HOW ELDERLY STALIN SLAPPED DOWN THE NATIONS

On the 14th of May 1947 during a meeting with writers Stalin said (as recorded by Konstantin Simonov1¹Simonov K.M. is a Soviet novelist, poet, journalist and philanthropist (1915-1979)): “If one takes our middle classes, academia, professors and doctors, the sense of Soviet patriotism is not nurtured in them quite enough. They have an unjustified admiration of foreign culture. Everyone feels somewhat juvenile, not quite one hundred percent, they are used to considering themselves to be lifelong pupils. This is a backward tradition and stems from Peter. First the Germans, then the French - there was always this admiration of foreigners. This point needs to be enforced for many years, this subject needs to be hammered in for at least 10 years… We need to fight the spirit of self-deprecation in many of our middle-class citizens”.iStalin, 1947.

The fight against “cosmopolitism”2²Fight against cosmopolitism. The last mass ideological campaign by Stalin taking place in 1948-1953 and aimed at eliminating “kowtowing to the West”. The campaign was characterised by isolationism, imperial chauvinism and antisemitism that started quite soon after often obscures another important tendency of Stalin’s post war politics: Soviet patriotism becomes Russian patriotism. N Vert calls this philosophy of later Stalin “smoothing down of nationalities”.iVert, 1992: 208 In his famous “Victory Speech”, given by Stalin on the 24th of May 1945 he raised a glass not to the Soviet but to the Russian people, calling Russia a recognised leader and the most “prominent nation out of all the nations of the Soviet Union”.iVert, 1992: 209 Stalin’s speech signified the rejection of the previous concept (“Russian people as first among the equal”). Stalin went back to the ideas he held in 1922 in his project of autonomisation. He then thought that all nations should become self-contained republics within Russia. However, Lenin insisted on the federation format within which the Russian people is, even if only formally, just another one of subjects with equal rights.

During mid to late 1940s Stalin started to develop a concept that was about all ethnic outskirts joining Russia at an exceptionally progressive pace. This in turn led to a revision of the history of the Russian Empire. Historians were strongly recommended to “show the truly progressive aspect of the historical input of the Russian people into the history of humanity”. Any other view of national history became impossible. The aftermath of this policy were limitations in studying national culture, both material and spiritual. The middle classes, whose scientific or creative interests did not quite match the official canons got crushed under the roller of the repression machine. The fight against nationalism (just like the fight against national deviation in the 1920s and 1930s) became one of the prioritised tasks of the Party during the last years of Stalin’s rule.

This was taking place alongside a full-scale attack on the middle classes with the aim of suppressing any creative or ideological autonomy. Starting from 1946 several political orders were made: “About Zvezda and Leningrad magazines”,3³order concerning Zvezda and Leningrad magazinesThis order criticized the editorial policy of these magazines, especially for publishing “such vulgarians and filth of literature” as novelist Michail Zoschenko and poet Anna Akhmatova, “the typical representative of empty poetry lacking any ideology, and so alien to our people”. by the Central Committee of the All Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks on the 14th of August 1946; The order “concerning the repertoire of drama theatres and measures for the improvement of such” on the 26th of August 1946,4⁴concerning the repertoire of drama theatres and measures for the improvement of suchThe order “concerning the repertoire of drama theatres and measures for the improvement of such” criticized the largest theatres in the country for ignoring contemporary Soviet material or prejudice towards it. “Excessive interest in performing historical plays” in which “the lives of Tsars, Khans and aristocracy were idealised” was noted to be a “big flaw”. (this referred to “Novels by Margarita Navarskaya” by Skrib, “Horesm” by Khadji Shukurov, “Tachmos Khodzhenski” by Kasymov, “We are Kazakhs” by Tjibayev and “Idukai and Muradym” by Burungulov The order dated 4th of September 1946 about the TV film “Big Life”;5⁵The order concerning the TV film “Big Life”. In this order not only the film “Big Life” by director L. Lukov, about the restoration of Donbas fell under strict criticism but also the second part of “Ivan the Terrible” by director Sergey Eisenstein. Allegedly Eisenstein portrayed Ivan the Terrible like “someone similar to Hamlet” and the “progressive army of oprichniks” was portrayed as a “gang of degenerates similar to the American Ku Klux Klan. The order “Concerning Muradeli’s opera “Great friendship”6⁶The order “Concerning the opera “Great Friendship” by V Muradelifocussed on formalism in music, although Stalin most likely didn’t like how the establishment of the Soviet regime in the north Caucasus in 1918-1920 was portrayed in the opera. dated 10th of February 1948 The reports about the Kazakh Academy of Science and personally about its president K.I Satpayev should be viewed within this wider context.

