OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 66-3-149
TITLE:             Andrei Amalrik: an Individualist on Trial
BY:                G.v.D.
DATE:              1970-11-11
COUNTRY:           Soviet Union
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  Dissidents

--- Begin ---

RADIO FREE EUROPE Research

This material was prepared for the use of the
editors and policy staff of Radio Free Europe.

COMMUNIST AREA
0796

USSR: Dissidents
11 November 1970

ANDREI AMALRIK: AN INDIVIDUALIST ON TRIAL

Summary: Andrei Amalrik, a young Soviet dissident,
is to stand trial in the Ural town of Sverdlovsk
for his allegedly "anti-Soviet" writings. A
controversial figure as a result of his works
unpublished in the Soviet Union, he is not on trial
without the support of several leading dissidents
and, possibly, could have the support of prominent
figures in the scientific or literary community.

Today, in the town of Sverdlovsk at the foot of the
Ural Mountains, a scene that is becoming all too familiar
in the Soviet Union is about to be repeated. A young
Russian writer and publicist, Andrei Alexeievich Amalrik,
reportedly will stand trial charged with Article 190-1 of
the RSFSR Criminal Code, i.e., with willful anti-Soviet
slander.[1] While the mechanics of this procedure appear
to be a carbon copy of the official methods of sanction
against those who express opinions considered awkward by
the regime, the individual involved is one of the more
exceptional figures in what is generally termed the
"democratic movement" in the Soviet Union.

His most salient characteristics are his individuality,
his consistent refusal to compromise his beliefs, and his
determination to act in strict accord with his own principles.
Since his personal outlook is often at variance with
officially sanctioned norms of behavior, frequently He has
been, as he is now, the object of persecution.

-----------------------

(1) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 1970, and
AFP, 5 November 1970. UPI and Reuter, 11 November 1970.

[page 2]

As a young man, his intellectual interests and curiosity
led him to establish contacts with underground" writers,
poets and artists who refused to exercise their talents
within the strictures of "socialist realism." Among these
contacts are: Alexander Ginzburg, the editor of the
samizdat journal Syntax; the painter Zverev, regarded by
Soviet authorities as too "modernist" for domestic consumption
hence forcing him to show his works privately; and the painter
D. P. Playinsky, as well as members of the foreign diplomatic
and press community.

In their attempt to maintain surveillance over such
persons, the secret police approached the 23 year-old Amairik
in 1961 and, in his own words, "politely suggested that
I write general reports on the mood of the intelligentsia,
and I, equally as politely, refused, and there the matter
ended."[2] Two years later, however, the pressure to
become an informer became less good-natured. "In 1963,
I was driven to Lubianka at night and was told to write a
denunciation against an American diplomat, to the effect that
he was subjecting myself and other Soviet citizens to harmful
ideological influence. I again refused although this time
they threatened me with criminal proceedings." [3] Although
in fact there was nothing, strictly speaking, illegal about
his refusal to betray his friends, his attitude was a source
of aggravation to local officials. While a student in
the history department of Moscow University he wrote an
essay entitled "The Normans and the Kiev Principality,"
suggesting, according to a personal friend, "that an early
Russian state centered in Kiev in the ninth century owed
much of its civilization to the Normans." [4] While this
View was shared by many eminent pre-revolutionary historians
the official view promoted by the Communist Party dictated
that the proper conclusion should stress the Slavs as the
true founders of the first Russian State. The issue was
resolved a manner characteristic of Amalrik. "Andrei's
professe, impressed by his research., suggested that he
submit merely the dry facts and omit his 'controversial'
conclusions. Andrei refused. The professor declined to
approve the dissertation. Andrei protested -- and was
expelled from the university." [5]

------------------

(2) survey, No. 74/ 75, Winter-Spring, 1970, p. 96.

(3) Ibid,

(4) Henry Kamm, author of the preface to an edition of
Amalrik's essay, Will the Soviet: Union Survive Until
1984?, New York, 1970, p. xiii, Hereafter cited as 1984.

