Sent by Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto on 05-17-2010:
I agree with 90 percent of this article, but must stress two points:
1. The Nazis were a variant of Bolshevism. Carl Goerdeler, former mayor of Leipzig and civilian leader of the German resistance against Hitler, warned the West in 1938-39 that the Nazis would first destroy the Jews, then Christianity, and finally capitalism; they were no bulwark against the Bolsheviks because they were themselves Bolsheviks. Goerdeler was ridiculed both in London and Washington.
2. Though Germany and the UK have both been members of the EU and the NATO, Margaret Thatcher disliked the idea of a German reunification so much that she went as far as to tell Gorbachev that the USSR should pay no heed to the official NATO statements, but instead should stop German reunification.
In other words, Thatcher, like Mitterrand, tried to conspire with the Soviet Union against a faithful ally. How, do you suppose, I as a fervently pro-Western German ought to think and feel about that?
Sent by Sergei Cristo on 05-17-2010:
I translated a large chunk of Pavel's documents dealing with events of 1989 for The Times newspaper a few months ago, comparing Pavel Stroilov's originals with what was already published by the Gorbachev Foundation and the NCA in Washington. I discovered that both the 'original documents' and their English translations published by the Gorbachev's Foundation have many omissions, which are not even marked in the text with <...>, so one would have no idea that they are dealing with incomplete documents. Many important documents are missing altogether.
The pride of the National Security Archive, the translation of Chernyaev's Diary, covers only a few later years, whilst Pavel Stroilov has the whole diary, which actually starts in the 1970s.
The Gorbachev Foundation was very hostile to The Timesâ€™s recent publications based on Stroilovâ€™s documents and apparently caused problems for outside researchers working there... My suggestion is that Moscow gets nervous precisely because they know that there are many documents which they are still concealing.
The fact that those old Soviet archives are more available to international media today than perhaps Stroilov and Bukovsky have both suspected, only makes Berlinski's key point more valid.
Sent by Charles Murray on 05-17-2010:
Occasionally--very occasionally--you're surfing the web and
come across something you didn't know, persuasively told,
that tweaks your view of the world. A wonderful article. I just wish these papers could find their Robert Conquest.
Sent by Russ Williams on 05-16-2010:
"It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps."
The author may not be aware of Communist goverments elected in San Marino (1948), Kerala, India (1957), etc. that did not lead to gulags, etc. So much for Communism inevitably destroying a country.
Nazism explicitly placed the German people higher than other people and considered Jews as subhuman, etc., which seemed indeed to inexorably imply evil abuses. Nothing in Communism implies Jews are subhuman. To suggest that Communism inexorably leads to evil like Nazism did is demonstrably false (due to the existence of counterexamples).
Sure, historically there were many totalitarian Communist regimes. I'd say the prime problem with them was the totalitarian part, not the Communist part - ANY totalitarian regime is bad. To suggest that Communism inevitably leads to evil totalitarianism is about like suggesting that Christianity inexorably leads to wars, inquisitions, torture, and totalitarian theocracy, just because it often did historically - nothing in Christianity or Communism itself suggests that it should do so, unlike Nazism.
Sent by Fabio P. Barbieri on 05-16-2010:
I find it hilarious that an article that all too rightly complains of history lied about and truth neglected should be so obviously partisan and destructive on an important matter. Excuse me, but since when are latecomers such as Almunia and Catharine Ashton "the founders of the European project?" The European project was founded by Adenauer, Schuman and de Gasperi, three strongly anti-Communist Catholics. Until well into the eighties, the very crew who now seem to be in the saddle - pacifists with or without benefit of Soviet gold, so-called socialists with long expense accounts, dialogue experts and opportunists with leftist tinges - were implacably opposed to what they rightly termed a clerical-capitalist conspiracy to embed civil peace and a Christian-led democracy in the soil of western Europe. (To make one thing clear, I draw a clear distinction between genuinely democratic, anti-Communist socialists such as Bevin and Saragat, who fought the tyranny face to face, and the crew of clever cowards, doubletalkers, and outright infiltrators and traitors whom we are talking about.) That they used the old dark arts of entryism and collective careerism to take over what they had not only not created, but fought all their lives, certainly does not make them its creators or its possessors.
Sent by Dennis Otto Stillings on 05-16-2010:
Some years ago at a meeting in RI involving some top Russian officials, they asked us Americans why we had such a positive thing about Gorbachev. They said that his actual agenda was nothing like what was being reported in American newspapers.