When working at the Russian State Archives of Social and Political History (RSASPH) with the documents from Fund 17 (from the Central Committee of the Communist Party) we studied file № 335, started in 1950 and titled “Notes and references of the department and sector of science on reports …about facts demonstrating nationalism within the Academy of Acience and other scientific bodies of Kazakh SSR”.iRSASPH. F.17.132.335 Some of the documents from this file were published in a documented publication “Academian K.I.Satpayev”iAcademian K.I. Satpayev, 2009

However not all of the documents attracted the attention of the authors. What was the direct cause of the attack aimed at the Kazakh Academy of Science and K.I.Satpayev himself? The textbook answer can be found pretty much in all of the research documents covering the history of Stalin’s post-war decade: there were several orders from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks (CCAUCP (b)) almost immediately followed by the orders by the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Bolsheviks of Kazakhstan in 1947.i“about gross political errors in the work of the Institute of Language and Literature of the Academy of Science Kazakh SSR”, “Concerning the selection, assignment and usage of academic staff within the Academy of science of KazSSR” However, file № 335 from the funds of CCCPS, which is mentioned above, was started approximately three years later despite the fact that after 1947 the president of the KSSR Academy of Science Kanysh Imantaevich Satpayev had written several reports and letters defending the position of academic sciences of the Republic, which, we must add, by that time has become quite successful.

In his notes K.I. Satpayev speaks about the results of the work of the KSSR Academy of Science: if in 1941 the Kazakh branch of the USSR Academy of Science had 100 academic staff, 14 of which held master’s degrees and 3 had completed a doctorate, by 1947 the KSSR Academy of Science had 1580 staff (including branches), with 83 PHD and 220 masters degree staff. K Satpayev also pays special attention to the growth of national academic staff, and by 1950 24.9% of staff were Kazakhs with academic degrees.iAcademic K.I.Satpayev, 2009: 370-381 However all the achievements and merits did not protect the president of the KSSR Academy of Science from false accusations.

The hallmark of post war repressions is “the clear personalisation of political allegations”.iHistory of Kazakhstan 2009: 550 It is important to note that during the pre-war period prominent academic and cultural figures still at times fell prey to manhunts, but it is true that in the 1920s and 1930s repressions were mostly of mass proportions. “Personification of political allegations” has a simple explanation – shifting of accents to specific persons was also connected to reports from fellow countrymen, neighbours, colleagues, enemies and simply those envious of them. The reports appeared as a result of the politics: at first the authorities provoked such reports, defining the outlines of ideological campaigns, and then swiftly “responded” to them, encouraging further informing in the future.

Without removing responsibility from Stalin’s repression machine and without condoning its actions we feel that it is important to note that when researching repressions, the role of specific informers is overlooked. We are convinced that had Kazakhstan not had so many informants’ letters the fates of at least some, and possibly hundreds, of people would have been different and not quite so tragic. We think the responsibility of these “sycophants”iGreek for informer before history itself and the memory of those who found themselves in Gulag should be spoken about. It is reassuring that at least one of the largest repression files of that period – “The Bekhmahanov saga” - names the “villains” (Kh. Aidarova, T Shoinbayev, A Yakunin etc)

M.K Kosybayev gives a very clear definition to the role of these historians and the consequences of their publications in the “Bekhmanov file”, calling them “disastrous” for historical science of Kazakhstan.iK.I Satpayev, 2009: 9 In his article M.K. Kozybayev notes: “Taking an opportunity the haters and enemies started a slanderous campaign and accusations and reports against K.I Satpayev started flowing to the highest authorities.” Let us try and analyse the sequence of events without focusing too much on the motives of the reports (as this is a subject for a separate study).

