Darkness at Noon

Darkness at Noon It seems contradictory that the Russian state has people who disagree with state policies confess, then immediately execute them. The state could just execute the political prisoners and forge the prisoners' signatures on a confession statement. Even Rubashov, who has spent time in prison before, eventually confesses. "Darkness at Noon" by Arthur Koestler provides some insights into the logic of forcing confessions and staging legal trials even though the confessors will soon be executed.

He shows how the state gains the confessions and how the state uses the confessions to undermine the cause of the dissidents. Further he shows how the authorities use mental and physical torture to get confessions from everyone including Rubashov. The state's goal in all of this is to eliminate anyone who does not speak in favor of the state and create fear among the rest of the population so anyone who might think anything against the state will not express himself.

One aspect of confessions is to implicate a person in a plot against the state. For example, the authorities are able to get a prisoner to use his confession against Rubashov. Ivanov explains to Rubashov, "I told you. We have proofs. To be more exact: confessions. To be still more exact: the confession of the man who was actually to commit the attempt [to kill No. 1] on your instigation (90)." Later the reader finds out that the confessor is the son of an acquaintance of Rubashov.

The confessor has been tortured over time until he will say whatever the authorities want him to say. The goal is to break down one person so they will supply information about another. Elements of truth in the information cause the accused to question there own memory of the setting. These doubts weaken the accused's own recollection of what really happened. The state had an interesting way of describing how they eliminate people sometimes regardless of whether they confessed.

A military man who Rubashov knew refused to give up his belief about the right way to run the navy. Ivanov fills in the details, "He [Bogrov] declaimed up to the very end of big tonnage and world revolution (151)." "In a public trial he would only have created confusion amongst the people. There was no other way possible than to liquidate him administratively (151)." This explanation exposes another concern of the state: the need to send a single, consistent message to the masses of people.

Any doubt in the peoples' minds could cause problems for the state. Another member of the state organization, Gletkin, expands on this theme. "The only way in which you [Rubashov] can still serve the Party is as a warning example -- by demonstrating to the masses, in your own person, the consequences to which opposition to the Party policy inevitably leads (194)." So having a well-known person such as Rubashov confess at a public trial helps deliver a message to the masses and creates fear among possible protestors.

To make a confession most useful Gletkin describes how. "You [Rubashov] belong to that tenacious kind. The political utility of your confession at the trial will lie in its voluntary character (220)." Voluntary has a special meaning in this circumstance because Gletkin physically and mentally wears down Rubashov's resistance until Rubashov will confess to anything he is asked. Rubashov is deprived of adequate sleep and he has an extremely bright light shined in his face.

Rubashov realizes that he does not have his full senses because of the lack of sleep so he cannot argue logically with Gletkin about the charges against him. Rubashov's own words are turned against him. "It is necessary to hammer every sentence into the masses by repetition and simplification. What.