(5) Anatole Snub, (a personal friend of Amalrik), the New
Russian Tragedy, New York, 1969, p. 39

[page 3]

Apparently seeking a more objective appraisal of his
work, he had earlier tried to send it to the well-known
Danish scholar of Slavistics, Professor Stender Petersen.
Suspecting that the Soviet postal authorities would not
forward the manuscript, he attempted to use the channels
of the Danish Embassy in Moscow.-- and was promptly arrested,
although released after the authorities could : and nothing
specifically "anti-Soviet" in the contents of the essay. [6]

While none of the aforementioned activities in which
Amalrik engaged were in fact illegal, they did comprise
what he himself has termed "a broad 'gray belt' -- activities
that the law does not formally forbid but which are, in
fact, forbidden in practice." [7] In the aftermath of the
relatively liberal rule of Khrushchev, a more conservative
attitude was adopted by the new regime whereby the "gray
belt" once again fell into the category of "anti-Soviet"
activity with a corresponding straitening of official
tolerance.

As one of the first victims of the new stringency,
Amalrik was arrested in May, 1965 and at first charged
with the production, harboring and dissemination of
pornographic works.[8] The evidence was based on several plays
he had written but had never had published or staged. [9]
Despite the insistence of legal officials that the plays
were pornographic and, in their opinion, anti-Soviet,
Amalrik denied the accusations and told the judge that
"they were Soviet in the sense that they were written by
a Soviet citizen and hence, for better or for worse, were
part of Soviet literature, not political tracts for or
against the existing order in our country. [10] For lack
of evidence with which to continue a case that would hold
up even in a Soviet court, the charge was dropped and a new
one levelled. The defendant was charged with "avoiding
socially useful work" and leading "an antisocial,
parasitical way of life," despite the fact that he held various
part-time employment and spent the rest of his time caring
for two dependants -- his father, an invalid as a. result
of an injury suffered during the war, and an invalid aunt.[11]

---------------------

(6) Andrei Amalrik, Involuntary Journey to Siberia, New York,
1970, pp. 69-70.

(7) 1984, p. 25.

(8).Amalrik, Involuntary Journey, p. 72.

(9) Six of Amalrik's plays were supposed to have been published
last month in Holland, although a copy has not yet been
received in Munich. According to the Chronicle, three of
the plays which were considered pornographic" are entitled
"East-West" (dealing with Sino-Soviet relations), "Is Uncle
Jack A Conformist?," and "My Aunt Lives in Volokolainsk."
(The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 14, 30 June 1970).

(10) Amalrik, Involuntary Journey, p. 100.

(11) Ibid., pp. 33, 106-108.

[page 4]

The one-day trial was an absolute sham and more an act
of vengeance than due process of law. It was offensive even
to a local police superintendent who was present in the
court and who told Amalrik, "It was all a farce, since the
verdict had been decided beforehand." [12] The sentence,
not subject to appeal, stipulated exile in Siberia for 2-1/2
years with obligatory physical labor.[13]

It only confirmed the fact that the trial was an
act of official reprisal. A medical examination prior to
the trial revealed that Amalrik's heart was extremely
defective. Having received the results of a cardiogram
test, a local official told him: "Your heart is no good
at all, Siberia is quite out of the question," that he was
only capable of a "limited capacity for work, no lifting .
of heavy objects," [l4] and by the local interrogator
that he might even be registered as an invalid. [15]
Despite his infirmity, he was sent to the Tomsk region
in Siberia and forced to work on a kolkhoz, although,
magnanimously, he was released after having served half
the sentence and returned to Moscow.

In addition to compiling a samizdat account of the 
events concerning his exile which has now been published
in the West, [16] he also engaged in writing an analytical
essay entitled "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 19 84?"
concerned with aspects of the domestic and foreign affairs
of his country. At first this essay was also circulated
in samizdat form but last year it has published in the West, [17]
where it has been the subject of heated controversy both
there and in the Soviet Union and has led to accusations
that he was a Russophobe, an agent in the service of the KGB,
and that his work has damaged the democratic opposition in
the Soviet Union.

In keeping with its general policy of an impartial
presentation of literature circulating In samizdat, the
Chronicle carried an accurate and fair synopsis of this
controversial work:

The author considers the liberalization of the
post-Stalin period to be a sign of the decay of the
regime, and sees no forces in our society which
are even potentially capable of bringing about a
renewal, a democratization of the country. The

--------------------

(12) Ibid., p. 110.

(13) Ibid., p. 112.

(14) Ibid., pp. 36-37.

(15) Ibid., p. 39.

(16) Andrei Amalrik, Involuntary Journey to Siberia, N.Y., 1970.

(17) Andrei Amalrik, "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1384?,"
Survey, No. 73 (Autumn 1969) pp. 47-79.

