person:lenin

  • Un expert de l’ONU préoccupé par le comportement de l’Équateur dans les affaires Assange et Moreno
    https://news.un.org/fr/story/2019/05/1044201

    L’expert indépendant a déclaré avoir reçu des informations selon lesquelles, à la demande du Département de la justice des États-Unis, le gouvernement équatorien avait décidé de fouiller le 20 mai les locaux de son ambassade à Londres où a résidé le fondateur de WikiLeaks et de saisir ses documents, téléphones, appareils électroniques, cartes mémoire, etc., pour les remettre au gouvernement américain.

    Préoccupé par ces informations, M. Cannataci a écrit au gouvernement équatorien pour recommander des mesures de protection qui devraient être mises en place avant toute recherche.

    Il a également proposé de faire appel à des experts impartiaux pour surveiller les recherches et de séparer les informations qui pourraient être utiles pour un éventuel processus pénal aux États-Unis des informations qui devraient rester confidentielles et être rendues à M. Assange. Le Rapporteur spécial s’est déclaré déçu par l’absence de réponse rapide du gouvernement équatorien.

    « J’ai à deux reprises formellement demandé au gouvernement équatorien de restituer les effets personnels de M. Assange à ses avocats, mais il semble plutôt qu’il ait l’intention de les remettre aux autorités américaines. Je n’ai aucun problème avec les procédures de perquisition et saisie menées en vertu de l’Etat de droit, il s’agit là de circonstances très spéciales pour au moins deux raisons : il ne s’agit pas seulement de droit à la vie privée. D’autres droits de l’homme, et en particulier la liberté d’expression, sont également menacés si certains des éléments matériels appartenant à M. Assange tombaient entre les mauvaises mains. M. Assange a traité avec un certain nombre de sources confidentielles et de lanceurs d’alerte dont l’identité et la vie privée devraient également être protégées », a déclaré le Rapporteur spécial.

    Il s’est dit également déçu par le manque de réponse rapide de l’Équateur à sa proposition de se rendre à Quito et d’évaluer de manière plus approfondie la plainte que le Président Lenin Moreno lui a adressée au sujet d’une violation de son droit à la vie privée, liée à un présumé piratage ayant conduit à la publication en ligne d’un grand nombre de communications et de photos personnelles de M. Moreno et de sa famille.

    M. Cannataci a déclaré que cette visite aurait été « une excellente occasion pour moi de mieux comprendre les particularités de l’affaire ».

  • Passionnante interview sur le rôle de mercenaires en Amérique latine. Colombie, Venezuela et la place des Israéliens au Brésil.
    Sombres perspectives pour le Venezuela, comparé à la Libye et à la Syrie (l’entretien est de février).

    Revista Insomnio : Entrevista a Fernando Mon (Especialista en historia militar contemporánea) : Historia de los mercenarios, « contratistas » en Hispanoamérica y la crisis venezolana.
    http://www.revistainsomnio.com/2019/02/entrevista-fernando-mon-especialista-en.html

    Entrevista a Fernando Mon – Especialista en historia militar contemporánea egresado de la Escuela Superior de Guerra del Ejército Argentino.

    Revista Insomnio: ¿Cómo comienza la historia de los “mercenarios”?
    Fernando Mon: Un “mercenario” es una persona con experiencia militar que participa de un conflicto bélico a cambio de dinero. O sea, son ’alquilados’ para luchar por un ’bando’, esa sería la definición clásica de “mercenario”. Son soldados que, en lugar de pelear por una causa o por un país, lo hacen en beneficio propio.

    Aparecen con fuerza a finales de la Edad Media y principios del Renacimiento. La mayoría de los ejércitos, como es el caso de Italia que se encontraba dividida en distintos reinos y principados, estaban compuestos por soldados contratados. Estos recibían el nombre de “condotieros”, adjetivo que deriva de la palabra “condot”, que significa “contrato”, en referencia al contrato que firmaban con las distintos reinos, Estados o principados para formar parte de sus ejércitos. Con el correr del tiempo comienzan a ser cuestionados por ser caros y poco fiables, ya que podían cambiar de ’bando’ tranquilamente si otro les ofrecía más dinero. Quien más los cuestionó fue Maquiavelo, que abogaba por formar ejércitos de ciudadanos, que no peleara simplemente por dinero sino por fidelidad a su gobernante.

    A partir del Renacimiento comienzan a consolidarse los distintos Estados absolutistas que empiezan a construir, de a poco, ejércitos nacionales; hasta que se llega a la Revolución Francesa, la que impone el modelo de ejército para los Estados burgueses modernos, conformados por ciudadanos en armas. Cuando esta se produce, se genera una coalición de monarquías absolutistas contrarias a la misma, con el fin de atacar a Francia. La Revolución se ve obligada a defenderse y, como el ejército aristocrático del monarca francés había sido barrido quedando en desbandada, los jacobinos implementan lo que se llamó ’leva de masas’; es decir, el servicio militar obligatorio, la movilización total de la población. Ahí es cuando surge el ejército nacional propiamente dicho, que fue el prototipo para los ejércitos napoleónicos que luego terminarían por conquistar Europa entera, revolucionando la guerra en aquel momento.

    RI: ¿En qué momento de la historia moderna reaparecen los mercenarios?
    FM: En principio, podríamos decir que fue en el Congo, cuando un grupo de mercenarios belgas, franceses y suecos participan en el derrocamiento y asesinato de Lumumba. Estos mercenarios fueron contratados por las empresas mineras de la provincia de Katanga. Cuando Lumumba llega al poder, esta provincia se paraliza por miedo a que éste pudiera nacionalizar las minas. Los mineros contratan a dichos mercenarios para protegerlas. Es una historia larga y muy interesante. Existe una película belga que trata sobre estos hechos llamada “Patrice Lumumba”; también hay otra muy interesante que se puede ver en Netflix cuyo nombre es “El asedio a Jadotesville” y trata sobre el Congo.

    RI: Entre aquel episodio y la guerra civil en Sierra Leona a principios de los años ’90 ¿Existió participación de mercenarios en otros conflictos?
    FM: Tengo entendido que en Angola han participado mercenarios sudafricanos luchando en el bando de un grupo guerrillero de extrema derecha conocido como UNITA, que combatía contra la guerrilla de izquierda del MPLA (Movimiento Popular para la Liberación de Angola) que tenía el apoyo soviético y cubano.

    RI: Siendo estos mercenarios de nacionalidad sudafricana ¿Podrían haber pertenecido a la empresa #Executive_Outcomes?
    FM: Si, exactamente; son los mismos que luego participarían en la guerra civil de Sierra Leona y que eran la ’mano de obra desocupada’ tras la caída del apartheid.

    RI: ¿Cuál es el rol que han jugado los “contratistas” o mercenarios en las guerras de principios del S.XXI?
    FM: Han tenido un protagonismo muy importante en las guerras de Irak y Afganistán, pero sobre todo en Irak y por parte de las empresas estadounidenses como #Blackwater, que luego cambió de nombre a #Academi ...

    RI: Y ahora han cambiado de nombre a #Xe_Service. Entre otras cosas, poseen una subsidiaria contratada por el gobierno británico para “operar helicópteros de rescate” en las Islas Malvinas...
    FM: Si, no me extraña. También hay empresas británicas que operan en Cisjordania protegiendo los asentamientos de los ’colonos’ judíos. También existen grupos de gurkhas desmovilizados del Ejército Británico que formaron su propia compañía, pero están más dedicados a la labor de ’guardaespaldas’ y seguridad privada.

    Volviendo a la guerra de Irak, allí los “contratistas” privados constituyeron el segundo contingente de ocupación; o sea, una cantidad impresionante de combatientes.

    ¿Por qué Estados Unidos utiliza a esta gente? En principio porque se las puede usar de manera clandestina y anónima, sin la necesidad de rendir cuentas a nadie, por lo que pueden hacer todo tipo de ’trabajos sucios’. Pero, además, se utilizan para evitar contabilizar bajas dentro del ejército regular; porque las sociedades occidentales no están muy preparadas para la experiencia traumática de una guerra, sobre todo después de la Guerra de Vietnam. Estas sociedades tienen un gran rechazo a la muerte, y se encuentran aburguesadas gracias al ’Estado de Bienestar’ y todo el auge de los “derechos y libertades individuales” y no pueden soportar el costo humano de una guerra.

    RI: ¿Qué incidencia tienen las CMP en Hispanoamérica?
    FM: En Latinoamérica, el principal ’laboratorio’ de estas empresas es Colombia, dado al conflicto civil que tuvo existió una gran presencia de compañías militares privadas; sobre todo de capitales estadounidenses e israelíes. Se calcula que son alrededor de veinte o más las empresas que estuvieron o están en dicho país, y proveen distintos servicios que van desde el entrenamiento a militares y paramilitares hasta el desarrollo de tareas de inteligencia y espionaje, o custodia y seguridad para instalaciones de empresas, oleoductos, gasoductos, etc.

