EndCCPWorld.com

Purges and Repression in the Soviets (1927–1937)

During the agrarian revolution, the CCP's "purge of counterrevolutionaries" in the Central Soviet devoured its own Red Army. After the Futian Incident, the purge metastasized; masses of commanders and cadres were wrongly killed — the Party's first great internal purge.

Time

1930–1934 (peak: 1930–1931)

Place

Central Soviet (Ruijin, Xingguo, Yudu in Jiangxi); also Eyuwan and Hunan-Hubei-West soviets

Decision-makers

Li Lisan (overall line); Mao Zedong (First Front Army purge); Xiang Ying, Gu Zuolin (Soviet bureau); Zhang Guotao (Eyuwan purge)

Background: where "AB League" came from

The "AB League" (Anti-Bolshevik League) was originally a 1920s KMT-rightist anti-communist outfit in Jiangxi, essentially defunct after 1927. But in 1930 Li Lisan's "left" line demanded purging "AB Leagues" inside the Red Army — turning dissenters into "AB elements" by fiat.

In February–March 1930 Mao ran an "AB League purge" in the Fourth Red Army, then spread it across the Central Soviet. "AB League" became a catch-all accusation anyone could face.

Who decided

Mao Zedong — the supreme decision-maker of the "Anti-AB Corps" purge in the Central Soviet Area (1930–1931).

• February 16, 1930: the Fourth Red Army Front Committee's "Circular No. 1" launched the "Anti-AB Corps" campaign in southwestern Jiangxi.
• October 1930: Mao wrote to the Center calling the "AB Corps" problem in southwestern Jiangxi grave, demanding thorough elimination.
• December 1930: the First Front Army's General Front Committee (Mao as secretary) passed the purge resolution, extending it into the Red Army.
• The Futian Incident (December 12, 1930): officers of the 20th Red Army, opposing the purge's excesses, mutinied at Futian and detained the Front Committee's envoy; Mao sent troops to crush it.
• 1931: the purge peaked, sweeping party, government and military organs across the Central Soviet Area.
• Black box: whether the "AB Corps" ever existed and Mao's true motives remain disputed among scholars. Only verifiable decisions are recorded; no single interpretation adopted.

Detailed timeline

February–March 1930: The Fourth Red Army's "AB purge" killed hundreds.

October 1930: The First Front Army's general front committee ordered a "thorough purge of AB Leagues" army-wide.

December 1930: The Futian Incident erupted (below).

January–April 1931: The purge metastasized. Masses of Twentieth Army cadres killed; southwest-Jiangxi leaders Li Wenlin, Duan Liangbi and others wrongly executed.

November 1931: The Chinese Soviet Republic was founded; purges continued.

1932–1934: Purges tapered, but new labels ("Social Democratic Party") emerged. They essentially ended before the 1934 Long March.

Eyuwan Soviet: Zhang Guotao's 1931–1932 purge killed senior commanders Xu Jishen, Zhou Weijiong and others; the Baiqueyuan massacre killed 2,000+ at once.

The Futian Incident

December 12, 1930: Elements of the Twentieth Red Army mutinied at Futian, Jiangxi, detaining Soviet bureau delegates and demanding release of wrongly arrested comrades and an end to purges — the Red Army's first internal mutiny.

Mao Zedong and Zhu De sent troops to suppress it. In 1931 the Twentieth Army's designation was abolished; masses of its men were killed. After Futian, purges intensified — "AB League" hats flew everywhere.

Who executed

Execution chain: Mao (General Front Committee secretary) → the General Front Committee → purge committees at all levels → Red Army political-security organs → grassroots execution.

• Purge committees: set up at every party level to investigate, arrest and interrogate "AB Corps members."
• Torture-extracted confessions: systematic torture produced ever-longer lists of "accomplices," driving chain arrests.
• Crushing the 20th Army: after Futian, the 20th Red Army was reorganized; large numbers of its officers and men were executed as "AB Corps."
• Escalation: from southwestern Jiangxi across the entire Central Soviet Area; from local party organs into the Red Army's main forces.
• Named executors: public sources rarely name grassroots executors — stated plainly.

Scale & methodology

Who opposed

1. The Futian mutineers:

• December 12, 1930: officers and men of the 20th Red Army, opposing the purge's excesses, mutinied at Futian, detaining the Front Committee's envoy and demanding an end to the escalation.
• Mao sent main-force troops to crush it; most participants were executed as "AB Corps."
• A rare armed resistance to an internal purge in CCP history.