Let us go back to file № 335. In June 1950 CCAUCP(b) organised audits at the Academy of Acience of Kazakh SSR, the result of which was a note addressed to the secretary of CCAUCP(b), G.M. Malenkov, signed by the inspectors P. Apostolov, B Mitreykin and A. Pewtrovski. They noted that “reported facts were mostly confirmed during the audit”.iRussian National Archive of Social and Solitical Science. F.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.120

Here are some extracts from this note from the file № 335 just so it is easier to understand what facts they were talking about:

“The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan has mentioned more than once in its directives that some academic staff cultivate harmful and ideologically malpositioned guidelines, idealising feudal clans, glorifying Khans and Bais and blurring over the class struggle in the pre-revolution Kazakh aul, as well as promoting bourgeois, nationalistic and anti-Russian views.”

CCCP (b) of Kazakhstan also often instructed the management of the Academy of Acience to remove from the Academy those individuals who were not politically trustworthy and unable to perform academic work. However, all those mistakes and perversions were still repeated by many other academic staff, as well as artists and cultural professionals of Kazakh SSR, and were not met with the same political evaluation from the CCCP (b) of Kazakhstan.

For example, Bekhmanov, the author of the book “Kazakhstan in the 20s and 40s of the XIX century” still continues to support erroneous views towards the nature and essence of the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov.7⁷Kenesary KasymovKazakh Khan (1841-1847), leader of Kazakh national liberation movement to break free from the Russian Empire He does not mention that in this book he also advocates the works of Alikhan Bukeyklhanov8⁸Alikhan Bukeyklhanov was a Kazakh public official (1866-1937), founder of the “Alash” party, chairman of the Alash autonomy government (1917-1920). as a reliable source of the history of the Kazakh people. leader of counter-revolutionary alash-ordyn party, that in the foreword to the book he expressed “special gratitude” purged Trotskyist Varshavskiy, who was editor of Bakhamanov’s work”.iRussian National Archive of social and political science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.120

“…in 1950 the Academy of science of Kazakh SSR published a book by Akisheva titled “Confiscation of cattle and possessions of prominent semi-feudal bais in Kazakhstan” This book contains angry anti-Soviet bai quotes, gives numerous negative examples of the poor taking part in bai banditism. Due to the book being deemed politically harmful it was withdrawn on the orders of CCCP (b) of Kazakhstan. Another book withdrawn in 1950 was the book by Pogorelskiy titled “Settling of nomads and development of livestock farming in Kazakhstan” in which the author claims that “nomands ancestry is not the one that we have learned about according to Marx and Engels but the one described by Radlov”.9⁹V.V. Radlov expert in Asian and Islamic studies, turkologist, ethnographic specialust and archaeologist (1837-1918). On the subject of Kazakhs switching from nomad to a settled lifestyle he ignores the role of the Party and the Soviet state and presents quotes by the “enemy of the people” Baitursynov”.10¹⁰Akhmed Baitursynov. Kazakh political activist, one of the leaders of the ‘Alash” movement (1872-1937).iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.121-122

“...The book of the current member of the academy of science of the Kazakh SSR Zhubanov contains openly nationalistic tendencies. In this book, masked as folklore research, the “singing” and “sounding” pre-revolution history of the Kazakh people in song is told from a biased and anti-Russian point of view”iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.122

“…Stated facts are testimony to trouble at the ideological front. One of the reasons for this is the impurity of staff in scientific and cultural institutions of Kazakhstan. Due to numerous orders from CCCP (B) of Kazakhstan, despite the resistance of the Academy of Science president Satpayev, in just 3 years over two hundred and fifty people were fired from the academy. Upon inspection it was concluded that the staff of the Academy of Science is still polluted by people who are not trustworthy and not capable of scientific and research work”.iRussian National Archive of Social and Solitical Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.123