    Existen denuncias contra una empresa israelí llamada #Silver_Shadow por entrenar y equipar al grupo paramilitar conocido como Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, dueñas de un gran historial criminal. Otra empresa israelí, #GIR_S.A, ha entrenado a los militares colombianos, a la policía, a los paramilitares y, ahora también, a los narcotraficantes; además, les provee armas.

    RI: En relación con la crisis que actualmente se vive en Venezuela ¿Crees que podrían estar operando estos “contratistas” o mercenarios en suelo venezolano?
    FM: No tengo una certeza total, pero no me parecería raro. Por ejemplo, que actúen desde Colombia me resultaría normal, es como un ’nido de avispas’ de “contratistas” militares privados; podrían estar infiltrándose en Venezuela, haciendo sabotajes o tareas de inteligencia o espionaje, no me extrañaría. Como tampoco me extrañaría que fueran ciertos los rumores sobre la presencia en Venezuela de mercenarios rusos que trabajan para la empresa Wagner Group con el fin de custodiar a Nicolás Maduro y otros miembros del gobierno; hasta me parece lógico. Todo esto corresponde a la nueva doctrina de “guerra híbrida” o “guerra compuesta” que combina distintas modalidades de tácticas bélicas, ya sean regulares o irregulares, propaganda, derribo, sabotaje, guerra psicológica; a tal punto que ya no se sabe ni cuando empieza la guerra ni cuando termina, y estos grupos son especiales para eso.

    RI: Al respecto de la presencia de soldados israelíes en Brasil... Según las declaraciones públicas de los propios funcionarios brasileños, las dieciséis toneladas de equipamiento que los mismos llevaron a Brasil con el -presunto- fin de colaborar en la búsqueda y rescate de los desaparecidos tras la ruptura del dique de residuos mineros en Minas Gerais, resultaron totalmente inútiles... ¿Se podría suponer que dicho equipamiento pudiera, en realidad, corresponder a pertrechos para el entrenamiento y equipamiento de mercenarios o incluso de las tropas regulares del Ejército Brasileño para una futura invasión a Venezuela?
    FM: Sí, no me cabe ninguna duda. En primer lugar, porque Israel se dedica a exportar no sólo armamento sino también el “know how” (el conocimiento y la experiencia) en cuestiones de contrainsurgencia que tiene acumulado tras más de setenta años de guerra continua y ocupación de los territorios palestinos. Hace un rato te mencionaba a estas empresas israelíes que trabajaron en Colombia. En segundo lugar, Bolsonaro se encuentra completamente alineado con Israel; su candidatura a presidente de Brasil fue apoyada y financiada por la corriente evangélico-sionista que responde al gobierno israelí.
    No me parecería raro, es más, me resulta sospechoso que Israel envíe un contingente de militares para ayudar tras una catástrofe cuando el Ejército de Brasil se encuentra totalmente capacitado para realizar las tareas de búsqueda. En política son raras las casualidades.

    RI: En tu opinión ¿Qué le depara el futuro a Venezuela?
    FM: Hay que ver cómo se desarrollan los acontecimientos. Venezuela, tranquilamente, puede transformarse en una especie de Libia o Siria sudamericana. La estrategia estadounidense de reconocer a un “gobierno” paralelo ya fue aplicada en estos dos países. En Libia fue llamado “Consejo Nacional de Transición”, el Siria se llama “Gobierno Sirio Democrático” o algo por el estilo.

    No se si pueda tratase de una invasión a través de las mismas tropas estadounidenses sino la creación de “grupos irregulares” que intenten derrocar al gobierno de Maduro, lo que puede derivar en una guerra civil. Como mucho, EE.UU podría comportarse como lo hizo en Siria, apoyando a estos “grupos irregulares” por medio de bombardeos aéreos. Sin embargo, también existe una presencia muy importante de Rusia y China en Venezuela. Fijate que, en Libia lograron derrocar a Gadafi, en Siria no han podido hacerlo con Bashar Al-Assad que, de hecho, está ganando la guerra gracias al apoyo y la presencia de Rusia.

    A principios de diciembre del año pasado el gobierno ruso envió dos bombarderos TU-160 a Venezuela (NdR: Aunque simplemente fue para realizar maniobras militares conjuntas y luego los bombarderos regresaron a Rusia). Eso fue un gesto importante de Rusia previendo lo que pudiera llegar a suceder allí demostrando, además, que puede tener una proyección de poder militar hacia el Caribe. ¿Por qué Guaidó se autoproclamó ’Presidente Encargado’? Porque hay un contexto regional que se lo permite, siendo reconocido por Macri, Bolsonaro, Piñera, Duque, Lenin Moreno, Abdo Benitez, etc.

    Por: Nicolás Escribá.

    • [longue,…] Question : D’après les déclarations publiques de fonctionnaires brésiliens, des soldats israéliens ont débarqués avec 16 tonnes de matériel pour, en principe, aider à la recherche et au sauvetage des disparus suite à la rupture catastrophique de la digue de retenue de déchets miniers dans le Minas Gerais. Il se sont avérés totalement inutiles… Peut-on supposer qu’il s’agit d’équipement destiné à l’entrainement et l’équipement de mercenaires, voire de troupes régulières de l’Armée brésilienne, en vue d’une invasion future du Venezuela ?

      Réponse Sans aucun doute. D’abord parce qu’Israël exporte non seulement de l’armement mais aussi le know how en ce qui concerne la contre-insurrection #COINT accumulé en plus de 60 ans de guerre continue et d’occupation des territoires palestiniens. Je viens de te parler des entreprises israéliennes qui ont travaillé en Colombie. Ensuite, Bolsonaro est totalement aligné sur Israël ; sa candidature a été soutenue et financée par le courant évangéliste-sioniste à la main du gouvernement israélien.

      Il ne me paraitrait pas étonnant, plus, il me semble très suspect qu’Israël envoie un contingent de militaires pour aider après une catastrophe alors que l’Armée brésilienne a parfaitement la capacité de réaliser les recherches.

      Le hasard est peu fréquent en politique.

      ping @odilon

  • Ola Bini, développeur de protocoles de #cryptographie et proche de #Julian_Assange a été arrêté dans la foulé de l’arrestation de celui-ci. Collaborateur de #WikiLeaks [il] a été inculpé, samedi 13 avril, en Équateur pour attaque de systèmes informatiques. Il est soupçonné par le gouvernement d’avoir participé à des activités de déstabilisation du régime.
    http://www.rfi.fr/ameriques/20190414-equateur-wikileaks-assange-arrestation-cadre-ola-bini-patino-correa

    Bini a été placé en détention préventive et ses comptes bancaires ont été gelés. Lors d’une rencontre avec la presse étrangère jeudi, la ministre de l’Intérieur, Maria Paula Romo, avait dénoncé sans donner de noms la présence d’un activiste de Wikileaks et de deux hackers russes, soupconnés de participer à un plan de « déstabilisation » du président Lenin Moreno.

    Son GitHub : https://github.com/olabini

    Who Is Ola Bini ? Swedish Developer Who Visited Assange Arrested In Ecuador
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/who-is-ola-bini-swedish-programmer-who-visited-assange-arrested-i

    On Saturday, prosecutors said they intend to charge Bini for hacking-related crimes and had him ordered detained for up to 90 days while they compile evidence.

    The 36-year-old was arrested Thursday at the airport in the Ecuadorian capital of Quito as he prepared to board a flight to Japan. The arrest came just hours after Assange was evicted from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Bini was carrying at least 30 electronic storage devices.

    Voir aussi :

    My boyfriend and extremely talented open source programmer, Ola Bini (@olabini ) is retained. He is a humble, amazing and curious person. I have worked with him in several projects. Please, #freeolabini
    https://twitter.com/claucece/status/1117569977563996160

    .@olabini Ola Bini is a software developer with whom I have worked for 4 years~ now. He is excellent in all of his work and it is a person that works creating privacy enhancing tools, even in the development of OTR. He is arrested right now. Please, help him #FreeOlaBini
    https://twitter.com/claucece/status/1116973839265738752

    URGENT UPDATE: 90 days of pre-trial detention of Swedish citizen @olabini. Political persecution of a friend of #Assange. Friendship is not a crime. Knowledge is not a crime. Expertise is not a crime.
    https://twitter.com/avilarenata/status/1116960285749927936

    • Site pour la campagne de soutien à #Ola_Bini : https://freeolabini.org/fr

      Notre collègue et ami, Ola Bini, a été arrêté en tant que prisonnier politique par le gouvernement équatorien et a besoin de votre aide. Montrez votre soutien en promouvant et en participant à ces actions :
      1- Signe la lettre de solidarité de la communauté technologique : https://freeolabini.org/fr/statement
      2- Suit le compte @FreeOlaBini (https://twitter.com/FreeOlaBini), utilise le hashtag #FreeOlaBini et visite le site web, freeolabini.org pour te tenir informé des actualités
      3- Si tu souhaites participer plus activement et soutenir cette campagne avec des actions ou idées plus spécifiques, envoie-nous un email à : support@freeolabini.org
      4- Rejoins notre bulletin d’actualités : https://freeolabini.org/fr/subscribe

    • Lettre de solidarité pour la libération de Ola Bini - Ola Bini est un développeur, pas un criminel : https://freeolabini.org/fr/statement

      En tant que technologues, développeurs de logiciels libres et open source, et en tant que personnes et organisations œuvrant pour la protection de la sécurité sur Internet, nous voulons dénoncer énergiquement la détention de Ola Bini. Ola Bini est un expert en matière de cybersécurité, consultant spécialiste de la protection de la vie privée sur Internet, il contribue au développement et à la défense de l’Open Source et il est défenseur des droits numériques. Nous considérons sa détention préventive comme arbitraire et comme une attaque contre toute notre communauté, et donc contre nous-mêmes.

