm instances of crude violations of socialist legality as well as the illegal methods employed during investigations.
The reader will also discover the ultimate fates of several of the NKVD personnel involved in the investigation. At the very moment of Limansky's release from prison, his former investigator, Baryshev, was arrested and shot. Genkin was released from the NKVD and expelled from the party. However, he remained alive. He returned to Moscow and was later reinstated in the party. He enjoyed a long life, dying at the age
of 82.28
Also of interest are the photographs of Yakov Limansky both before and after his arrest. Viewing these, the reader will quickly realize that 13
months confinement sapped his health, giving him, as the authors write, an intense and, at times, gloomy appearance.29 Yakov was restored to party membership and headed communal services in Balashov. He devoted much attention to his family, particularly to his daughter Iza. Three days after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, he left for the front. He fought admirably and was awarded medals for valor and courage.
In the summer of 1944, his wife, Anna, was selected for relocation to Ukraine, which had recently been liberated from German occupation. She was sent to work as a teacher in the Dzerzhinsky children's colony located near Kharkov. Her gravesite is there and on it is recorded the death of Lieutenant Yakov Limansky, which had occurred in combat in Poland during the battles for the villages of Lortsin and Nuna in Warsaw province.
It only remains to add that Yakov Limansky's grandson, the Moscow historian Sergei Karpenko, is one of the authors of the essay under review. By collecting the unique archival materials related to his family's past, he has fulfilled his duty to his grandfather and mother Iza and, most important, has shared this history with us. This is an essay that should be translated into foreign languages. The material collected in it may be profitably used in history courses in Russia and abroad.
Notes
1 Goldman W.Z. Women at the Gates: Gender and Industry in Stalin's Russia. Cambridge University Press, 2000; Harris J.R. The Great Urals: Regionalism and the Evolution of the Soviet System. Cornell University Press, 1999; Kuromiya H. Freedom and Terror in the Donbas: A Ukrainian-Russian Borderland, 1870s - 1990s. Cambridge University Press, 1998; Priestland D. Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization: Ideas, Power and Terror on Inter-War Russia. Oxford University Press, 2007; Shearer D.R. Policing Stalin's Russia: Repression and Social Order in the Soviet Union, 1924 - 1953. Yale University Press, 2009; Rittersporn G.T. Anguish, Anger and Folkways in Soviet Russia. Pittsburgh University Press, 2014.
2 Goldman W.Z. Terror and Democracy in the Age of Stalin: The Social Dynamics of Repression. Cambridge University Press, 2007; Goldman W.Z. Inventing the Enemy: Denunciation and Terror in Stalin's Russia. Cambridge University Press, 2011; Fitzpatrick Sh. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Oxford University Press, 2000; Halfin I. Stalinist Confessions: Messianism and Terror at the Leningrad Communist University. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009; Figes O. The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. Metropolitan Books, 2007; Hellbeck J. Revolution on My Mind: Writing a Diary Under Stalin. Harvard University Press, 2006.
3 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского. Новый исторический вестник (The New Historical Bulletin), 2009, no. 4 (22), pp. 93-167.
4 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник»
к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 230-323.
5 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 236-237.
6 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 239.
7 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 242, 243.
8 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 245.
9 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 246.
10 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 247.
11 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 249.
12 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 255.
13 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 256, 257, 259.
14 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 261.
15 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 262.
16 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 270.
17 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 281.
18 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 285.
19 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 287.
20 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p.290.
21 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 295, 296.
22 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 296.
23 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 299.
24 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 306.
25 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 306, 307.
26 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 310.
27 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 311.
28 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, pp. 312, 313.
29 Симонов А., Симонов А., Карпенко С. Дело Якова Лиманского: Будни Саратовского УНКВД (1936 - 1938 гг.), in, «Новый исторический вестник» к 80-летию МГИАИ-РГГУ: Избранное, 2005 - 2010. Moscow, 2011, p. 314.
Authors, Abstract, Key words
Naum G. Kats - Professor, Department of History, Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) kats@andrew.cmu.edu
Carmine J. Storella - Instructor, Department of History, Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) caro@pitt.edu
A recent article by two American historians provides an analysis of the collective documentary essay of three Russian authors, "The Case of Yakov Li-mansky," in the context of contemporary American historiography of the Stalin regime and the Great Terror. This biographical essay was first published in 2009 in the Moscow journal, "Novyy Istoricheskiy Vestnik" ("The New Historical