The note by the Central Committee instructors mentions “nationalists”, “Trotskiysts”, “enemies of the people” and names the “pests”: Margulan, Bekturov, Stender< Songina< Tartakovskaya, Snopova, Ermrkovy, Tarabayev, Professor Rusakov, Letnikov, Kenesarin, Kondybaev, Galitskiy etc. “…Numerous facts confirming the pollution of the Kazakh SSR Academy of Science by politically alien individuals are not a coincidence – note the inspectors of CCAUCP(b) – ruling members of the academy presidium: vice president Kenesbayev (Son of a Bai), member of the Academy and secretary Galuzo (brother of a Trotskyist) do not inspire political trust… The Academy of Science president K Satpayev also comes from a family of a very prominent Bai. Two of his brothers were purged as enemies of the Soviet regime. Satpayev does not disclose to the party the fact that in 1918 he actively participated in the work of the counter-revolutionary bourgeois nationalistic party “Alash-Horde” … Due to upcoming discussion of the data obtained during the audit at the bureau of Kazakhstan CCCP (B) it is considered necessary to add a suggestion about renewing the management of the Kazakh SSR Academy of Acience.”iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.127

Following the inspection carried out by P. Apostolov, B. Mitreikin and A. Petrovsky, the President of the Academy of Science KSSR K. Satpayev had to submit a statement report on 67 pages to the secretary of CCCP (b) of Kazakhstan Zh. Shayakhmetov and deputy chief of the Department of Propaganda of the CCAUCP (b) V. S. Kruzhkov.iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.132-133

The allegations kept coming against the Academy and Satpayev. A certain A. Mitin sent an informant note in September 1950, addressed to the deputy of the Propaganda Political Activism Department of CCAUCP(b) V. S Kruzhkov, in which he states that “Comrad Satpayev in his letter tries to discredit the work of the Propaganda Department sectors as well as the work of Party, trade union and Komsomol bodies of CCAUCP(b), and comrades P. Apostolov, V Mitreikin and Petrovskiy. Satpayev thinks that the CCAUCP(b), did not provide any assistance to the work of the Kazakh SSr Academy of Science. The team did not and could not be tasked with providing any help to the Academy. Comrades Apostolov, Mitreikin and Petrovsky went to the Kazakh party organisation following orders by CCAUCP(b), with the purpose of investigating the reports by Chernichenko and Shoinbayev (Highlighted by us).iRussian National Archive of social and political science F.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.128

From this document it finally becomes apparent who triggered the checks on the Academy of Science of Kazakhstan. The initial impulse came from Chernichenko and Shoinbayev. A. Chernichenko was a newspaper reporter for “Pravda” in Kazakh SSR. T. Shoinbayev was a candidate for Historical Science. Shoinbayev wrote two reports on K Satpayev. The first became a reason for the inspection by P. Apostolov, B Mitreikin and Petrovsky. The second one was sent by T. Shinbayev in October 1950 addressed to the secretary of CCAUCP(b) M.A. Suslov, and also to the committee of the Party control of the CCAUCP(b) addressed to M.F. Shyryatov. 67 years later it is difficult to talk about motives that made a professional historian and candidate for Historical Science to write “letters” of this sort, but it is not a coincidence that publications that mention these events speak of “haters and enemies”, and it is not implausible that these definitions explain the reasons for writing such “reports”. It is important to know the consequences these reports led to. Even though the majority of the “facts” stated in these letters were insinuations, they still triggered the new era of the victimisation of Satpayev.

In the new report by Shoinbayev he does not mention the academic’s business qualities or his own concern about the state of Kazakh science. This letter is simply an ф denunciation. Out if its 7 pages 4 are dedicated to K. Satpayev’s “Alash” past, half a page to the accusations of Satpayev supporting the concept of E. Beckmetov about the Kenesara movement; and 2 pages are just his speculations about the protection of Satpayev by the “elements socially distant to the Soviet regime”, followed by a list of questions which according to T. Shoinbayev need special checks. These points, highlighted as key information in Shoinbayev’s letter, are quite demonstrative (and somewhat typical in letters of this sort) of the Stalin era: ancestry and roots (participating or not participating in political battles, party opposition, “national deviationism” etc.) played the key role.