[page 5]

author predicts disintegration for the state in
view of inner contradictions, which in his
opinion are growing even greater. The author
suggests that the basic cause of the coming
crash are the following: contradiction between
the demands of economic development and the
ossification of the economic system; the
conservation of the bureaucratic elite; which is
increasingly declining in quality, the passing and
venality of the "middle class," i.e., the "specialist
class" [which Amalrik considers to be the basic
component of support for the emerging democratic
movement]; the absence of positive goals in the
lower strata; the striving towards separateness
of the non-Russian nations.

In the second part of the pamphlet the causes and
nature of the possible war with China are discussed,
together with what the author considers to be the
most likely attitude of the west to such a war. [18]

As an indication of some of the internal reaction to
this essay, the same issue of the Chronicle cited two open
letters circulating in samizdat form which rejected his
conclusions. One, written anonymously, was particularly
indignant, considering Amalrik's analysis "irrational,
mystical and false" and was alienated by "Amalrik's attitude
to Russia - scorn for her people, history and culture." [19]

For some, particularly outside the Soviet Union,
suspicion of Amalrik was also fostered by a letter he wrote last
autumn to the Russian writer Anatoly Kuznetsov who had recently
defected to the. West, in which he criticized the writer for
choosing to compromise his conscience by allowing the censor
to alter his works in order to be able to publish them
officially and for deciding to collaborate with the secret

------------------------

(18) The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 12, 28 February 1970.

(19) Ibid.

[page 6]

police in order to gain permission to travel abroad.
In Amarik's opinion:

In general it is better to keep silent than to
tell lies, better to refuse to have one of your
own books published than to let it appear saying
the opposite of what you originally wrote, better
to refuse trips abroad than to turn informer for
the sake of going on them or to 'report' in the
form of a facetious poem, better to refuse to
attend a press conference than to state publicly .
that creative freedom exists in our country,[20]

In response to criticism, Amalrik issued a statement
in which he clarified and defended his position. [21] With
regard to doubts of his patriotism he replied:

... without distortion it is possible to find in my
book harsh judgments about my country and about my
people. It may be that the ordinary Russian, if
he were given the opportunity to read or hear my
book...would find some passages in my book
unpatriotic. But I consider that the best patriot is not
the man who papers over his country's failings but
the man who exposes the wounds so that they can be
cured. It may be that it is unpatriotic to criticize
one's country and to warn it of threatening danger by
publishing a book abroad for this purpose. But I have
no other possibility. And besides, I consider that
it is time for my country to overcome its national
and social inferiority complex which leads to every
citizen from within or from without being considered
as something terrible.

I love my country, in which I was born and grew up, and
I cannot think without tears of its extraordinary fate.
To be separated from it would cause me great grief, but
with bitterness I confess that I am not enraptured by
my country. If I had been able to make a choice before
my birth I should have preferred to be born in a small
country fighting for its freedom with weapons in its
hands, like Biafra or Israel.

And, clarifying his stand pa the creative intelligentsia,
in particular Kuznetsov, he said:

I criticize Kuznetsov for the fact that having got
abroad he tries to fully justify his activity as an

------------------

(20) For a synopsis of this letter see The Chronicle of Current
Events, No. 11, 31 December 1969 and for the full text
in English, see Survey, No. 74 (1970), pp. 95-102.

(21) Entitled "I Want to Be Understood Correctly." it was
probably written in Moscow some time between 27 November
1969 and 22 February 1970. For the English text see
Survey, No. 74/75, Winter-Spring 1970, pp. 102-110.

[page 7]

informer and his conformism in the USSR, attributing
everything to the cruelty of the regime and thus
justifies the cowardly and passive behavior of the
majority of the Soviet intelligentsia which wants
to be 'pitied' because it is not free but is not
willing to make the slightest effort to seek that
freedom. Thus I wrote that if we want to change
the regime in our country, we must all take a share
of personal responsibility for this.