Sent by Dave Stone on 05-15-2010:
Much of the material the author refers to here is already widely available and has been for quite some time. Take the Cherniaev memoirs, for example. They were serialized in the Russian journal _Novaia i noveishchaia istoriia_ and are easily available in English on the website of the National Security Archive.
If Stroilov is portraying the Cherniaev diary as something unique and unknown in 2010, then he is seriously misrepresenting what he has.
Sent by Anna on 05-14-2010:
I've never heard of your journal before, but writing and publishing such an article shows an amazing clarity of thought and sense of responsibility for what is happening in the world. I grew up in Moscow and we've always known that Gorbachev was not the cool guy that the West made him out to be. We knew that he had blood on his hands. Anyone who rose through the system did. Still, I was shocked to learn about his comments that you allude to in the article. The shortsightedness of the Western liberals is all the more lamentable. It's one thing for Russian authorities to bury the documents (that's what they do), but quite another for the so-called free media and academia in the West to ignore evidence that people risked their lives to get. The truth will come out at some point, but it's frightening to think of the cost of not making people aware of it now.
Sent by David Smith on 05-13-2010:
This article only tells half the story about what Stroilov's documents reveal. Months ago, the London Times had a detailed article about the equally shocking revelations that Margaret Thatcher had urged Gorbachev not to allow German reunification, had expressed her respect for the integrity of the Warsaw Pact, and her admiration for Poland's Communist leader, General Jaruzelski. It's all here. Does Thatcher's apparent desire to see the cold war power configurations live on at the moment when the liberation of Eastern Europe was imminent make her complicit in Soviet crimes, too?
Sent by Rebecca on 05-13-2010:
A couple of thoughts:
1. No pictures of the atrocities.
2. Nazism was relatively short lived (like a pandemic), identified now as a mass movement or belief system with Hitler as a messianic figure. Communism has been long-lived (like a slow-growing cancer)and survived many leaders. Communism is identified more as an economic system than a political one(from each to each stuff). Nazism is identified with Germany, and Communism with multiple countries.
3. WWII was the last war that both left and right generally supported and Russia was our ally, Germany our enemy. This was back when a war was fought to completion in that someone wins and someone loses. The defeated (Germany, Japan, and Italy) have become better friends with the West than Russia (Russia fought more to protect itself than defeat Nazism; they thought they would share Poland and Hitler lied). Russia was also our ally and Germany the enemy during WWI.
4. We are a generation that has become fat and happy and oblivious to the lessons of history. The Wall came down without a shot or American death, so it has been assumed everything has been peace and love with Communism ever since. It was just that easy.
Sent by jr on 05-13-2010:
So why doesn't the Manhattan Institute approach the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks about funding a project to translate and house these documents? It seems like something that shouldn't be left to the whims of private publishers. These are important events in the course of human history and their story should be preserved.
Sent by Brian Switzer on 05-13-2010:
I found Ms. Berlinski's article to be one that ought to be read by every individual who cares a scintilla about truth. While some, like Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest, have written about Lenin and Stalin as architects of mass murder, the essence of Communism itself as an ideology of death has been virtually ignored. The fact that there are vast numbers of potentially important historical documents uncared for speaks volumes about the penetration of left-liberal thinking into all aspects of academia.
In the worlds collective consciousness, the word Nazi is synonymous with evil. It is widely understood that the Nazis ideologynationalism, anti-Semitism, the autarkic ethnic state, the Führer principleled directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz. It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps. Nor is it widely acknowledged that Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history.
For evidence of this indifference, consider the unread Soviet archives. Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London, has on his computer 50,000 unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War. He stole them in 2003 and fled Russia. Within living memory, they would have been worth millions to the CIA; they surely tell a story about Communism and its collapse that the world needs to know. Yet he cant get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation. In fact, he cant get anyone to take much interest in them at all.
Then theres Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who once spent 12 years in the USSRs prisons, labor camps, and psikhushkaspolitical psychiatric hospitalsafter being convicted of copying anti-Soviet literature. He, too, possesses a massive collection of stolen and smuggled papers from the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which, as he writes, contain the beginnings and the ends of all the tragedies of our bloodstained century. These documents are available online at bukovsky-archives.net, but most are not translated. They are unorganized; there are no summaries; there is no search or index function. I offer them free of charge to the most influential newspapers and journals in the world, but nobody wants to print them, Bukovsky writes. Editors shrug indifferently: So what? Who cares?