It is important to note that although this letter was dated October 1950 the facts contained in it were quoted almost word by word in a letter by the instructors of the Propaganda and Campaigning Department of CCAUCP(b) in June 1950. It would seem that dissatisfaction of the results of the party audits of the Academy of Science prompted T. Shoinbayev to “write” again.

Let us give some examples of Shabatev’s insinuation (dated October 1950) here; it starts with a description of “bourgeois nationalistic” party “Alash” (the spelling of the letter is preserved ): “In July 1917 in Orenburg during a so call pan-Kirgizstan congress that was held under the management of nationalist cadet Bukeikhanov and consisting of Bays, Mullahs and representatives of bourgeois nationalistic middle classes, the counter revolutionary, bourgeois nationalistic party under the name of "Alash” was formed politically with branches in other cities and towns of Kazakhstan.

The ”Alash” party was the secret service of the Russian imperialist bourgeoisie, supported the interim government and fought against Bolshevik revolutionary influence penetrating the indigenous population.

The “Alash” party was the enemy of the Soviet regime, and therefore of the Kazakh people. During the war for to establish Soviet regime in Kazakhstan hundreds of Bolsheviks and non-party members Bolsheviks who were Russian, Ukrainian and Kazakh died at the hands of Alash- Horde executioners. They also killed the Bolshevik hero of the civil war Amangeldy Imanov, who was a relentless fighter for the Soviet regime in Kazakhstan”.iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.241

As we can see, there was nothing new and nothing of his “own” in the interpretation of events that happened many years before by the author of the letter; he just mechanically put forward the official point of view of the times at which the letter was written concerning events that happened 30 years ago.

Further in the letter: “One of the active members of this “Alash” party was the current president of the KazSSR Academy of Science Kanysh Satpayev. This can be confirmed by the writer Mukhtar Auezov. This is also confirmed by the newspapers “Kazakh” and “Sary-Arka” – belonging to the “Alash” party. On the pages of these newspapers one can find the surname of Satpayev among other Alash- Horde members. For example, in the “Sary-Arka” newspaper from the 9th of November 1917 numbered 19, in the article titled “Propagandist” it was stated that Kanysh Satpayev and Djusupbek Aimautov were sent by the “Alash” party to visit Pavlodarsky county to carry out anti-Soviet propaganda among the Kazakh people. Aimautov was also one of the active members of this party, later exposed as an enemy of the people. Kanysh Satpayev zealously carried out the tasks set to him by the “Alash” party in the fight against the Soviet regime and due to this an article praising him was published in one of the issues of the “Kazakh” newspaper in 1918. The article stated that the “Alash” party places great expectations on their young member Kanysh Satpayev who is extremely loyal to the cause of the “Alash” party. Satpayev’s loyalty to this bourgeois nationalistic party was not accidental. He was from a large B ay feudalistic family. He dreamed of preserving the Bay regime over the Kasakh people and the “Alash” party was protecting the interests of the Kazakh people. It was also not a coincidence that his brothers Abikei, Karim and Nokesh were also active members of this party helping fight against the Soviet regime.. After the establishment of the Soviet regime in Kazakhstan the ‘Alash” party went deep underground. Alash-Horde members, having failed, scattered all over the place. They changed their tactics and became quiet, compliant and tame - reasonable “Soviet” people.”iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.242-243

In this part of the letter the author is clearly being very economical with the truth: as a historian, he could not have been unaware that representatives of the “Alash” party were granted amnesty by the Soviet regime and all of them without exception were engaged by the same party.”

Further in the letter: “Kanysh Satpayev had nothing else left to do but turn into a normal “Soviet person”, trying to save his neck he began his studies in Tomsk. The other Satpayevs, brothers Abikei, Karim and Nokesh did not quite manage to blend in as well as their brother Kanysh. They were exposed and purged by the regime as enemies of the people. Kanysh Satpayev was unlikely to forgive the Soviet regime for this. In 1945 the former member of the counter-revolutionary party “Alash”, bourgeois nationalist, and enemy of the Bolshevik party Kanysh Satpayev was accepted into the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks AUCP (b). He hid the fact that he used to be and still was a bourgeois nationalist and that he came from a feudalist family. He only partly admitted that all Satpayev family members from big to small fought the Soviet regime.

