SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (37176)1/6/2013 9:09:01 PM
From: average joe2 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
How the spectre of the Iron Curtain haunts Eastern Europe today

Published on Sunday January 06, 2013


Anne Applebaum DAVID COOPER/TORONTO STAR "For most people, I came to understand, the choices were not obvious and the options were not ideal," says author Anne Applebaum about life in Eastern Europe after the Soviet takeover.


By Olivia WardForeign Affairs Reporter

It’s hard to read Anne Applebaum’s massive analysis of the Soviet takeover of East Europe without feeling the cold, clammy hand of Soviet communism on your shoulder, to breathe the stifling air of the police state, and feel your chest tighten at descriptions of lives shredded and squandered at the will of a faceless force that was inescapable.

Even those who know little of the era that Applebaum writes about in Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe — the turbulent post-war years of 1945 to 1956 — would shudder at the story of the Ukrainian child who watched as his cousin’s wedding turned to a bloodbath of ethnic cleansing by the Polish communist regime. Or the Hungarian teenagers dragged from their homes and deported to Soviet work camps as part of the geopolitical engineering that overtook millions in the carve-up of Eastern Europe.

More subtle tactics followed, to create the perfect “homo Sovieticus” — Soviet man — from the clay of countries battered and crushed together under the Soviet boot. Even those who opposed the vicious and chaotic capitalism that had beset pre-war Europe, and fostered fascism, found themselves under omnipresent surveillance.

Widespread intimidation, targeted assassination, show trials, arbitrary detention and censorship of every aspect of civil society convinced many to keep their heads down and pay lip service to their new communist masters. Others joined the party with hope for better days.

Applebaum is the ideal author for such a vast project. As a journalist who has worked for newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic, including the Economist and The Spectator, and as a columnist for the Washington Post, she gives human texture to the well-documented historic record by giving voice to aging witnesses and illuminating previously buried material.

The wife of Poland’s foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, she divides her time between Warsaw and London, where she holds a chair of history at the London School of Economics.

Her previous book, Gulag: A History, won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize. But in spite of the dark material she has mined over the past two decades, she is remarkably upbeat. In Toronto recently for a book tour, Applebaum talked about her latest journey through Europe’s post-war past, and what she found there.

Q: With subjects like this, how do you avoid terminal depression?

A: If you don’t keep some sort of distance, you can’t write it. And the people I’m talking to are survivors who have somehow come through this and are still alive. So speaking to them isn’t really depressing.

Q: This part of history has been widely chronicled. Why did you choose it, and why now?

A: It partly evolved from my previous book. I became fascinated by collaboration — why do people go along with certain things in a totalitarian regime? What are the institutional, psychological and ideological reasons? This is the best period to examine the building blocks of totalitarianism. Archives are now accessible. And it’s the last moment when you can talk to eye witnesses.

Q: You went through huge numbers of German, Hungarian, Polish and Russian archives. Did you read them all yourself?

A: I read Polish and Russian. But in Germany and Hungary I went with extremely good people who translated. They’d read documents to me and I’d sit there and type.

Q: After your previous gulag book, did anything in the stories surprise you?

A: In terms of how the people adapted, I wouldn’t say it was surprising. It was illuminating and humbling to see how difficult their choices were. There were real good and bad guys. But for most people, I came to understand, the choices were not obvious and the options were not ideal.

Q: Did you get any idea of why the communist regime wanted such a horrific amount of control?

A: The theory was that you could control everything. Not only politics, but culture, social and civic life, every institution could be brought under state control. It was the operating theory of this system and that’s what made it so unique.

Q: Aided by paranoia?

A: It was a side effect. They used targeted violence, arrested leaders, nonconformists and people of stature. It made others afraid. There wasn’t mass murder, as there had been in earlier times. But the paranoia came from not knowing what you could say in public, whether you might be arrested at any time. To destroy civil society was the aim, and to make sure there was no way of organizing outside the system. Youth groups, the church, charities, all were institutions that could provide people with an alternative view of the world. So they had to be brought under control.

Q: How easy was it to stamp out religion?

A: They never eradicated it, but they made it difficult. In some cases they corrupted (religious) people in a very sad way. They tried to turn some into informers and propagandists. They created more severe damage in some places than others. In Poland, the most famous example, the church not only came back but was an organizing force of society. Physically, the buildings were places where people could meet and feel free of surveillance.

Q: What role did ethnic cleansing play in the communist takeover?

A: There were different kinds of ethnic cleansing. The most famous, and largest, was of Germans from western Poland, and the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. Expelling the Germans was a tremendous boost for the communist parties because it was popular, and meant that the state suddenly owned enormous amounts of empty property. It could be redistributed to people coming from other places. That gave them more state control than in the past. It made those countries more homogeneous than they had ever been. It was geopolitical engineering.

Q: But for all the Soviet efforts, there were still big differences between countries when the Berlin Wall fell.

A: If you looked at the region in 1950, they would have looked very much alike. But after Stalin died they took very different paths, and began to differentiate themselves in various ways. It had to do with the nature of the communist parties, or religion or political traditions. Since 1989 they have become wildly diverse.

Q: What were the lingering effects of those decades of repression?