      /.../

      Ola Bini est un expert en cybersécurité, consultant en protection des données personnelles dans le domaine de l’Open Source ainsi qu’un défenseur reconnu des droits numériques. Il est citoyen suédois et réside en Equateur avec un permis valable pour 6 ans. Il vit en Equateur parce que c’est un pays qu’il aime et dans lequel il a construit sa vie. Ola a été développeur toute sa vie, depuis l’âge de 8 ans. Son travail est prolifique : il a collaboré et collabore à une longue liste de projets, parmi lesquels (nous souhaitons souligner par l’importance de ses contributions) OTR version 4 et JRuby. Il est aussi membre du conseil qui mène le projet européen phare DECODE (avec le numéro de subvention 732546) sur la cryptographie avancée et la confidentialité de la vie privée dès la conception (privacy-by-design). La communauté considère sa détention comme un obstacle important et négatif aux projets avec lesquels il collabore.

      /.../

      Défendre le droit à la vie privée n’est pas un crime. Défendre le droit aux logiciels libres et ouverts n’est pas un crime. Ola consacre sa vie à la liberté de tous. Maintenant, c’est à notre tour de lutter pour la liberté d’Ola.
      Nous le voulons en sécurité, nous le voulons de retour parmi nous, nous le voulons libre !
      #FreeOlaBini
      S’il te plaît, ajoute ton organisation ou toi-même à cette déclaration de support en envoyant un courrier électronique à : signatures@freeolabini.org

    • Déclaration d’Ola Bini suite à son arrestation arbitraire depuis la prison de El Inca, en Équateur :
      https://freeolabini.org/fr/statement-from-ola

      Tout d’abord, je tiens à remercier toutes les personnes qui me soutiennent. On m’a parlé de l’attention que cette affaire a suscité dans le monde entier et c’est quelque chose j’apprécie plus que ce que je ne sais exprimer avec mes paroles. À ma famille, mes amis, à tous ceux qui sont proches, je vous envoie tout mon amour. Je vous ai toujours dans mes pensées.

      Je crois fermement au droit à la vie privée. Sans vie privée, il n’y a pas d’agence et sans agence, nous sommes des esclaves. C’est pourquoi j’ai consacré ma vie à cette lutte. La surveillance est une menace pour nous tous. Ça doit s’arrêter.

      Les leaders du monde mènent une guerre contre le savoir. L’affaire contre moi est basée sur les livres que j’ai lus et sur la technologie dont je dispose. C’est un crime seulement depuis une pensée orwellienne. Nous ne pouvons pas laisser cela arriver. Le monde va fermer de plus en plus autour de nous jusqu’à ce qu’il ne nous reste plus rien. Si l’Équateur peut le faire, d’autres le peuvent aussi. Nous devons arrêter cela avant qu’il ne soit trop tard.

      J’ai confiance en qu’il sera évident que cette affaire ne peut pas être justifiée et va donc s’effondrer.

      Je ne peux pas m’empêcher de dire quelque chose sur le système pénal équatorien. Je suis détenu dans les meilleures conditions et pourtant c’est terrible. Une réforme sérieuse est nécessaire. Mes pensées vont à tous les prisonniers en Équateur.

      Ola Bini

      (j’ai l’impression que certains passages sont mal traduits...)

    • apparemment, l’original est en anglais (il n’y a pas actuellement de version suédoise).

      1. First, I want to thank all my supporters out there. I’ve been told about the attention this case is getting from all the world, and I appreciate it more than I can say. To my friends, family and nearest ones: all my love - you’re constantly in my thoughts.

      2. I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Without privacy, we can’t have agency, and without agency we are slaves. That’s why I have dedicated my life to this struggle. Surveillance is a threat to us all, we must stop it.

      3. The leaders of the world are waging a war against knowledge. The case against me is based on the books I’ve read and the technology I have. This is Orwellian - ThoughtCrime. We can’t let this happen. The world will close in closer and closer on us, until we have nothing left. If Ecuador can do this, so can others. We have to stop this idea now, before it’s too late.

      4. I’m confident it will be obvious that there’s no substance to this case, and that it will collapse into nothing.

      5. I can’t avoid saying a word about the Ecuadorian penal system. I’m being held under the best circumstances and it’s still despicable. There needs to be serious reform. My thoughts go out to all fellow inmates in Ecuador.

      Ola Bini

      Oui, il y a un gros problème de traduction sur agency, ici je pense au sens de possibilité d’agir, capacité d’agir.

      Et moins problématique pour le sens, sur le ThoughtCrime, " C’est un crime de pensée (au sens de la Police de la Pensée) orwellien(ne).

    • lien propre:

      Glen Greenwald, Micah Lee - 20190412

      https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-t

      In April, 2017, Pompeo, while still CIA chief, delivered a deranged speech proclaiming that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” He punctuated his speech with this threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

      From the start, the Trump DOJ has made no secret of its desire to criminalize journalism generally. Early in the Trump administration, Sessions explicitly discussed the possibility of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information. Trump and his key aides were open about how eager they were to build on, and escalate, the Obama administration’s progress in enabling journalism in the U.S. to be criminalized.

      Today’s arrest of Assange is clearly the culmination of a two-year effort by the U.S. government to coerce Ecuador — under its new and submissive president, Lenín Moreno — to withdraw the asylum protection it extended to Assange in 2012. Rescinding Assange’s asylum would enable the U.K. to arrest Assange on minor bail-jumping charges pending in London and, far more significantly, to rely on an extradition request from the U.S. government to send him to a country to which he has no connection (the U.S.) to stand trial relating to leaked documents.

      Indeed, the Trump administration’s motive here is clear. With Ecuador withdrawing its asylum protection and subserviently allowing the U.K. to enter its own embassy to arrest Assange, Assange faced no charges other than a minor bail-jumping charge in the U.K. (Sweden closed its sexual assault investigation not because they concluded Assange was innocent, but because they spent years unsuccessfully trying to extradite him). By indicting Assange and demanding his extradition, it ensures that Assange — once he serves his time in a London jail for bail-jumping — will be kept in a British prison for the full year or longer that it takes for the U.S. extradition request, which Assange will certainly contest, to wind its way through the British courts.

      The indictment tries to cast itself as charging Assange not with journalistic activities but with criminal hacking. But it is a thinly disguised pretext for prosecuting Assange for publishing the U.S. government’s secret documents while pretending to make it about something else.

      Whatever else is true about the indictment, substantial parts of the document explicitly characterize as criminal exactly the actions that journalists routinely engage in with their sources and thus, constitutes a dangerous attempt to criminalize investigative journalism.

      The indictment, for instance, places great emphasis on Assange’s alleged encouragement that Manning — after she already turned over hundreds of thousands of classified documents — try to get more documents for WikiLeaks to publish. The indictment claims that “discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that ‘after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.’ To which Assange replied, ‘curious eyes never run dry in my experience.’”

      But encouraging sources to obtain more information is something journalists do routinely. Indeed, it would be a breach of one’s journalistic duties not to ask vital sources with access to classified information if they could provide even more information so as to allow more complete reporting. If a source comes to a journalist with information, it is entirely common and expected that the journalist would reply: Can you also get me X, Y, and Z to complete the story or to make it better? As Edward Snowden said this morning, “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.”

      Investigative journalism in many, if not most, cases, entails a constant back and forth between journalist and source in which the journalist tries to induce the source to provide more classified information, even if doing so is illegal. To include such “encouragement” as part of a criminal indictment — as the Trump DOJ did today — is to criminalize the crux of investigative journalism itself, even if the indictment includes other activities you believe fall outside the scope of journalism.