The originals of most of Stroilovs documents remain in the Kremlin archives, where, like most of the Soviet Unions top-secret documents from the post-Stalin era, they remain classified. They include, Stroilov says, transcripts of nearly every conversation between Gorbachev and his foreign counterpartshundreds of them, a near-complete diplomatic record of the era, available nowhere else. There are notes from the Politburo taken by Georgy Shakhnazarov, an aide of Gorbachevs, and by Politburo member Vadim Medvedev. There is the diary of Anatoly ChernyaevGorbachevs principal aide and deputy chief of the body formerly known as the Cominternwhich dates from 1972 to the collapse of the regime. There are reports, dating from the 1960s, by Vadim Zagladin, deputy chief of the Central Committees International Department until 1987 and then Gorbachevs advisor until 1991. Zagladin was both envoy and spy, charged with gathering secrets, spreading disinformation, and advancing Soviet influence.
When Gorbachev and his aides were ousted from the Kremlin, they took unauthorized copies of these documents with them. The documents were scanned and stored in the archives of the Gorbachev Foundation, one of the first independent think tanks in modern Russia, where a handful of friendly and vetted researchers were given limited access to them. Then, in 1999, the foundation opened a small part of the archive to independent researchers, including Stroilov. The key parts of the collection remained restricted; documents could be copied only with the written permission of the author, and Gorbachev refused to authorize any copies whatsoever. But there was a flaw in the foundations security, Stroilov explained to me. When things went wrong with the computers, as often they did, he was able to watch the network administrator typing the password that gave access to the foundations network. Slowly and secretly, Stroilov copied the archive and sent it to secure locations around the world.
When I first heard about Stroilovs documents, I wondered if they were forgeries. But in 2006, having assessed the documents with the cooperation of prominent Soviet dissidents and Cold War spies, British judges concluded that Stroilov was credible and granted his asylum request. The Gorbachev Foundation itself has since acknowledged the documents authenticity.
Bukovskys story is similar. In 1992, President Boris Yeltsins government invited him to testify at the Constitutional Court of Russia in a case concerning the constitutionality of the Communist Party. The Russian State Archives granted Bukovsky access to its documents to prepare his testimony. Using a handheld scanner, he copied thousands of documents and smuggled them to the West.
The Russian state cannot sue Stroilov or Bukovsky for breach of copyright, since the material was created by the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, neither of which now exists. Had he remained in Russia, however, Stroilov believes that he could have been prosecuted for disclosure of state secrets or treason. The military historian Igor Sutyagin is now serving 15 years in a hard-labor camp for the crime of collecting newspaper clippings and other open-source materials and sending them to a British consulting firm. The danger that Stroilov and Bukovsky faced was real and grave; they both assumed, one imagines, that the world would take notice of what they had risked so much to acquire.
Stroilov claims that his documents tell a completely new story about the end of the Cold War. The commonly accepted version of history of that period consists of myths almost entirely. These documents are capable of ruining each of those myths. Is this so? I couldnt say. I dont read Russian. Of Stroilovs documents, I have seen only the few that have been translated into English. Certainly, they shouldnt be taken at face value; they were, after all, written by Communists. But the possibility that Stroilov is right should surely compel keen curiosity.
For instance, the documents cast Gorbachev in a far darker light than the one in which he is generally regarded. In one document, he laughs with the Politburo about the USSRs downing of Korean Airlines flight 007 in 1983a crime that was not only monstrous but brought the world very near to nuclear Armageddon. These minutes from a Politburo meeting on October 4, 1989, are similarly disturbing:
Lukyanov reports that the real number of casualties on Tiananmen Square was 3,000.
Gorbachev: We must be realists. They, like us, have to defend themselves. Three thousands . . . So what?
And a transcript of Gorbachevs conversation with Hans-Jochen Vogel, the leader of West Germanys Social Democratic Party, shows Gorbachev defending Soviet troops April 9, 1989, massacre of peaceful protesters in Tbilisi.
Stroilovs documents also contain transcripts of Gorbachevs discussions with many Middle Eastern leaders. These suggest interesting connections between Soviet policy and contemporary trends in Russian foreign policy. Here is a fragment from a conversation reported to have taken place with Syrian president Hafez al-Assad on April 28, 1990:
H. ASSAD. To put pressure on Israel, Baghdad would need to get closer to Damascus, because Iraq has no common borders with Israel. . . .
