ronburgundy
Contributor
Let me play devil's advocate here and ya'll feel free to tear me up.
I have read a lot of you say that there was no real evidence, proof, ect offered at these trials. What if this was done, not so much because the people tried were actually innocent and Stalin was just being mean and wanting to get rid of threats to his own power, but perhaps they were guilty and the Communists putting them on trial did not want the evidence presented clearly because then those spies and sabatours still loose could get an idea how much the NKVD, police, ect knew about them and their possible connections and personel.
I am not saying this was the case, just food for thought. And food for thought can always be brain vomited back out. (P
It goes beyond a lack of evidence for real crimes. Stalin made mere intellectual thought a crime. Some charges were not about spying for other nations or organized political opposition, but merely engaging in rational academic thought about facts that contradicted the lies that Stalin used to rationalize his general brutality against the populace.
That disdain for reasoned thought and willingness to attack it for selfish immoral ends, makes it likely that even when the charges were more serious, at least some of the disregard for real evidence of these serious crimes was not simply (as you hypothesize) an pragmatic strategy against real threats, but a disregard for who was a real threat and willingness to knowingly kill innocents to cower any potential threats into submission.