      As Northwestern journalism professor Dan Kennedy explained in The Guardian in 2010 when denouncing as a press freedom threat the Obama DOJ’s attempts to indict Assange based on the theory that he did more than passively receive and publish documents — i.e., that he actively “colluded” with Manning:


      The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction to be made. How did the Guardian, equally, not “collude” with WikiLeaks in obtaining the cables? How did the New York Times not “collude” with the Guardian when the Guardian gave the Times a copy following Assange’s decision to cut the Times out of the latest document dump?

      For that matter, I don’t see how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn’t the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him? Yes, there are differences. Ellsberg had finished making copies long before he began working with the Times, whereas Assange may have goaded Manning. But does that really matter?

      Most of the reports about the Assange indictment today have falsely suggested that the Trump DOJ discovered some sort of new evidence that proved Assange tried to help Manning hack through a password in order to use a different username to download documents. Aside from the fact that those attempts failed, none of this is new: As the last five paragraphs of this 2011 Politico story demonstrate, that Assange talked to Manning about ways to use a different username so as to avoid detection was part of Manning’s trial and was long known to the Obama DOJ when they decided not to prosecute.

      There are only two new events that explain today’s indictment of Assange: 1) The Trump administration from the start included authoritarian extremists such as Sessions and Pompeo who do not care in the slightest about press freedom and were determined to criminalize journalism against the U.S., and 2) With Ecuador about to withdraw its asylum protection, the U.S. government needed an excuse to prevent Assange from walking free.

      A technical analysis of the indictment’s claims similarly proves the charge against Assange to be a serious threat to First Amendment press liberties, primarily because it seeks to criminalize what is actually a journalist’s core duty: helping one’s source avoid detection. The indictment deceitfully seeks to cast Assange’s efforts to help Manning maintain her anonymity as some sort of sinister hacking attack.

      The Defense Department computer that Manning used to download the documents which she then furnished to WikiLeaks was likely running the Windows operating system. It had multiple user accounts on it, including an account to which Manning had legitimate access. Each account is protected by a password, and Windows computers store a file that contains a list of usernames and password “hashes,” or scrambled versions of the passwords. Only accounts designated as “administrator,” a designation Manning’s account lacked, have permission to access this file.

      The indictment suggests that Manning, in order to access this password file, powered off her computer and then powered it back on, this time booting to a CD running the Linux operating system. From within Linux, she allegedly accessed this file full of password hashes. The indictment alleges that Assange agreed to try to crack one of these password hashes, which, if successful, would recover the original password. With the original password, Manning would be able to log directly into that other user’s account, which — as the indictment puts it — “would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information.”

      Assange appears to have been unsuccessful in cracking the password. The indictment alleges that “Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had ‘no luck so far.’”

      Thus, even if one accepts all of the indictment’s claims as true, Assange was not trying to hack into new document files to which Manning had no access, but rather trying to help Manning avoid detection as a source. For that reason, the precedent that this case would set would be a devastating blow to investigative journalists and press freedom everywhere.

      Journalists have an ethical obligation to take steps to protect their sources from retaliation, which sometimes includes granting them anonymity and employing technical measures to help ensure that their identity is not discovered. When journalists take source protection seriously, they strip metadata and redact information from documents before publishing them if that information could have been used to identify their source; they host cloud-based systems such as SecureDrop, now employed by dozens of major newsrooms around the world, that make it easier and safer for whistleblowers, who may be under surveillance, to send messages and classified documents to journalists without their employers knowing; and they use secure communication tools like Signal and set them to automatically delete messages.

      But today’s indictment of Assange seeks to criminalize exactly these types of source-protection efforts, as it states that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.”

      The indictment, in numerous other passages, plainly conflates standard newsroom best practices with a criminal conspiracy. It states, for instance, that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate on the acquisition and dissemination of the classified records, and to enter into the agreement to crack the password […].” There is no question that using Jabber, or any other encrypted messaging system, to communicate with sources and acquire documents with the intent to publish them, is a completely lawful and standard part of modern investigative journalism. Newsrooms across the world now use similar technologies to communicate securely with their sources and to help their sources avoid detection by the government.

      The indictment similarly alleges that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning.”

  • BREAKING : Assange vas être arrêté dans les heures ou les jours qui viennent selon WikiLeaks
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/informatik/93-securite/15878-breaking-assange-vas-etre-arrete-dans-les-heures-ou-les-jours-qui-v

    Scène devant l’ambassade de Londres à 4h30 vendredi matin. (Ruptly/YouTube capture d’écran)

    WikiLeaks a cité une source gouvernementale équatorienne "de haut niveau" affirmant que Julian Assange pourrait être expulsé prochainement de l’ambassade de l’Equateur à Londres et que Quito a un accord avec le Royaume-Uni pour l’arrêter.

    Par Joe Lauria

    Spécial aux Nouvelles du Consortium

    WikiLeaks a averti jeudi que son fondateur "sera expulsé de l’ambassade de l’Equateur à Londres dans un délai de quelques heures à quelques jours" et que l’Equateur a un accord avec la Grande-Bretagne pour le faire arrêter.

    Le président Lénine Moreno utilisera le prétexte d’un scandale engloutissant sa présidence pour évincer Assange, a déclaré à WikiLeaks une " (...)

    #En_vedette #Sécurité #Actualités_Informatiques

  • Rammstein Deutschland video : We got an Oxford University professor to explain what on earth is going on | Louder
    https://www.loudersound.com/features/we-got-an-oxford-university-professor-to-explain-what-the-fcks-going-on

    Poised to release their first album in a decade and about to embark on a European tour, Rammstein have returned with a new song: Deutschland. Clocking in at nine minutes and 22 seconds, the video is a mini-epic spanning Germany history. Directed by Specter Berlin, it’s a cinematic and controversial clip that’s confusing if you’re not up on your history. We asked Dr Alexandra Lloyd, lecturer in German at the University of Oxford, to explain what the fuck is happening.

    By Dr Alexandra Lloyd (Metal Hammer) 2 days ago Metal Hammer
    Rammstein have just released a jaw-dropping video for new single Deutschland – but what exactly is it all about?

    Rammstein’s Deutschland takes us on a thrilling, violent, and moving journey through German history. At over nine minutes, it gives us a panorama of events and historical and mythical figures, and there are so many references and Easter eggs that fans and commentators will be poring over it for some time to come.

    The video opens in AD 16, on the ‘barbarian’ side of the limes, the border of the Roman Empire. Roman soldiers creep through the woods in the aftermath of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. The Romans were ambushed by an alliance of Germanic Tribes, led by a chieftain called Arminius (the original Hermann the German). Three legionary standards were captured, a loss symbolic and moral, as well as physical, and decades were spent trying to recover them. Rome never again attempted to take the lands east of the River Rhine, known as Germania.

    ‘Germania’ refers not just to a place, somewhere partly defined by where it isn’t (Rome) as well as where it is, but also to a national figurehead, traditionally representing the German people. Germania is a strong woman, usually armour-clad and battle-ready. Various symbols appear with her, among them a breastplate with an eagle, a black, red, and gold flag, and a crown. Look out for these in the video – they come up again and again – and the colours of the contemporary flag are there in every scene.

    We get our first glimpse of Germania here (played by Ruby Commey), who stands holding Till Lindemann’s severed head. Next, astronauts appear carrying a metal and glass box shaped like a coffin. In the background we see a U-boat – a German submarine, used in World Wars I and II. Then we move to a scene set at a boxing match which takes us to Weimar Germany (1918-1933), a period known for its political instability but also greater cultural liberalism. Here, Germania appears in the cabaret costume of a flapper girl, and the boxers fight with knuckle-dusters as a crowd cheers them on.

    We see the former East Germany, complete with busts of Marx and Lenin, the national emblem of East Germany, and a lookalike of the long-serving, insular, and repressive GDR leader Erich Honecker. There’s another astronaut, or rather a cosmonaut: Sigmund Jähn, the first German in space, who flew with the USSR’s space program (and who’s also a character in the 2003 film, Good Bye Lenin!). Medieval monks feast grotesquely on the supine Germania, tearing sauerkraut and sausage from Ruby Commey’s body, prison inmates are beaten by guards dressed in police and military uniforms from different historical periods.

    The most obviously shocking scene references the Holocaust and the Nazi period. Four members of the band, in the striped uniforms of camp inmates, wait at the gallows, about to be hanged. They wear the cloth emblems used to identify their ‘crimes’: a pink triangle for homosexual prisoners, a yellow star for Jewish prisoners, a red and yellow star for Jewish political prisoners.

    This sequence, teased in an earlier promo video, has already caused controversy. Have Rammstein the right to do this? Do they trivialise the suffering of Holocaust victims? How can they justify using Holocaust imagery to promote their new video? These are important questions that are part of a much bigger debate about the ethics of using the Holocaust in art and media.

    Other scenes include the band walking away from a flaming airship, referring to the 1937 Hindenburg Disaster, in which 36 people died. Rats scuttle across the floor when the monks first appear, suggesting the Pied Piper of Hamelin, a legend with origins in the 13th century.