A: There’s a paranoid strain in politics that does come from the memory of somebody following you. In particular, there’s a memory of a secret cabal of people who control you on behalf of a foreign country. That means there is a strain of xenophobia that comes in different forms — anti-European, anti-foreigner. It isn’t dominant, but it’s there. There is also a feeling that in some ways, the state isn’t “ours.” There are people up there doing something we can’t influence, making decisions that harm or manipulate us.

Q: You’ve been delving into countries where surveillance of every aspect of life was routine. Are you worried about the electronic surveillance that is so widespread now in the West?

A: I’ve become used to the idea that you have much less privacy than you used to. It offers new forms of potential control and manipulation. I now assume anything I post online, in emails, will be read by somebody. But I wouldn’t say that at this moment I feel concerned. Maybe I should.

Q: You’re an academic, you’re doing journalism, writing history books, living in Poland and working abroad. What do you do in your spare time, if any?

A: Go on vacation — we have a country place in Poland. But I also cook. By accident of publication, I’ve just published a cookbook (From a Polish Country House Kitchen) with Danielle Crittenden. Cooking and writing go together very well. You start the roast in the morning, work for an hour, come back and adjust the seasonings — and lunch is ready. It’s a very relaxing way to carry on, and besides, you have to feed the children.

Olivia Ward was the Star’s Moscow bureau chief from 1992-1997.

Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956. Signal. $39.95

thestar.com

User Comments

Sort:Newest FirstOldest FirstMost Agreed
Please wait...

Commenting Guidelines
Login to Comment

dovercourt22
@Couch Poteto Washigton protects the communist gangsters and the bounty100% TRUE! The former Eastern European communist gangsters overnight became darlings of the West. Why? Because they overnight sold the assets accumulated over several generations by Eastern Europeans to western companies. Now Washington makes sure the looted assets never go back to their rightful owners to Eastern Europeans Jan 6, 2013 7:52 PM Agree (0) Disagree (0)



    Couch Potato
    Here is the "unknown" story which our "free" press neglects to mention: the old commie comrades are still on power They are backed up and protected by the US government. Their mandate is to unconditionally serve the new evil empire and firesell away all the remaining assets of governments and land. Most Eastern Europeans would love nothing more than to get rid of the comrades but it's not possible under Washington's watchful eyes. The Americans protect their servants. What a shame. Jan 6, 2013 5:10 PM Agree (0) Disagree (1)



      ICANSEE
      I was there behind the Iron Curtain as a CDN TOURIST back in 1972 Perpetually tailed from the minute our plane landed by 2 men in 'trenchcoats' into cultural exhibits, bathrooms, restaurants, hotel lobbies etc. The same 2 guys seemed to be showing up everywhere we went for 4 days...in 2 different cities 250 km apart. Finally sent over 2 beers via the waitress and NEVER SAW THEM AGAIN in the next 3 weeks we were there. But....it was kind of SPOOKY for a while. Jan 6, 2013 3:12 PM Agree (0) Disagree (0)



        dovercourt22
        Ann Applebaum's work is very importantNobody can understand the 20. Century history without fully understanding of the terrible criminal nature of the Soviet communist system. They were some idealistic communists who became overzealous. They were simply common criminals who seized the power after the collapse of the Czarist regime. From the very first day their power was based only on mass murder and genocide, rape and violence Jan 6, 2013 11:34 AM Agree (1) Disagree (0)



          spec3
          Limited coverageI commend Anne Applebaum for this book. It should be noted however that there were many other countries affected by Communism. This covers what happened after WW2 but many of the murders occurred during, while the Germans and Communists were exchanging control in places like the Baltics. More needs to be exposed about Stalin and his evil. He was as bad as Hitler if not worse. Jan 6, 2013 10:51 AM Agree (1) Disagree (0)




            To: koan who wrote (37176)1/7/2013 7:03:05 AM
            From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
             
            Why read the Constitution when you can watch the Daily Show?




            To: koan who wrote (37176)1/7/2013 8:03:38 AM
            From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
             
            America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem

            It's Obama's America that has the violence problem.


            December 31, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield Comments (148)

            Chicago’s murder numbers have hit that magic 500. Baltimore’s murder toll has passed 200. In Philly, it’s up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it’s approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it’s almost at 200. New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it’s over 500. In St. Louis it’s 113 and 130 in Oakland. It’s 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham. Washington, D.C., home of the boys and girls who can solve it all, is nearing its own big 100.

            [iframe style="POSITION: absolute; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=aswift_0 height=250 marginHeight=0 frameBorder=0 width=300 allowTransparency name=aswift_0 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no][/iframe]
            Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States. And we haven’t even visited sunny Atlanta or chilly Cleveland.

            These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

            Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

            Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the Illinois’ 5.6 rates, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.

            But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. If New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.

            Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.

            St. Louis has a murder rate just a little lower than Belize. Baltimore has a worse murder rate than South Africa and Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

            Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

            [iframe style="POSITION: absolute; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=aswift_1 height=250 marginHeight=0 frameBorder=0 width=300 allowTransparency name=aswift_1 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no][/iframe]
            Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

            Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle which is agonizing over its 26 murders. That’s about the same number of murders as East St. Louis which has only 27,000 people to Seattle’s 620,000.

            So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell ahead of Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

            A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

            Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.

            America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

            National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

            Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

            If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

            Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

            But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

            There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

            America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Our murder rate now largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

            As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

            America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

            Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

            We do not need to have a conversation about the NRA. We need to have a conversation about Chicago.

            http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/