iRussian National Archive of Social and Political sScience. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.243-244In 1946 he was appointed President of the Academy of Science of Kazakh SSR. He later becomes deputy to the Supreme Councils of KazSSR and USSR and an academy member. In 1949 this bourgeois nationalist was elected as a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks in Kazakhstan. In all his promotions to higher roles [he] positioned himself as the son of a well to do cattle farmer. He lied to the people when he was elected deputy of the Supreme Councils of KazSSR and USSR, posing as the son of a hard-working nomad oppressed by the Tzarist regime. It is important to bear in mind that Satpayev also concealed his own age. He was not 50 years old but nearly 60. He did this in order to hide his association with the “Alash” party. It was very advantageous for him to have been a 16–17-year-old young man in 1917 when this party was in existence. However, as mentioned above, the archives of newspapers “Kazakh” and Sary-Arka”, associated with the ”Alash” party, give him away.

Shoinbayev juggles the terms “Bay” and “Well-to-do cattle farmer”, and accuses the Academy member of hiding his real age, because he knows very well that the readers of his letter are very far removed from the realities of Kazakh society. Today (when almost seventy years have passed) it is difficult to tell if Shoinbayev was lying or actually believed all he was writing in his letter about Satpayev’s age, however as a professional historian he simply could not be unfamiliar with the social categories of Kazakh society before the revolution. Shoinbayev later moves on to allegations against Doctor of Historical Science, Professor E.B. Bekmahanov.

“Kanysh Satpayev never ceased to be a bourgeois nationalist, even now. This is supported by the fact that he was zealously defending the bourgeois nationalistic views of BEKMAHANOV, put forward by the latter in his book “Kazakhstan in the 20s and 40s of the XIX century”. In this book Bekmahanov idealised the arch enemy of the Kazakh people, agent of the khans of Central Asia and English Imperialism, Sultan Kenesara Kasymov. In Bukeikhanov’s book the works of nationalist cadet Alikhan Bujeikhanov are also praised. All of this was of course to Satpayev’s liking, and this is why he defended Bekhamanov and his bourgeois nationalistic book with an excess of zeal”.iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.244

The next list of allegations is to do with K.Satpayev’s personell policy.

“With Satpayev’s help a number of individuals from bay-feudalistic families became academics, doctors of science, and some even members of the Academy. For example, the daughter of a prominent bay, wife of a bourgeois nationalist Tarabayev, having all of the favourable conditions created by Satpayev at her disposal, became a doctor. A brother of another bourgeois nationalist, Alash-Horde member Gabbasov, became an associate member of the Academy of Science. Satpayev’s brother in law, Berkutov, the husband of the daughter of Alash-Horde member Abikei Satpayev, became a full member of the Academy of Science, and his wife Raikhan, sister of Satpayev and daughter of the arch enemy of the Kazakh people became a candidate of science.iresearch doctorate - translator’s comment The descendent of Sultan Kenesara – Kenesarin, also worked at the Academy of Science. Satpayev’s son in law Alikey Margulan in 1946 with Satpayev’s help received a PhD on the subject of “Kazakh Epos” in which Margulan praises the commander of the Golden Horde Edyge, one of the butchers of the Russian people during the period of the Mongol Yoke. This bourgeois nationalist Margulan, with the help of Satpayev became an associate member of the Academy of Science of KazSSR”. Этот буржуазный националист Маргулан, с помощью Сатпаева стал членом – корреспондентом Академии Наук КазССР».iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.245

The content of the letter of T Shoinbayev evokes a synonymous reaction, but it is not just about emotional evaluation. T. Shoinbayev’s letters could have played a disastrous role in the life of Satpayev. The first part of the allegations against K. Satpayev referring to his non proletarian bay origin and concealing of such could have threatened him with Clause 58 of the Criminal Сode.iClause 58 of the CC is about responsibility for counter revolutionary activity. The main clause punishable by death during Stalin’s rule Of course the mass purges were left behind in 1937-1938 but at the end of 1940s and the beginning of 1950s Stalin began to swing the purge pendulum: “Leningrad case”, “Mingrelsk case”, “Doctors’ Case” – a lot points to the fact that the elderly dictator was getting ready for a new wave of terror.