2. The wrongly killed "AB Corps members": large numbers of local cadres and Red Army officers labeled "AB Corps" were later shown to be wrongful cases. The Center partially rehabilitated the Futian Incident during the 1940s Yan'an Rectification, but the "Anti-AB Corps" campaign itself was never fully repudiated.

3. The silent majority: under the logic of "better to kill three thousand wrongly than let one escape," questioning the purge meant being labeled an "AB Corps" sympathizer. The silence is recorded as such.

Impact

The Red Army bled white. Purges killed masses of experienced commanders, weakening combat power — indirectly causing the fifth encirclement campaign's failure and the forced Long March.

The internal-purge template. The Soviet purges pioneered "expanded inner-Party struggle," a logic reused in Yan'an's "Rescue" campaign and every post-1949 political movement.

Evaded reckoning. Officially still "excessive scope," not fundamental error; Futian remains unrehabilitated.

Where the machinery came from: from the Cheka to the Political Security Bureau

The purges in the Chinese soviets were not improvised on the spot. Their organizational template came from the Soviet Union. In December 1917 Lenin's government created the Cheka, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, with the Red Terror as declared policy. In the early 1930s the Chinese Soviet areas copied that model closely, establishing political security bureaus at every level of government. A security bureau combined in a single organ the functions that liberal states deliberately separate: investigation, arrest, judgment, and recommendation of execution, exercised outside the ordinary procedures of the Soviet courts. After the Chinese Soviet Republic was proclaimed in November 1931, a State Political Security Bureau sat within the provisional central government in Ruijin, with branch bureaus at provincial level and security offices in the counties beneath it. The purge chain of command was therefore institutional from the start. The security organs could arrest first and assign the political label afterwards, leaving a purge committee or a revolutionary tribunal to complete the paperwork over a decision already taken.

Its deepest difference from ordinary criminal justice lay in its logic of proof, and the difference deserves to be stated slowly because everything else followed from it. In the Soviet-area purge, the criminal organization — the AB League, the Social Democratic Party, the Reorganization Clique — was presumed to exist before any individual was charged with belonging to it. Interrogation then supplied the membership list. A prisoner was required to name accomplices; those named were arrested and required to name more; and confessions that corroborated one another were treated as evidence complete, although every confession in the chain had been produced by the same method. The interrogation methods themselves are recorded concretely, not in hostile sources but in participants' memoirs and in the party's own later review materials: binding and suspension beatings, the tiger bench, chili water forced into the nostrils, branding with heated irons, and demands that a prisoner deliver a list of accomplices by morning. Prisoners facing another night of it named names at random to make it stop. Interrogators, for their part, treated the length of the list a prisoner produced as a measure of their own vigilance. A system built that way does not need a real conspiracy to grow. It manufactures the conspiracy it then discovers.

When the Central Delegation carried new instructions into the Central Soviet Area in the spring of 1931, its members, Ren Bishi, Wang Jiaxiang and Gu Zuolin, criticized in writing the “extremely grave errors” committed in the purge work, in language that acknowledged the institutionalization of torture and the manufacture of cases. In the 1940s, when the Central Committee issued its conclusions on the Futian Incident and related cases, it admitted formally that the method of extorting confessions and then believing them had been used, and that the error of over-expansion had been committed. Those are the party's own formulations in its own documents, and this page quotes them without embellishment, because they carry a weight no outside accusation can match.

The interaction between purge and war must also be recorded, because the purge's sponsors relied on it as their justification. Through 1930 and 1931 the Nationalist government mounted its First and Second Encirclement Campaigns against the Central Soviet Area, and the Soviet lived under extreme and continuous military pressure. That pressure was used as a standing argument for compressing every procedure: arrests at night, interrogation on the spot, execution within days, on the reasoning that where the encirclement tightened, hidden enemies necessarily multiplied. Victory over the First Encirclement Campaign, completed at the turn of 1931, might have been expected to relax the terror. It did the opposite. The purge crested in the spring and summer of 1931, after the immediate military danger had receded, which suggests that its dynamic was internal rather than defensive. Only in April 1931, when the Central Delegation reached the Soviet area, denied that any large-scale AB League organization existed in southwestern Jiangxi, and ordered the indiscriminate arrests and killings stopped, was that first great wave pressed down. Pressed down is not the same as accounted for. No sponsor of the purge was disciplined for organizing it. Rehabilitation of the wrongly killed came piecemeal, in the late 1930s and through the 1940s, mostly in the form of internal organizational conclusions whose contents were not shared with the dead men's families.