    Germania walks towards the camera in a leather jacket, gold jewellery and a string of bullets across her chest, resembling the chariot drawn by four horses (the ‘Quadriga’) on top of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The band members’ heads are shown as white marble busts, taking us to the 19th century Walhalla memorial in Bavaria, built as German Hall of Fame, its sculpted heads of German worthies on display to this day.

    In the prison, hundreds of banknotes fall from above, suggesting the devastating hyperinflation Germany suffered in the 1920s. Nazis burn books, intercut with religious fanatics burning witches. We recognise members of the Red Army Faction (also known as the Baader-Meinhof group), a militant organisation active in the 1970s in West Germany. And in a blink-or-you-miss-it exchange, we are reminded of the much-criticised relationship between the churches and the state during the Third Reich.

    Each scene captures in a moment the icons of an era, and the video cuts between them more and more frenetically as it goes on. Events bleed into each other, linked by the presence of the band members and the red laser beam that appears throughout the video, a ‘roter Faden’ (red thread or central theme), connecting each event.

    Germany engages with its history in a very particular way. Try to imagine the video about Britain, with Britannia played by Ruby Commey. What would the equivalent events be? Quite a few of the tableaux might be similar – Romans, Crusaders, monks, 18th-century soldiers, collarless shirts and bareknuckle boxing – but would it have the same impact?

    There’s no affection, and perhaps not much hope: its pessimistic tone seems to be quite an off-brand message for post-1989 Germany, which wants to acknowledge its past critically, while also looking to its future as a state at the heart of Europe. And actually, while we get a lot of medieval and twentieth-century history, the video’s tour through the past seems to stop in the late 1980s, before the fall of the Berlin Wall and Reunification of East and West Germany. Instead, we jump into the future, where the space-suited band take Germania into the unknown, travelling in that coffin-shaped glass box.

    There’s an echo of the video for Sonne, where Snow White is trapped in a glass coffin. In fact, a piano version of Sonne plays over the end credits of Deutschland. This is a useful link for understanding something of what Rammstein is doing here. In Sonne, where the band’s characters free themselves of Snow White (naturally, they’ve been her sex-slaves), only to realise that they have made a mistake and long for her return, the overwhelming feeling of Deutschland seems to be that when it comes to Germania (or Germany): you can’t love her, and you can’t live without her.

    Alex Lloyd | Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages
    https://www.mod-langs.ox.ac.uk/people/alexandra-lloyd

    Alexandra Lloyd, MA, PGCE, DPhil, FHEA
    Stipendiary Lecturer in German, Magdalen College & St Edmund Hall
    Research
    Alex Lloyd’s main research interests are in twentieth-century literature and film, particularly cultural memory, depictions of children and childhood, and visual culture. Her AHRC-funded doctoral thesis (Wadham College, 2012) examined post-1989 representations of childhood and youth under Nazism. She is currently running a project on the White Rose resistance movement, working with undergraduates on a new translation of the group’s pamphlets which will be published in June 2019.

    Rammstein - Engel (Official Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=265&v=x2rQzv8OWEY

    Rammstein - Deutschland (Official Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeQM1c-XCDc

    Rammstein – DEUTSCHLAND Lyrics
    https://genius.com/Rammstein-deutschland-lyrics

    [Songtext zu „DEUTSCHLAND“]

    [Strophe 1]
    Du (du hast, du hast, du hast, du hast)
    Hast viel geweint (geweint, geweint, geweint, geweint)
    Im Geist getrennt (getrennt, getrennt, getrennt, getrennt)
    Im Herz vereint (vereint, vereint, vereint, vereint)
    Wir (wir sind, wir sind, wir sind, wir sind)
    Sind schon sehr lang zusammen (ihr seid, ihr seid, ihr seid, ihr seid)
    Dein Atem kalt (so kalt, so kalt, so kalt, so kalt)
    Das Herz in Flammen (so heiß, so heiß, so heiß, so heiß)
    Du (du kannst, du kannst, du kannst, du kannst)
    Ich (ich weiß, ich weiß, ich weiß, ich weiß)
    Wir (wir sind, wir sind, wir sind, wir sind)
    Ihr (ihr bleibt, ihr bleibt, ihr bleibt, ihr bleibt)

    [Refrain]
    Deutschland – mein Herz in Flammen
    Will dich lieben und verdammen
    Deutschland – dein Atem kalt
    So jung – und doch so alt
    Deutschland!

    [Strophe 2]
    Ich (du hast, du hast, du hast, du hast)
    Ich will dich nie verlassen (du weinst, du weinst, du weinst, du weinst)
    Man kann dich lieben (du liebst, du liebst, du liebst, du liebst)
    Und will dich hassen (du hasst, du hasst, du hasst, du hasst)
    Überheblich, überlegen
    Übernehmen, übergeben
    Überraschen, überfallen
    Deutschland, Deutschland über allen

    [Refrain]
    Deutschland – mein Herz in Flammen
    Will dich lieben und verdammen
    Deutschland – dein Atem kalt
    So jung – und doch so alt
    Deutschland – deine Liebe
    Ist Fluch und Segen
    Deutschland – meine Liebe
    Kann ich dir nicht geben
    Deutschland!
    Deutschland!

    [Bridge]
    Du
    Ich
    Wir
    Ihr
    Du (übermächtig, überflüssig)
    Ich (Übermenschen, überdrüssig)
    Wir (wer hoch steigt, der wird tief fallen)
    Ihr (Deutschland, Deutschland über allen)

    [Refrain]
    Deutschland – dein Herz in Flammen
    Will dich lieben und verdammen
    Deutschland – mein Atem kalt
    So jung – und doch so alt
    Deutschland – deine Liebe
    Ist Fluch und Segen
    Deutschland – meine Liebe
    Kann ich dir nicht geben
    Deutschland!

    #musique #Allemagne #heavy_metal

  • Au Venezuela, la logique du pire

    Lors d’une grande manifestation de l’opposition, le 23 janvier 2019, le président de l’Assemblée nationale s’est autoproclamé président de la République par intérim. Il s’agit de M. Juan Guaidó, du parti Volonté populaire, la formation la plus à droite, la plus radicale, la plus convaincue qu’une intervention armée est la meilleure méthode pour se débarrasser du chavisme.

    De toute évidence, les choses ont été bien préparées, comme le souligne le Wall Street Journal. La veille, le vice-président américain Mike Pence avait invité les Vénézuéliens à manifester contre le président Nicolás Maduro, en les assurant du soutien des États-Unis. Et, quelques heures à peine après l’autoproclamation de M. Guaidó, des camions publicitaires circulaient dans les rues de New York, évoquant la chute de l’« usurpateur Maduro », remplacé par le « président Guaidó ».

    Le président colombien Ivan Duque et son homologue brésilien Jair Bolsonaro ont presque aussitôt annoncé que leur pays reconnaissait M. Guaidó. Le Pérou ainsi que le Canada leur ont emboité le pas, tout comme le président équatorien Lenin Moreno et M. Mauricio Macri, le président argentin. Au total, onze des quatorze États du groupe de Lima, créé pour « répondre à la crise vénézuélienne », ont fait de même. Manquent à l’appel le Guyana, Sainte Lucie et, surtout, le Mexique.

    Mexico a publié un communiqué commun avec l’Uruguay pour appeler à une issue pacifique à la crise, tout en précisant que les deux États reconnaissent toujours la légitimité de M. Maduro. De leur côté, la Bolivie et Cuba, qui ont toujours appuyé l’actuel gouvernement vénézuélien, réaffirment leur soutien à Caracas, tout comme Moscou, Ankara, et sans doute Pékin. Quant à l’Union européenne, elle réclame de nouvelles élections générales, « libres et crédibles », au Venezuela.

    Pour l’heure, l’armée vénézuélienne serre les rangs derrière le président Maduro.

    Le chaos économique et politique ne date pas d’hier au Venezuela. Dans une analyse de la situation publiée en novembre dernier, Temir Porras Ponceleón suggérait les moyens d’une issue pacifique à la crise actuelle.

    https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2019-01-24-Venezuela

  • La détention et l’isolement du monde de Julian Assange (La Republica) – Salimsellami’s Blog
    https://salimsellami.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/la-detention-et-lisolement-du-monde-de-julian-assange-la-rep

    Ils le détruisent lentement. Ils le font par le biais d’une détention illimitée qui dure depuis huit ans et qui n’a pas de fin en vue. Julian Assange est devenu l’une des icônes les plus connues de la liberté de la presse et de la lutte contre le secret d’Etat. Récemment, sa détention à l’ambassade de l’Equateur à Londres s’est accompagnée d’isolement, de règles strictes et de diverses formes de pression qui ne semblent avoir d’autre but que de le briser. Une pression destinée à détruire sa capacité physique et mentale à résister jusqu’à ce qu’il s’effondre ou qu’il sorte de l’ambassade équatorienne, déclenchant ainsi le début de sa propre fin. Parce que s’il sort, il sera arrêté par les autorités britanniques et, à ce moment-là, les États-Unis pourraient demander son extradition afin qu’ils puissent le mettre en prison pour avoir publié des documents américains classifiés. Julian Assange est dans des conditions extrêmement précaires.