M. S. GORBACHEV. I think so, too. . . .
H. ASSAD. Israels approach is different, because the Judaic religion itself states: the land of Israel spreads from Nile to Euphrates and its return is a divine predestination.
M. S. GORBACHEV. But this is racism, combined with Messianism!
H. ASSAD. This is the most dangerous form of racism.
One doesnt need to be a fantasist to wonder whether these discussions might be relevant to our understanding of contemporary Russian policy in a region of some enduring strategic significance.
There are other ways in which the story that Stroilovs and Bukovskys papers tell isnt over. They suggest, for example, that the architects of the European integration project, as well as many of todays senior leaders in the European Union, were far too close to the USSR for comfort. This raises important questions about the nature of contemporary Europequestions that might be asked when Americans consider Europe as a model for social policy, or when they seek European diplomatic cooperation on key issues of national security.
According to Zagladins reports, for example, Kenneth Coates, who from 1989 to 1998 was a British member of the European Parliament, approached Zagladin on January 9, 1990, to discuss what amounted to a gradual merger of the European Parliament and the Supreme Soviet. Coates, says Zagladin, explained that creating an infrastructure of cooperation between the two parliament[s] would help . . . to isolate the rightists in the European Parliament (and in Europe), those who are interested in the USSRs collapse. Coates served as chair of the European Parliaments Subcommittee on Human Rights from 1992 to 1994. How did it come to pass that Europe was taking advice about human rights from a man who had apparently wished to isolate those interested in the USSRs collapse and sought to extend Soviet influence in Europe?
Or consider a report on Francisco Fernández Ordóñez, who led Spains integration into the European Community as its foreign minister. On March 3, 1989, according to these documents, he explained to Gorbachev that the success of perestroika means only one thingthe success of the socialist revolution in contemporary conditions. And that is exactly what the reactionaries dont accept. Eighteen months later, Ordóñez told Gorbachev: I feel intellectual disgust when I have to read, for example, passages in the documents of G7 where the problems of democracy, freedom of human personality and ideology of market economy are set on the same level. As a socialist, I cannot accept such an equation. Perhaps most shockingly, the Eastern European press has reported that Stroilovs documents suggest that François Mitterrand was maneuvering with Gorbachev to ensure that Germany would unite as a neutral, socialist entity under a Franco-Soviet condominium.
Zagladins records also note that the former leader of the British Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, approached Gorbachevunauthorized, while Kinnock was leader of the oppositionthrough a secret envoy to discuss the possibility of halting the United Kingdoms Trident nuclear-missile program. The minutes of the meeting between Gorbachev and the envoy, MP Stuart Holland, read as follows:
In [Hollands] opinion, Soviet Union should be very interested in liquidation of Tridents because, apart from other things, the Westmeaning the US, Britain and Francewould have a serious advantage over the Soviet Union after the completion of START treaty. That advantage will need to be eliminated. . . . At the same time Holland noted that, of course, we can seriously think about realisation of that idea only if the Labour comes to power. He said Thatcher . . . would never agree to any reduction of nuclear armaments.
Kinnock was vice president of the European Commission from 1999 to 2004, and his wife, Glenys, is now Britains minister for Europe. Gerard Batten, a member of the UK Independence Party, has noted the significance of the episode. If the report given to Mr. Gorbachev is true, it means that Lord Kinnock approached one of Britains enemies in order to seek approval regarding his partys defense policy and, had he been elected, Britains defense policy, Batten said to the European Parliament in 2009. If this report is true, then Lord Kinnock would be guilty of treason.
Similarly, Baroness Catherine Ashton, who is now the European Unions foreign minister, was treasurer of Britains Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament from 1980 to 1982. The papers offer evidence that this organization received unidentified income from the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Stroilovs papers suggest as well that the government of the current Spanish EU commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, Joaquín Almunia, enthusiastically supported the Soviet project of gradually unifying Germany and Europe into a socialist common European home and strongly opposed the independence of the Baltic states and then of Ukraine.
Perhaps it doesnt surprise you to read that prominent European politicians held these views. But why doesnt it? It is impossible to imagine that figures who had enjoyed such close ties to the Nazi Partyor, for that matter, to the Ku Klux Klan or to South Africas apartheid regimewould enjoy top positions in Europe today. The rules are different, apparently, for Communist fellow travelers. We now have the EU unelected socialist party running Europe, Stroilov said to me. Bet the KGB cant believe it.