Soviet by soviet: Eyuwan, Hunan-Hubei-West, western Fujian and the border soviets

The Central Soviet Area was the largest of the Chinese soviets, but it was not the only one to purge itself, and an archive that stopped at Ruijin would understate the phenomenon by most of its geography. In May 1931 Zhang Guotao was sent by the Central Committee to take charge of the Eyuwan Soviet, the base area straddling the Hubei, Henan and Anhui borders. From September to November of that year he conducted a major purge in the names of the Reorganization Clique, the Third Party and the AB League. The arrests reached the summit of the Fourth Red Army. Its commander, Xu Jishen, its political commissar Pang Yongjun, and Zhou Weijiong, commander of the Twelfth Division, were all taken. Xu and Zhou were killed at Baiqueyuan, in Guangshan county, Henan, at the end of 1931. Cheng Xunxuan, the wife of Xu Xiangqian, the Fourth Front Army's most famous commander, was arrested and killed at Baiqueyuan in the same operation. Xu Xiangqian kept silent about his wife's death for the rest of his career and treated it in his memoirs, written in old age, in a handful of restrained sentences that have often been quoted precisely because of what they leave unsaid. The figure of some two thousand officers and men executed at Baiqueyuan alone, which appears in this page's table, follows the Fourth Front Army's official war history and the local party histories of the region. Estimates for the Eyuwan purge as a whole run most commonly between six thousand and ten thousand killed. No archival census has ever been made, and the range is marked unverified on this page. In October 1932 the main force of the Fourth Front Army was driven out of Eyuwan altogether and began its long westward march. Multiple Chinese military histories list the purge's destruction of the army's own command strength among the causes of that defeat, which is about as close as official historiography comes to saying that the purge lost a campaign.

In the Hunan-Hubei-West Soviet, the base area built by He Long and Zhou Yiqun around Honghu Lake in Hubei, the purges were directed by Xia Xi, an emissary of the central leadership who arrived in 1931 with a reputation for severity. Between 1932 and 1934 Xia conducted three successive purge waves under the label of the Reorganization Clique. The killing consumed the Third Red Army's officer corps. Duan Dechang, commander of the Sixth Red Army and one of the founders of the Honghu base, was executed at Jinguoping in Badong county in May 1933, on a charge constructed from the same confessional machinery used everywhere else. Members of He Long's own family died in the purges and the fighting of those years, and He Long, characteristically, carried the memory of it for the rest of his life without ever converting it into a public indictment of the institution that had ordered it. Party-history accounts give the Hunan-Hubei-West toll in the formula “several thousand.” Research estimates reach ten thousand. The gap between the formula and the estimate is itself part of the record, and this page prints both rather than split the difference. Xia Xi halted his own purge in 1934, as the base area collapsed, and died in 1936, drowned at a river crossing during the Long March in Guizhou. In the 1980s Duan Dechang was publicly honoured as a revolutionary martyr, his family was issued one of the earliest-numbered martyr certificates of the reform era, and his name was restored to the textbooks. Discussion of responsibility, however, remained confined to the proposition that Xia Xi personally had carried out an ultra-left line, as if the line had had no authors above him.

The western Fujian Soviet purged in 1931 under yet another label, the Social Democratic Party, a party that had no organization in Fujian to speak of. The purge consumed cadres of the Soviet government and of the Twelfth Red Army; the available estimates run into the thousands and are unverified. The Hunan-Jiangxi Soviet purged a Reorganization Clique in 1932 and 1933, killing provincial committee and army cadres and at one point placing Wang Shoudao, one of its own senior figures, under suspicion. The Hunan-Hubei-Jiangxi Soviet ran a parallel purge on its own territory. Read together, the soviets share three features, and the three together are the analytical core of this page. In every case the crime was an organization presumed to exist before a single name was attached to it. In every case the crest of the killing came between 1931 and 1933. And in every case the killing was stopped, where it was stopped, by a delegation or a document arriving from above, and never by any corrective mechanism operating inside the Soviet itself. A defect that appears simultaneously in Jiangxi, Hubei, Henan, Anhui, Fujian and Hunan, under different commanders with different temperaments, is not a local accident. It is a method in general use across the party at that date, and the page records it as such.