    Après huit mois de tentatives infructueuses, la Repubblica a finalement pu rendre visite au fondateur de WikiLeaks à l’ambassade d’Equateur à Londres, après que l’actuel président équatorien, Lenin Moreno, l’ait coupé de tout contact en mars dernier à l’exception de ses avocats. Pas de contact avec des amis, des stars, des journalistes, pas d’appels téléphoniques, pas d’accès Internet. En effet, un régime d’isolement très lourd pour n’importe qui, mais pour Julian Assange en particulier, étant donné qu’il est confiné dans cette minuscule ambassade depuis six ans, et considérant aussi que pour Assange l’internet n’est pas une option comme les autres : c’est son monde. 

    Dès que nous l’avons vu, nous nous sommes rendus compte qu’il avait perdu beaucoup de poids. Trop. Il est très maigre. Même son pull d’hiver ne peut pas cacher ses épaules maigres. Son joli visage, capturé par des photographes du monde entier, est très tendu. Ses longs cheveux et sa barbe le font ressembler à un ermite, mais pas à un fou : en échangeant nos salutations, il semble très lucide et rationnel.

    Ce régime d’isolement complet aurait brisé n’importe qui, mais Assange tient le coup : il passe son temps à réfléchir et à préparer sa défense contre les poursuites américaines. Mais il passe trop de temps complètement seul, à l’exception des agents de sécurité de l’ambassade. Il est complètement seul tout au long du week-end. Il est seul pendant la nuit, dans le bâtiment de l’ambassade qui a été ceint d’un échafaudage qui facilite les intrusions en pleine nuit.

    L’ambassade équatorienne est également problématique pour les journalistes : pour être autorisé à visiter Julian Assange, les autorités équatoriennes nous ont demandé de fournir : « Marque, modèle, numéro de série, numéro IMEI et numéro de téléphone (s’il y a lieu) de chacun des appareils téléphoniques, ordinateurs, caméras et autres équipements électroniques que le demandeur souhaite présenter à l’ambassade et conserver pendant son entretien ». Une telle demande expose malheureusement les journalistes à de sérieux risques de surveillance de leurs communications. Mais pour pouvoir visiter Assange, nous avons fourni ces données en espérant pouvoir garder nos téléphones. En fin de compte, peine perdue : lorsque nous sommes entrés à l’ambassade, nos téléphones ont de toute façon été saisis.

    L’atmosphère amicale que régnait lors de nos visites au cours des six dernières années a maintenant disparu. Le diplomate équatorien qui avait toujours soutenu le fondateur de WikiLeaks, Fidel Narvaez, a été destitué. Même le chat n’est plus là. Avec sa drôle de cravate rayée et ses embuscades sur les ornements de l’arbre de Noël à l’entrée de l’ambassade, le chat avait aidé à désamorcer les tensions à l’intérieur du bâtiment pendant des années. Mais Assange a préféré épargner au chat un isolement devenu insupportable et lui permettre une vie plus saine.

    La nouvelle qui a fait surface la semaine dernière, révélant l’existence d’accusations criminelles portées contre Julian Assange par les autorités américaines, accusations qui devaient rester sous scellés jusqu’à ce qu’il soit impossible pour Assange de se soustraire à son arrestation, confirme ce qu’Assange craint depuis des années. Il attend maintenant que les charges soient rendues publiques, mais en attendant, il se tait : le risque qu’il perde soudainement la protection de l’Équateur en raison d’une déclaration publique n’est pas improbable ces jours-ci.
     
    Il y a deux ans, le Groupe de travail des Nations Unies sur la détention arbitraire (UNWGAD) a établi que le Royaume-Uni (à l’époque, la Suède aussi) était responsable de la détention arbitraire d’Assange : il doit le libérer et l’indemniser. Londres n’a pas apprécié cette décision : ils ont essayé de faire appel, mais ont perdu l’appel et l’ont tout simplement ignoré depuis lors.

    Les médias britanniques n’ont jamais demandé aux autorités de leur pays de se conformer à la décision de l’organe de l’ONU, bien au contraire : certains s’en sont même pris à l’organe de l’ONU. Si Julian Assange se retrouve entre les mains des autorités britanniques dans les mois à venir et que les États-Unis demandent son extradition, quelle sera la position des autorités britanniques ? Jamais auparavant la vie du fondateur de WikiLeaks n’a été aussi dépendante de l’opinion publique et de l’un des rares pouvoirs dont la mission est de contrôler les pires instincts de nos gouvernements : la presse.

    Stefania MAURIZI

    Traduction « un seul grand journal qui a toujours défendu et défend encore Assange et Wikileaks, ça ne fait vraiment pas beaucoup » par VD pour le Grand Soir avec probablement toutes les fautes et coquilles habituelles.. » »https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2018/11/26/news/the_detention_and_iso…URL de cet article 34145 
    https://www.legrandsoir.info/la-detention-et-l-isolement-du-monde-de-julian-assange-la-republica.ht

  • Pour Julian Assange, par Serge Halimi (décembre 2018)
    https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2018/12/HALIMI/59366

    Fier comme Artaban, souriant, entouré d’une cinquantaine de photographes et de cadreurs, Jim Acosta a opéré, le 16 novembre dernier, son retour en fanfare à la Maison Blanche. Quelques jours plus tôt, il avait perdu son accréditation de correspondant de Cable News Network (CNN), mais la justice américaine a obligé le président Donald Trump à annuler la sanction. « C’était un test, et nous l’avons passé avec succès, a fanfaronné Acosta. Les journalistes doivent savoir que, dans ce pays, la liberté de la presse est sacrée, et qu’ils sont protégés par la Constitution [pour] enquêter sur ce que font nos gouvernants et nos dirigeants. » Fondu enchaîné, musique, happy end…

    Réfugié depuis six ans à l’ambassade d’Équateur à Londres, M. Julian Assange n’a sans doute pas pu suivre en direct sur CNN un dénouement aussi émouvant. Car son existence à lui ressemble à celle d’un prisonnier. Interdiction de sortir, sous peine d’être arrêté par les autorités britanniques, puis, sans doute, extradé vers les États-Unis ; communications réduites et brimades de toutes sortes depuis que, pour complaire à Washington, le président équatorien Lenín Moreno a résolu de durcir les conditions de séjour de son « hôte ».

  • Pour Julian Assange
    https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2018/12/HALIMI/59366

    Fier comme Artaban, souriant, entouré d’une cinquantaine de photographes et de cadreurs, Jim Acosta a opéré, le 16 novembre dernier, son retour en fanfare à la Maison Blanche. Quelques jours plus tôt, il avait perdu son accréditation de correspondant de Cable News Network (CNN), mais la justice américaine a obligé le président Donald Trump à annuler la sanction. « C’était un test, et nous l’avons passé avec succès, a fanfaronné Acosta. Les journalistes doivent savoir que, dans ce pays, la liberté de la presse est sacrée, et qu’ils sont protégés par la Constitution [pour] enquêter sur ce que font nos gouvernants et nos dirigeants. » Fondu enchaîné, musique, happy end…


    Réfugié depuis six ans à l’ambassade d’Équateur à Londres, M. Julian Assange n’a sans doute pas pu suivre en direct sur CNN un dénouement aussi émouvant. Car son existence à lui ressemble à celle d’un prisonnier. Interdiction de sortir, sous peine d’être arrêté par les autorités britanniques, puis, sans doute, extradé vers les États-Unis ; communications réduites et brimades de toutes sortes depuis que, pour complaire à Washington, le président équatorien Lenín Moreno a résolu de durcir les conditions de séjour de son « hôte » (lire « En Équateur, le néolibéralisme par surprise »).

    La détention de M. Assange ainsi que la menace de quelques dizaines d’années de prison dans un pénitencier américain (en 2010, M. Trump avait souhaité qu’il soit exécuté) doivent tout au site d’information qu’il a fondé. WikiLeaks est à l’origine des principales révélations qui ont indisposé les puissants de ce monde depuis une dizaine d’années : images des crimes de guerre américains en Afghanistan et en Irak, espionnage industriel des États-Unis, comptes secrets aux îles Caïmans. La dictature du président tunisien Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali fut ébranlée par la divulgation d’une communication secrète du département d’État américain qualifiant cette kleptocratie amie de Washington de « régime sclérosé » et de « quasi-mafia ». C’est également WikiLeaks qui révéla que deux dirigeants socialistes français, MM. François Hollande et Pierre Moscovici, s’étaient rendus, le 8 juin 2006, à l’ambassade des États-Unis à Paris pour y regretter la vigueur de l’opposition du président Jacques Chirac à l’invasion de l’Irak.