And what of Zagladins description of his dealings with our own current vice president in 1979?
Unofficially, [Senator Joseph] Biden and [Senator Richard] Lugar said that, in the end of the day, they were not so much concerned with having a problem of this or that citizen solved as with showing to the American public that they do care for human rights. . . . In other words, the collocutors directly admitted that what is happening is a kind of a show, that they absolutely do not care for the fate of most so-called dissidents.
Remarkably, the world has shown little interest in the unread Soviet archives. That paragraph about Biden is a good example. Stroilov and Bukovsky coauthored a piece about it for the online magazine FrontPage on October 10, 2008; it passed without remark. Americans considered the episode so uninteresting that even Bidens political opponents didnt try to turn it into political capital. Imagine, if you can, what it must feel like to have spent the prime of your life in a Soviet psychiatric hospital, to know that Joe Biden is now vice president of the United States, and to know that no one gives a damn.
Bukovskys book about the story that these documents tell, Jugement à Moscou, has been published in French, Russian, and a few other Slavic languages, but not in English. Random House bought the manuscript and, in Bukovskys words, tried to force me to rewrite the whole book from the liberal left political perspective. Bukovsky replied that due to certain peculiarities of my biography I am allergic to political censorship. The contract was canceled, the book was never published in English, and no other publisher has shown interest in it. Neither has anyone wanted to publish EUSSR, a pamphlet by Stroilov and Bukovsky about the Soviet roots of European integration. In 2004, a very small British publisher did print an abbreviated version of the pamphlet; it, too, passed unnoticed.
Stroilov has a long list of complaints about journalists who have initially shown interest in the documents, only to tell him later that their editors have declared the story insignificant. In advance of Gorbachevs visit to Germany for the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Stroilov says, he offered the German press the documents depicting Gorbachev unflatteringly. There were no takers. In France, news about the documents showing Mitterrands and Gorbachevs plans to turn Germany into a dependent socialist state prompted a few murmurs of curiosity, nothing more. Bukovskys vast collection about Soviet sponsorship of terrorism, Palestinian and otherwise, remains largely unpublished.
Stroilov says that he and Bukovsky approached Jonathan Brent of Yale University Press, which is leading a publishing project on the history of the Cold War. He claims that initially Brent was enthusiastic and asked him to write a book, based on the documents, about the first Gulf War. Stroilov says that he wrote the first six chapters, sent them off, and never heard from Brent again, despite sending him e-mail after e-mail. I can only speculate what so much frightened him in that book, Stroilov wrote to me.
Ive also asked Brent and received no reply. This doesnt mean anything; people are busy. I am less inclined to believe in complex attempts to suppress the truth than I am in indifference and preoccupation with other things. Stroilov sees in these events a kind of a taboo, the vague common understanding in the Establishment that it is better to let sleeping dogs lie, not to throw stones in a house of glass, and not to mention a rope in the house of a hanged man. I suspect it is something even more disturbing: no one much cares.
I know the time will come, Stroilov says, when the world has to look at those documents very carefully. We just cannot escape this. We have no way forward until we face the truth about what happened to us in the twentieth century. Even now, no matter how hard we try to ignore history, all these questions come back to us time and again.
The questions come back time and again, it is true, but few remember that they have been asked before, and few remember what the answer looked like. No one talks much about the victims of Communism. No one erects memorials to the throngs of people murdered by the Soviet state. (In his widely ignored book, A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, Alexander Yakovlev, the architect of perestroika under Gorbachev, puts the number at 30 to 35 million.)
Indeed, many still subscribe to the essential tenets of Communist ideology. Politicians, academics, students, even the occasional autodidact taxi driver still stand opposed to private property. Many remain enthralled by schemes for central economic planning. Stalin, according to polls, is one of Russias most popular historical figures. No small number of young people in Istanbul, where I live, proudly describe themselves as Communists; I have met such people around the world, from Seattle to Calcutta.
We rightly insisted upon total denazification; we rightly excoriate those who now attempt to revive the Nazis ideology. But the world exhibits a perilous failure to acknowledge the monstrous history of Communism. These documents should be translated. They should be housed in a reputable library, properly cataloged, and carefully assessed by scholars. Above all, they should be well-known to a public that seems to have forgotten what the Soviet Union was really about. If they contain what Stroilov and Bukovsky sayand all the evidence Ive seen suggests that they dothis is the obligation of anyone who gives a damn about history, foreign policy, and the scores of millions dead.