The parallel case: the Soviet Great Terror, 1936 to 1938

No account of the Chinese Soviet purges is complete without the event that stood upstream of them, the Great Terror in the Soviet Union, for two plain reasons. The Chinese security system, its vocabulary of political crime and its interrogation logic were imported from Moscow. And the Communist International, which supervised the Terror years, was at that very time the superior organization of the Chinese party, entitled under its own statutes to direct it. The assassination of Sergei Kirov, the Leningrad party secretary, on 1 December 1934 supplied the pretext and the opening. In August 1936 the first of the Moscow show trials convicted Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and fourteen others of directing a Trotskyist-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre; all sixteen were sentenced to death and shot within the day. In January 1937 the second trial disposed of Georgy Pyatakov, Karl Radek and fifteen others, thirteen of them shot. In March 1938 the third and largest trial convicted Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Genrikh Yagoda, the former head of the secret police himself, and eighteen others; eighteen were shot. The trials shared a single dramaturgy. The accused confessed in open court to elaborate crimes supported by no material evidence, in scripts vetted in advance by the NKVD, while their wives and children were arrested, exiled or shot behind them.

The show trials were the shop window of the Terror. The mass killing behind them ran on paperwork. NKVD Order Number 00447, signed by Nikolai Yezhov on 30 July 1937, divided “former kulaks, criminals and other anti-Soviet elements” into two categories — the first category to be shot, the second to be sentenced to camps — and assigned numerical quotas in advance to every republic and region of the Union: an initial 75,950 persons in the first category and 193,000 in the second. Regional party committees, competing in zeal, petitioned Moscow to raise their quotas, and Stalin and the Politburo approved the increases again and again. Parallel “national operations” targeted the diaspora peoples of the borderlands. The Polish operation alone arrested some 140,000 people and shot approximately 111,000 of them, the highest kill ratio of any of the operations. In June 1937 Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky and seven other senior commanders were tried in secret by a military collegium and shot the same night as Japanese and German spies. Over the two years that followed, roughly 35,000 officers of the Red Army were shot, imprisoned or expelled from the service, the proportions among those fates varying with the source consulted. The population of the Gulag, the camp system into which the second category disappeared, fluctuated through the Terror years between roughly 1.2 million and 2 million prisoners, and deaths inside the camps are reckoned separately from the executions in every serious accounting.

The death toll of the Great Terror must be given in parallel accounts, because the evidence does not converge and the disagreement among historians is honest rather than manufactured. The NKVD's own statistical reports, declassified in the Russian archives after 1991, record approximately 1.57 million arrests in 1937 and 1938 and 681,692 executions carried out. Most scholars treat that archival figure as a floor rather than a total, since by construction it excludes deaths in the camps, deaths in exile settlements, and deaths under interrogation before sentence. Robert Conquest, whose The Great Terror defined the subject for a generation of readers, estimated the executions at around a million and the total mortality of the period considerably higher. Revisionist historians, prominently J. Arch Getty, have preferred to build their accounts strictly on the archival series and to treat the higher figures as inflation. This page prints the archival number and Conquest's range side by side, labelled by their methods, because choosing silently between them would conceal from the reader exactly the thing an archive exists to show: what is documented, what is estimated, and where the boundary between them runs.

One further episode belongs to the same machinery although it falls outside the 1936 to 1938 window, and it belongs on this page because it demonstrates, better than any other, how long the system's lies could outlive the killing. At Katyn and at other sites in the spring of 1940, acting on a written proposal from Lavrentiy Beria approved by the Politburo on 5 March, the NKVD shot 21,857 Polish prisoners of war and civilian detainees, the figure contained in the documents the Russian government handed to Poland in the 1990s. For fifty years the Soviet state attributed the massacre to Nazi Germany, maintained the attribution at Nuremberg, in textbooks and in diplomacy, and punished its own citizens for doubting it. Only in April 1990 did Mikhail Gorbachev formally acknowledge that the NKVD had carried out the killings. A Chinese reader meeting Katyn on a page about the Chinese soviets may ask what it is doing here. The answer is institutional. The bureau that shot the Polish officers and the bureaus that interrogated Red Army soldiers at Futian were branches of one design, trained in one doctrine, answerable in the last resort to one International. The fifty-year career of the Katyn lie is the fullest demonstration available of what that design does to the truth after it has finished with the people.