    Mais ce que la « gauche » pardonne moins que tout à M. Assange, c’est la publication par son site des courriels piratés de la campagne de Mme Hillary Clinton. Estimant que cette affaire a favorisé les desseins russes et l’élection de M. Trump, elle oublie que WikiLeaks a alors dévoilé les manœuvres de la candidate démocrate pour saboter la campagne de M. Bernie Sanders durant les primaires de leur parti. À l’époque, les médias du monde entier ne s’étaient pas privés de reprendre ces informations, comme ils l’avaient fait pour les précédentes, sans pour autant que leurs directeurs de publication soient assimilés à des espions étrangers et menacés de prison.

    L’acharnement des autorités américaines contre M. Assange est encouragé par la lâcheté des journalistes qui l’abandonnent à son sort, voire se délectent de son infortune. Ainsi, sur la chaîne MSNBC, l’animateur-vedette Christopher Matthews, ancien cacique du Parti démocrate, n’a pas hésité à suggérer que les services secrets américains devraient « agir à l’israélienne et enlever Assange »…

    Serge Halimi

    #Julian_Assange

  • Communisme, Stalinisme, Socialisme, Fascisme, Collectivisme, Anarchisme

    Une fois n’est pas coûtume, je vais reproduire l’essentiel d’un débat qui s’est déroulé sur l’excellente liste de diffusion de géographie critique (dite liste des « crits »).

    From Dr Hillary J. Shaw
    Visiting Fellow - Centre for Urban Research on Austerity
    Department of Politics and Public Policy
    De Montfort University

    The problem with books is once you read them you can’t un-read them.

    European politics and history in the 20 C starts to look a little different once you read Hayek, F A (1971) The Road To Serfdom, Routledge, London UK From the first few pages of this book, "...Stalinism was described even by a friend of Lenin as ‘superfascist’, ‘more ruthless than fascism’, with similar opinions being expressed by British politician Chamberlain, and by British writer Mr F A Vogt (Hayek, 1971: 20-1). The vicious fighting in 1920s Europe between Fascists and Communists was precisely because ‘they competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic’ (Hayek, 1971: 22). One thing that all Collectivists share is intolerance for any dissenting, therefore threatening, opinions, rather like the strong religious factions of 16 century Europe..."

    Communism - http://fooddeserts.org/images/000Russia.htm
    WW2 - http://fooddeserts.org/images/050FraGermany.htm

    Un certain Reed (pas d’autres infos) répond :

    One thing that all Collectivists share is intolerance for any dissenting, therefore threatening, opinions... Then, One thing that all vulgar individualists share is a perfectly immoral disregard for mutual obligations... I’d say capitalism — marked as it is by market imperatives rather than opportunities — `is “collectivist” in the extreme, which is probably related to its tendency to decay into fascism.

    I also find it interesting that the anti-fascism of partisans is, in your formulation, pitched as a Bad Thing. Meanwhile, the inertia (or complicity) of liberals goes unmentioned.

    But, sure, the uses of Hayek are endless, as every anti-democratic and reactionary movement in the U.S. has thoroughly demonstrated, especially the anarcho-capitalist types who (surprise!) fly their black and yellow flags at the same rallies where the Klansmen and neo-nazis gather to cheerlead genocide.

    Hillary J. Shaw again en réponse :

    1) yes, capitalism, especially when globalised, can easily become ’Collectivist’, Totalitarian, even., Renarkably, even Adam Smith, way back in 1755, spoke of this tendency. And look now at the oligopolies we have in e.g. supermarkets, banking.

    2) Collectivism, generally, DOES demand uniformity of opinion - that’s almost a circular tautology. Can you give any major examples where it hasn’t - I’d love to know. And it was Hayek who used the term ’Collectivist’ for both Stalinism and 1940s fascism, by the way, not me.

    3) I said nothing about anti-fascism of partisans here, such ’partisans’ are often Communist in ideology, but may be ’anarchist’ leaning (although anarchism has often evolved into a very Collectivist socialism, ironically). As fighters against Naziism in the 1940s, they wree a great thing, as was anything that helped end Hitler’s tyranny and WW2.

    4) On this Hayekian analysis, the Klansmen, as neo-nazis, would be portrayed as Collectivist too - so if you percieve me as anti-Collectivist 9and I am no admirer of Stalin), then I must be (and indeed am) anti Klansmen too.

    Yes Hayek can be ’used for many things’ - but doesn’t that apply to almost all significant researchers, academics, in the social sciences and indeed beyond? Including for sure Marx, and probably Aadam Smith too. Does that mean we should ditch them, and the rest of these thinkers too?

    Noel Cass, de l’université de Lancaster :

    “anarchism has often evolved into a very Collectivist socialism, ironically”

    – just, no, Hilary.

    After socialist revolutions, anarchism has been crushed by authoritarian socialists. Please desist from sweeping political generalisations that just get up people’s noses.

    Hillary J. Shaw répond :

    Well yes and no. Only Wikipedia but seems to be broadly correct here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

    While opposition to the state is central,[16] anarchism specifically entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations.[17][18][19] Anarchism is usually considered a far-left ideology[20][21][22] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.

    However....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Spanish_Revolution

    In response to the army rebellion, an anarchist-inspired movement of peasants and workers, supported by armed militias, took control of Barcelona and of large areas of rural Spain where they collectivised the land.[128] However, the anarchists were losing ground even before the fascist victory in 1939 in a bitter struggle with the Stalinists, who controlled much of the distribution of military aid to the Republicans cause from the Soviet Union. According to Noam Chomsky, "the communists were mainly responsible for the destruction of the Spanish anarchists. Not just in Catalonia—the communist armies mainly destroyed the collectives elsewhere. The communists basically acted as the police force of the security system of the Republic and were very much opposed to the anarchists, partially because Stalin still hoped at that time to have some kind of pact with Western countries against Adolf Hitler

    My point in the whole of this is that the Left is a very complex concept that can range from being as totalitarian as some fascist regimes (e.g in the case of Stalin) right through to more idealistic schemes that promote individual flourishing (e.g. some anarchists) - however those who create the latter such schemes, however well-meaning, must beware they do not lapse/evolve into/get taken over by the more collectivist / dictatorial ones.

    Antony Ince, géographe de l’université de Cardiff :

    First of all, Hillary, you are very nearly correct when you point out the Spanish Civil War. There was a faction among the anarchists who believed that it would be strategically useful to participate in the Republican government in order to enhance their influence, especially in the anti-fascist regions where they were less powerful.

    However, this did not necessarily involve a change of ideology; it was an effort - a flawed one, admittedly, spurred on by concerns of war - to instrumentally use state institutions to further the anarchist cause. As it happened, it didn’t end well.

    Second, I would like to emphasise that “collectivism” is not a singular term and is not owned by totalitarianisms such as Stalinism et al. To begin, fascism’s conception of collectivism is one of national unity, a cross-class alliance in the supposed interest of national ’renewal’ or ’renaissance’ that is only collective in the sense that a powerful central state is in control of the polity, and which often features some very crude forms of nationalisation. Soviet collectivism operates functionally in a similar way (as predicted by the anarchists long before 1917!), although its goal is oriented towards the elimination of class relations.

    Of course, in practice, it simply created a new class structure by occupying the same state institutions and relations of production as the old order and failing to eliminate capital when it had the chance.

    With regards to anarchism and collectivism, the story is different again. Aside from some streams of exclusively individualist anarchism influenced by the likes of Max Stirner, anarchism is more accurately described as “anarchist-communism”. It is a left-libertarian form of collectivism that seeks to respect individual agency while also promoting the virtues of co-operation (sometimes referred to as ’free association’).

    There are many examples of this, such as the regions controlled by the CNT in civil war Spain, the vast regions of Ukraine voluntarily collectivised along anarchist lines by the Makhnovists during the Russian revolution, and more recently the principles on which the Rojava region in Syria is managed. (Of course, there are the Zapatistas too, but interestingly it turns out that their form of agrarian anarchism emerged from libertarian Marxist ideas in the early 1980s). Anyway, for the most part, anarchist experiments have tended to end not by a drift towards authoritarianism but by annihilation at the hands of authoritarians.

    In Spain, of course the fascists were largely to blame, but also the USSR-backed Communist Party saw the anarchists as a greater threat to their prospects than Franco; for the Makhnovists, it was Trotsky’s Red Armies who ended their voluntary collectivism in the Ukrainian countryside. In Rojava, if their Bookchin-inspired libertarian municipalism doesn’t survive (which I sincerely hope it does!), it is likely to be at the hands of the proto-fascist Turkish state.

    So, let’s be a little more nuanced with the notion of ’collectivism’, what it means, and what values and organisational logics it embodies. There are multiple collectivisms, and they operate along as much an axis of authoritarian-libertarian as left-right.