Despite the controversial nature of his views [22] the
reaction of the central intelligentsia in the Soviet Union
to his statements has by no means been entirely negative.
This spring, an open letter circulating in samizdat, entitled
"Andrei Amalrik as a Publicist" and not yet published in the
West, praises Amalrik. The author, La. Iasnyy, feels that:

In the publicistic works of Andrei Amalrik, one
can see the level of moral purity attained by the
independent word in Russia....In the small amount
of work that he has had time to write, Andrei
Amalrik serves as an example of the action of a
free literateur and of a .person in a situation of
blackmail, illegal arrests and de facto secret trials.
The question of the manner in which a literateur is
called upon to behave under the conditions of
agonizing Soviet totalitarianism is not only
forthrightly dissected in the "Open Letter to Anatoly
Kuznetsov," and in the article "Foreign
Correspondents in Moscow,"[23] but, as it were
is illustrated by everything that has been published
by Andrei Amalrik.... It is possible that some of
Amalrik's assertions concerning Russia's future, as
well as its past, may appear to certain categories
of readers to be unpatriotic. I will not judge the
essence of these assertions here. But can it be
that a writer is obliged to prepare his experimental
theses to please some kind of sentiment, even one
that is extremely noble?

-------------------

(22) It should be noted that Amalrik was fully aware of
this and wrote in the preface to the essay: "Since I
regard the conclusions readied here as in many respects
debatable, I shall be grateful for constructive criticism.

(23) The 13th issue of the Chronicle carries a synopsis
which indicates that the author criticizes the choice
of a majority of foreign correspondents in Moscow to
adapt to existing conditions in the country rather than
to demand their professions! rights. Amalrik feels
that this majority is thereby isolated from the life
of Soviet society and, ineluctably, presents a
distorted picture in their dispatches.

[page 8]

In March, Pyotr Yakir, the non-titular head of the
"democratic movement" also addressed Amalrik. Although
he takes exception to some of his views as stated in the
1984 essay, in particular what Yakir considers to be his
underestimation of the strength of the democratic movement
and his "too one-sided description of the Russian character,"
he welcomes "the precision, honesty and detached nature"
of his position, the "boldness" of his act, and considers
that he has Successfully" analyzed "the psychology and
ideology of our society." [24]

While appraisal of Amalrik's views have had a mixed
reception by the critical intelligentsia, the official view
is that they comprise "anti-Soviet slander" for which he
is to stand trial today. Although the trial has hardly
begun, there are signs that the verdict has already been
decided as was the case with his first trial five years
ago. Last summer, the Soviet, press commented that both
Amalrik and his wife, Gyusel, were persons "whose activities
have interested our investigational and judicial agencies"[25]
and that the former "judging by bis articles, is a passionate
worshipper of 'the Western way of life,' and a collaborator
in the dark deeds of the Shub family." [26]

More recently, a Novosti article is reported to have
condemned Amalrik in a pre-trial judgment. Although the
defendant was under arrest and awaiting trials the
Soviet Novosti agency issued an article signed by Viktor
Korolyov, accusing Amalrik of being a "complete imposter
and liar," and, referring to the forthcoming trial, wrote:

It is still too early to judge what the results
of this enquiry will bring, but even a cursory
examination of his work ['The Year 1984'] permits
a conjecture -- when we read his figments of
imagination, his knowingly mendacious allegations,
his outright slander and his gross calumnies:
these can be considered as sufficient for a
conviction. [27] [Emphasis added]

---------------------

(24) For the text of this letter see The Chronicle of Current
Events, No. 13, 28 April 1970.

(25) Izvestiia, 13 June 1969, p. 4.

(26) Literaturnaia Gazeta, 20 August 1969, p. 15. Anatole Shub
was Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post but was
expelled in the summer of 1969 for his contacts with and
reportage of Soviet dissidents.

(27) The Novosti dispatch is reported to have been published
in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, 10 August 1970.
For extensive quotes, see RFE Special/Ramsay, 10 August
1970.

[page 9]

Although the selection of Sverdlovsk as the place
for the trial can be seen as an attempt by the Soviet
authorities to prevent foreign correspondents from reporting
the trial (Sverdlovsk is one of the thousands of towns
in the Soviet Union closed to foreigners) and to hamper
attempts by Amalrik's friends to attend the trial, hence
an attempt to prevent any "unofficial" reports concerning
possible violations of the law by the legal authorities,
Amalrik is not entirely in an isolated position. Four
Western news agencies have already issued reports on the
forthcoming trial. According to one report, Amalrik's wife
Gyusel, has left Moscow for Sverdlovsk on the hope of
gaining entry to the courtroom. [28] This summer she wrote
two statements to the legal authorities specifying the
illegal aspects of the investigation. [29] The day after
his arrest on 21 May seven prominent. Soviet dissidents,
including Pyotr Yakir, sent an appeal both to the Soviet
government and the United Nations calling for his release.
Indignant at his arrest, they are reported to have compared
him to some of the most celebrated defendants in recent
civil rights cases -- Andrei Sinyavsky, Yuli Daniel,
Alexander Ginzburg and Yurii Galanskov. [30] In this
letter, they imply that this is another violation of the
Constitutional right of freedom of speech:

