From Unity, 29 August 2009

Self-interested revisionists

By W. Owl

In its 20th of August edition the Guardian carried an article by Jonathan Steele under the heading “History is far too important to be left to politicians.” In this article Steele referred to the European Parliament’s passing of a resolution this spring declaring the 23rd of August a “Europe-wide Remembrance Day for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.” Apparently it was a “watered-down” version of a declaration it passed in September last year that wanted to make the 23rd of August a day to remember the “victims of Stalinism and Nazism.”
     Having said that, Steele makes the comment that “individual EU governments take the ultimate decision, and few have nominated 23rd August as a special day.” He adds: “But the issue matters, as it marks an unpleasant effort by many Baltic and central European politicians to equate Stalinism and Nazism or claim Stalinism was worse.” He goes on to make the point that these elements are in part “concerned” by the “continuing” strength of former communist parties in the region, and so they use the Nazi-Soviet equation to “smear any party of the left.”
     The other part is that it is a “barely disguised attempt to maintain extreme wariness, if not outright hostility, to contemporary Russia. August 23rd was chosen because it was the day in 1939 when the German-Soviet pact was signed and 20 years ago, in 1989, it saw mass demonstrations in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia denouncing the ‘secret’ clauses in the pact that saw the Baltic states ‘incorporated’ in the Soviet Union.”
     Steele’s attitude to the whole episode is that “the EU must not give succour to self-interested revisionists who equate Stalinism and Nazism in an effort to smear the left: When it comes to history it’s always the case of who is writing it and whilst the German-Soviet pact gets a negative press from right-wing historians, the Munich pact of 1938 doesn’t get the same sort of attention. The British and French Governments signed away the rights of Czechoslovakia in one of the most disgraceful acts of appeasement. Of course, this was on top of their disgraceful attitude to Republican Spain. No wonder Stalin was worried.”
     I cannot remember any comments from the likes of Václav Havel, Mr Wonderful, about 1938. I wonder why? Let’s have a look at the Baltic states pre-war, then—not exactly your model democracies: in fact “they looked ideologically towards Berlin than to Moscow,” according to Isaac Deutscher in his biography of Stalin.
     When the Soviets marched into “Eastern Poland” they took back what had been stolen in 1921. “Eastern Poland” comprised western Byelorussia and western Ukraine. Oh, and while we’re at it, the Soviets gave the Lithuanians their capital back. Vilnius once more became Lithuanian, having been known as Vilna since 1921.
     Like it or not, the attitudes of the Baltic states and Poland were posing a threat to the security of the Soviet Union. Whilst looking through a book on the Second World War I came across a very interesting photograph of a Polish general embracing an old woman. This is what the caption said: “ Easy winnings for Poland: a jubilant General Bortnowski embraces an elderly country woman during the Polish takeover of the Teschen District in Czechoslovakia in October 1938.” So as the Germans went through one door, the Poles went through another. Any comments please, on that one?
     The list of myths, distortions and half-truths is endless, and Steele certainly raises one when he points out that one of the biggest areas which remains to be explored is the extent of local civilian participation in the Nazis’ central European killing fields. Some of us already know the answer. One of the biggest myths, of course, is the Warsaw Uprising, one of the most reckless acts of the Second World War. Reactionary elements took the decision to take on the Germans in order to establish a right-wing government, and it failed. Therefore, the best thing to do then is to pin the blame on someone else. In this case, the Soviets—surprise, surprise.
     Let us leave the last word on that one to Lord Nicholas Bethel. “The accusation still made by many Poles that the Red Army could easily have taken Warsaw, but held back for political reasons to allow the Home Army to be destroyed, cannot be proved and may rest on shaky foundations.” I would not have been so diplomatic, but you get the picture.

Home page  >  Publications  >  Unity  >  Self-interested revisionists
Baile  >  Foilseacháin  >  Unity  >  Self-interested revisionists