The relationship between the Chinese and Soviet purges can now be stated in its three layers. First, common descent: the Chinese political security bureaus were modelled directly on the Soviet GPU system, and the operative logic — fix the enemy organization in advance, then fill its membership with confessions — is structurally identical in Ruijin and in Moscow. Second, chronology: the Chinese Soviet purges crested between 1930 and 1934, slightly before the Great Terror of 1936 to 1938, so the Chinese purge cannot be described as an imitation of the Terror, however natural that assumption feels. The accurate formulation is that both grew from a single root, the security institutions and the doctrine of the hidden class enemy inside the Leninist party, and bore fruit in sequence in the two countries. Third, personnel: Chinese Communists working in Moscow in the 1930s were not bystanders to the Terror. Wang Ming and Kang Sheng worked in proximity to the Comintern's own purge apparatus, and members of the Chinese delegation to the Comintern were themselves arrested or disappeared in those years. Kang Sheng returned to China at the end of 1937 to direct the party's security and cadre work, and the cadre-screening drives and the “Rescue Movement” at Yan'an in 1943 replayed the Soviet-area pattern of extorted and believed confessions until Mao personally intervened to halt the campaign and apologize to some of its victims. Drawn in full, that line makes the Chinese Soviet purges something larger and more durable than an early error of a young party. They were the first Chinese operation of a transnational system, and the system outlived the soviets that first ran it.

Rehabilitation, commemoration and the state of the record

Rehabilitation of the purge victims came in waves, and none of the waves was complete. The first, within a few years of the killing itself, restored party membership and employment to a minority of the accused who were still alive, while the dead received internal organizational conclusions that their families were not permitted to read. The second came in the 1940s. The Central Committee's Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party, adopted in 1945, folded the Soviet-area purges into the general errors of a “left” line, and stopped precisely there, publishing neither a list of names nor any figure for the dead. The third wave came in the reform era of the 1980s, when local party-history offices, compiling organizational histories county by county, restored martyr or party-member status to large numbers of the dead. The names of some victims of the Futian Incident and of the Social Democratic Party purge in Fujian can be recovered today from the published gazetteers and martyr registers of Jiangxi, Hubei, Anhui and Fujian, and those registers are the principal public source from which researchers now assemble their lists, name by name, decades after the fact. The official characterization has never moved beyond the five-word formula of “excessive expansion of the purge.” That the wrong people were killed is admitted. That the purge system itself was the wrong instrument is not. The Futian Incident received an internal conclusion in the 1980s holding that most of its participants had been driven to resist by the purge itself and should be rehabilitated, but published formulations have wavered since then, and this page records the position exactly as it stands: partial rehabilitation under a shifting label.

Commemoration on the ground follows the same contour as the documents. The revolutionary memorial halls at Ruijin and on the Jinggangshan display the history of the Soviet period at length, with the purges carried in a panel or two and the weight of the exhibition falling on the encirclement campaigns, the founding of the Soviet Republic and the Long March. Martyr cemeteries at Baiqueyuan and Honghu honour chiefly, and understandably, the men who died fighting the Nationalists; the purge victims buried in the same soil are not usually distinguished in the inscriptions by the cause of their deaths, and a visitor walking those rows has no way of knowing which graves belong to the army's enemies and which to the army's own tribunals. The Soviet comparison throws the Chinese position into relief. Moscow maintains a Gulag History Museum, opened in 2015 in a building near the Lubyanka; civic projects such as the Return of the Names read the names of the executed aloud in public each October; and in 2017 the Russian state itself unveiled the Wall of Sorrow, an official monument to the victims of political repression. The Katyn memorial complex is open, signposted and visited. None of this settled Russia's argument with its past, which continues fiercely. But it established a floor of names and numbers beneath the argument. For the Chinese Soviet purges, no official consolidated list of the dead has ever been published, and no figure has ever been issued that a researcher could check against a register. That absence is the reason every number in this page's table is printed in parallel accounts and marked unverified. The numbers are the record. So is their condition.

Videos