23 ноября 1951 by the decision of the meeting of the bureau of the Central committee of the Communist Party of the Bolsheviks charges were brought against Kanysh Satpayeviprot. № 91, c.3 in accordance with the informant letter by T. Shoinbayev.iAcademy member K.I. Satpayev, 2009: 409-410 As a result, the order was made to remove K.I. Satpayev from the position of President of the Academy of sSience of KSSR. He was severely reprimanded with warnings and notes were made in his personnel record card. However this did not seem to be enough. From the bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Bolsheviks dated 23 November 1951:” Assign the Minister of State Security KazSSR, Comrade Fitin, to check the materials about the use of comrade Satpayev K.I by the Semipalatinsk Committee of the Alash-Horde as a propagandist and report the results of these checks to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks in Kazakhstan”.iRussian National Archive of Social and Political Science. Ф.708. Оп.15. Д.175а. Л.1 At the same time, presented by NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs- translator’s comment) to CCCP(B) opening a criminal case against K.I.Satpayev was considered but the party leaders of the republic Zh. Shayakhmetov and I. Omarov defended K. Satpayev which later affected their career.

It is difficult to imagine what could have happened had Stalin not died a year and a bit later. It is possible the “Satpayev case” would have become the trigger for mass purges aimed at all of the national elite of Kazakhstan. Who knows? The trajectory of all of Stalin’s personal purges always developed in the same way: removal from post of the one accused of serious “errors of judgement” – brief period of calm – criminal prosecution – finding hidden allies and supporters at the person’s place of work, inside a party and its’ apparatus – execution by shooting of the main characters and long exile for the rest including family members.

His biographer M. Sarkseev writes that copies of three letters, written between January and March of 1952 are stored in Satpayev’s archives: first letter dated 20th of January and addressed to I.V. Stalin (55 pages), the second one addressed to the secretary of the Central Committee of All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, G.M. Malenkov (5 pages), and the third one to the head of the Science and Universities department of the CCAUCP (B) Y.A. Zhdanov (on 8 pages).iSarsekeev, 1989: 372 In all of these letters K Satpayev categorically denies all the labels attributed to him in the process of this manhunt. In his letter to Stalin Kanysh Imanteevich writes: “Not being the lover of a “quiet life” and ‘excessive caution” at work, sometimes in matters of principle I bravely took “dangerous” steps, moved solely by the realisation of the State importance of these issues…”.iAcademy member K.I.Satpayev,2009: 413 This is the principled position of Satpayev and despite very steep and winding turns in the scientist’s fate, history has put all things into perspective. After Stalin’s death in June 1955 K.I Satpayev was once again elected President of the Academy of Science of Kazakh ASSR.

Академик К.И. Сатпаев: Сборник документов и материалов. Составители Б.Т. Жанаев и др. Астана: 1С-Сервис, 2009. 560 с.

Верт Н. История советского государства. 1900-1991. М.: Прогресс-Академия, 1992. 480 с.

Гринберг И. Идеологические кампании в послевоенном СССР их их последствия для Казахстана// Казахстан: послевоенное общество 1946–1953 гг. Материалы Международной научно-практической конференции. 20 апреля 2012 г./ под ред. Х.Абжанова и др. А-А: «Арыс», 2012. С. 119-135.

История Казахстана (с древнейших времен до наших дней). В пяти томах. Т.4. А-А: Атамура, 2009. 680 с.

Политические репрессии в Казахстане в 1937–1938 гг. Сб. документов. А-А: Қазақстан, 1998. 336 с.

Сарсекеев М. Сатпаев. А-А: Онер, 1989. 447 с.

Сталин И. о преклонении перед иностранцами, 1947 г.

Архив Президента Республики Казахстан (АП РК). Ф.708. Оп.15. Д.175а. Л.1.

Российский государственный архив социально-политической истории (РГАСПИ). Ф.17. Оп.132. Д.335. Л.1-120.