On the problem of the limits of the dictatorship: the confrontation between the MVD and the MGB with other authority structures on the issues of supervision over the system of special settlements

The present article is focused on the limits of Stalin’s dictatorship. This problem is considered within the framework of a general discussion between representatives of the totalitarian and revisionist historical schools. It is showed how different regional power structures interpreted central decisions regulating various aspects of life of the special settlers. The conflicts generated by these differences in interpretations are analyzed, and the mechanisms of their resolution are explored. Based on this, it is demonstrated how these conflicts defused the discriminatory practices and adapted unwieldy administrative system to the needs of the soviet society. The documentation of the party and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of three levels (district - region - center) is used as the primary sources of this article. The research is based on the analysis of three particular examples occurred in the late 1940s - early 1950s in the Tomsk and Novosibirsk regions. Each of the considered cases illustrates contradictions existed within the power structure (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of State Security, party, court, prosecutor's office) and shows that some discriminatory practices did not arouse sufficient enthusiasm among employees of the Stalin's system. The first example reflects the problem of practical application of legislation aimed at preventing escapes from special settlements, especially the decree of November 26, 1948. The second case demonstrates the reactions of various power structures to unauthorized migrations of special settlers. The third example is related to the campaign for the dismissal of deported people in 1948/1949. It is concluded that there was no system for monitoring the legality of the actions of the supervisory authorities in the Stalin's dictatorship. Nevertheless, some discriminatory practices were corrected. It was related to both the intervention of other authorities and the presence of the employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security of their own ideas about expediency, justice and legality. In addition, the Stalin’s system is considered as a “staging dictatorship” (Malte Rolf’s concept) in this article, since discriminatory practices were carried out in parallel with the creation of the image of the rule of law. The need to maintain this image represents another limitation of the Stalin’s dictatorship.

Keywords

Authors

References