It is impossible to imagine, that it [Amalrik's ,
arrest] is due to any other reason than his
composition of the, brochure 'Will the Soviet
Union Survive Until 1984?' and assert that
'on the basis of a just and careful examination
of the case, Amalrik must be exonerated by any
court. [31]

It is also possible that he has the support of more
influential members of Soviet society. There are signs
that the Soviet scientific community's concern for civil
rights cases is extending its scope. Whereas
usually scientists such as A. Sakharov, I. Tamm, and
others have intervened on behalf of their arrested colleagues,

------------------

(28) UPI. 11 November 1970.

(29) The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 14, 30 June 1970.

(30) International Herald Tribune, 30 May 1970. The full
text of the letter is not yet available.

(31) These extracts are quoted in The Chronicle of Current
Events, No. 14, 30 June 1970.

[page 10]

for example the recent cases of Zhores Medvedev and R.
Pimenov, two cases have already been reported of their
support for persons outside the scope of the prominent
intelligentsia. A Western correspondent has recently
described a petition signed by four persons, including
Academician Sakharov, calling for the release of students
Olga Ioffe and Valeria Novodvorskaia, both of whom are
presently in special psychiatric hospitals as punishment for
their civil rights activities. [32] Furthermore, the last
issue of the Chronicle reported that the physicist V.
Chalidze was the only one of several friends and acquaintances
who was successful in attending the trial of young Natalia
Gorbanevskaia. [33] It should also be noted that such
prominent scientists as A. Sakharov, I. Tamm and M. Leontovich
signed a protest against the introduction of Article 190-1
into the RSFSR Criminal Code -- the precise article under
which Amalrik is reportedly to be tried. [34] It is also
possible that Amalrik's family background may play a role
in their possible decision to extend support. Amalrik's
deceased father, Aleksei Sergeyevich Amalrik, was, according
to the Chronicle, "a well-known historian and archeologist.[35]
In 1959, his work was of such a caliber that one of the two
books he co-authored was published by the USSR Academy of
Sciences. [36]

Another factor that might lead to the involvement
of the professional intelligentsia in the case is Amalrik's
co-defendent at the trial - Lev Grigor'evich Ubozhko. A
physicist by profession and a recent graduate of the
department of law at Sverdlovsk University, Ubozhko, though not
acquainted with Amalrik personally, was arrested last
January.[37] Among the samizdat material confiscated from
his apartment was a copy of Amalrik's "Open Letter to
Anatoly Kuznetsov." [38]

---------------------

(32) Dean Mills in the Baltimore Sun, 5 October 1970.

(33) The Chronicle of Current Events, No. 15,31 August 1970.

(34) Pavel Litvinov, The Demonstration in Pushkin Square,
Boston, 1969, pp. 14-15.

(35) The Chronicle, ibid.

(36) See Bibliografiia Izdanii Akademii Nauk SSSR,
Moscow-Leningrad, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 16.

(37) The Chronicle, No. 13, 28 April 1970.

(38) The Chronicle, No. 15, 31 August 1970.

[page 11]

Should Amalrik be found guilty on the basis of
Article 190-1 of the RSFSR Criminal Code, he faces a
sentence of three years detention, or one year corrective
labor, or, the most lenient punishment, a fine of up
to one hundred rubles. Considering past trials of
Soviet dissidents charged with this article, it is also
possible that he will be sentenced to exile. Larisa
Bogoraz-Daniel, Pavel Litvinov, and Konstantin Babitskii,
and more recently the scientist R. Pimenov, were all
charged with Article 190-1, but all four were sentenced
to exile in Siberia.

Whatever the outcome of the trial, it is highly
unlikely that Amalrik will compromise his stand in court.
As he recently stated in an interview with a foreign
correspondent in Moscow: "I consider that no system of
rule by force can exist without people who are ready to
submit to that rule. And if we don't want the rule
of force to prevail, we must all fight against it." [39]

G.v.D.

---------------------

(39) Quoted from an interview with CBS News correspondent
William Cole, telecast in the United States on
28 July 1970.

  OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search