    Noel Cass dans un dernier élan :

    I was tempted to shout “Remember Kronstadt!”, lob a grenade, and duck !!

  • Ecuador Will Imminently Withdraw Asylum for Julian Assange and Hand Him Over to the UK. What Comes Next?
    Glenn Greenwald | July 21 2018, 6:17 p.m.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/ecuador-will-imminently-withdraw-asylum-for-julian-assange-and-hand-hi

    Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno traveled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities Summit (Moreno has been confined to a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President’s trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British authorities.

    Moreno’s itinerary also notably includes a trip to Madrid, where he will meet with Spanish officials still seething over Assange’s denunciation of human rights abuses perpetrated by Spain’s central government against protesters marching for Catalonia independence. Almost three months ago, Ecuador blocked Assange from accessing the internet, and Assange has not been able to communicate with the outside world ever since. The primary factor in Ecuador’s decision to silence him was Spanish anger over Assange’s tweets about Catalonia.(...)

    #JulianAssange

    • It is [...] highly unlikely that Moreno – who has shown himself willing to submit to threats and coercion from the UK, Spain and the U.S. – will obtain a guarantee that the U.K. not extradite Assange to the U.S., where top Trump officials have vowed to prosecute Assange and destroy WikiLeaks.

    • WikiLeaks : le président Moreno va-t-il lâcher Assange ?
      Par RFI Publié le 22-07-2018
      Avec notre correspondante à Londres, Marina Daras
      http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20180722-wikileak-president-moreno-va-il-lacher-assange-visite-londres

      Le président équatorien Lenín Moreno est en visite au Royaume-Uni cette semaine. Il participe à un congrès international et parle d’un possible accord commercial entre les deux pays après le Brexit.

      Mais les rumeurs vont bon train sur la raison cachée de sa visite, alors que M. Moreno et les ministres britanniques essaient de trouver un moyen d’expulser le fondateur de WikiLeaks de l’ambassade de l’Equateur à Londres.

      Le mandat d’arrêt européen mis en place par la Suède a été levé l’année dernière, mais la police britannique tente toujours d’arrêter Julian Assange pour avoir enfreint les conditions de sa liberté sous caution avant de trouver refuge.

  • Soviet-Era Pictures — « Ленин и рабочие. Покушение ». Кленов В. М., 1967...

    http://sovtime.com/post/62638018433/lenin-and-workers

    Après l’avoir picoré sur twitter.

    « Ленин и рабочие. Покушение ». Кленов В. М., 1967 г.

    “Lenin and workers. An assassination attempt”. V. Klenov, 1967.

    #soviétisme #peinture #réalisme_socialiste #lénine

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine
    http://antimatrix.org/Convert/Books/Klimov/klimov-pp-e

    About author
    Gregory Petrovich Klimov

    Russian writer, member of the Writers’ Union of Russia. Author of the bestseller “Terror Machine”, published in 12 languages ​​in the “Reader’s Digest” sold more than 17 million copies. Three films based on this book were made in England, Germany and the United States in the years 1953-1954 German film “WEG OHNE UMKEHR”, was awarded at the International Film Festival in Berlin in 1954, the title of “the best German film of the year.” English “THE ROAD OF NO RETURN” and the American “NO WAY BACK” movies for a long time did not descend from screens all over the world.

    The author of the books:

    1951 MAШИНА ТЕРРОРА (БЕРЛИНСКИЙ КРЕМЛЬ, КРЫЛЬЯ ХОЛОПА, ПЕСНЬ ПОБЕДИТЕЛЯ)
    [TERROR MACHINE 1951 (BERLIN Kremlin LACKEY’S WINGS, WINNING SONG)]
    1970 КНЯЗЬ MИРА СEГO
    [THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD]
    1973 ДEЛO #69
    [The case #69]
    1975 ИМЯ MOЕ ЛEГИOН
    [MY NAME IS THE LEGION]
    1981 ПРОТОКОЛЫ СОВЕТСКИХ МУДРЕЦОВ
    [THE PROTOCOLS OF THE SOVIET ELDERS]
    1987 КРАСНАЯ КАББAЛA
    [RED KABBALAH]
    1989 БОЖИЙ НАРОД
    [GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE]

    Grigory Klimov, born September 26, 1918 in the city of Novocherkassk, Russia, in the family a doctor. In 1941 graduated with honors from the Novocherkassk Industrial Institute, and entered the Military-Diplomatic Academy in Moscow.

    In 1945 he graduated from the Academy and was assigned to work in Berlin, as the engineer-in-chief of the Soviet military administration.

    In 1947 he was ordered to go back to the Stalin’s Moscow. After much deliberation, he fled to West Germany.

    In 1949-1950 worked at the CIA’s highly classified subject “COLLAPSE OF THE COMMUNIST SYSTEM BY MEANS OF A SPECIAL TYPE PEOPLE. PEOPLE WITH THE POWER COMPLEX (Complex of latent homosexuality of Lenin).” The code name - Harvard Project. In 1951-55 he was the chairman of the Central Association of the Post-war Emigrants From The Soviet Union [ЦОПЭ] (TSOPE) and chief editor of the magazine “Freedom” and “Anti-Communist” (the latter in German).

    In 1958-59 worked as a consultant at the Cornell Project in New York, where he was also engaged in all sorts of cunning psychological studies related to the Hungarian uprising of 1956.

    The results of 50 years of work on this subject are reflected in the seven books. The last three are the abstracts of the series of lectures for the entire top of the command officers of the KGB, on the eve of perestroika.

    All the books were published by Sovetskaya Kuban [СОВЕТСКАЯ КУБАНЬ] - Krasnodar, RUSSIA. Total circulation has exceeded one million.

    For orders, please contact a representative of the publishing house Sovetskaya Kuban. Mironov Vladimir Leonidovich by e-mail klimov_gregory@yahoo.com

    You can send your opinion about books or via e-mail to klimov_gregory@yahoo.com:

    GREGORY KLIMOV
    48-34 91 place
    Elmhurst
    New York 11373
    USA

    Gregory Klimov - Search results - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Gregory+Klimov&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1&search

    Klimov (surname)
    Russian linguist Gregory Klimov (1918-2007), pen-name of Igor Kalmykov a.k.a. Ralph Werner, Soviet defector and writer Igor Klimov (born 1989), Russian

    #anticommunisme #conspirationnisme #Russie #USA #guerre_froide

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine. Chapter 14
    http://g-klimov.info/klimov-pp-e/ETM14.htm

    The Dialectical Cycle

    In the steaming heat of the late summer of 1946 Karlshorst lived its normal life. In all the S. M. A. administrations and departments there was feverish activity. In the rush of work the officers with gold epaulettes forgot that Karlshorst was only a remote island surrounded with a foreign and hostile element. But when the time came for them to go on leave and return to the homeland they grew more conscious of the fact that far away to the east was an enormous country whose interests they were called on to defend outside its frontiers.

    Letters from the Soviet Union reported an unusual drought all over European Russia. Fears were being openly expressed for the harvest. The small allotments and market gardens, which provided produce for the great masses of the people, were withering in the sun. People stared anxiously into the sky and feared that they were in for a famine still worse than that experienced during the war. Letters from home sounded desperate, hopeless.

    A year had passed since my arrival in Berlin to work in the Soviet Military Administration. I was due for leave at the end of the summer. I could shake the dust of Berlin from my feet and relax at home for six weeks.

    Andrei Kovtun took his leave at the same time as I, and we agreed to travel together. We decided to stop in Moscow for a time, then to visit our hometown in the south, and to finish our holiday somewhere on the Black Sea coast. Andrei insisted on organizing our leave so as to spend it largely surrounded by memories of our youth.

    At the Berlin Schlesische station Andrei, relying on his M. V. D. uniform, went to see the military commandant, and quickly came back with two second-class tickets. His foresight was amply justified. All the carriages were packed. The majority of the travelers was taking a mass of baggage with them, and refused to be parted from it; they did not trust the baggage cars. Andrei and I each had two trunks filled mainly with presents for relations and acquaintances.

    Our train arrived at Brest without adventure, though the Soviet military trains running between Berlin and Moscow often came under fire and even attacks from Polish nationalists hiding in the forests. The first check of documents and baggage took place at the Soviet frontier post in Brest, where we transferred to another train. The M. V. D. frontier guards made a special point of thoroughly searching the baggage of demobilized military men, looking for weapons which officers and men might be taking home as trophies.

    Just in front of us a frontier-guard lieutenant checked the documents of a captain going on leave. “Why didn’t you leave your service weapon behind, Comrade Captain?” he asked.

    “I received no instructions to do so,” the captain answered with a shrug of annoyance.

    “On arrival at your destination you must hand over your pistol to the local commandatura when you register,” the lieutenant said as he returned the documents.

    “That’s peacetime conditions for you!” the captain muttered as we left the control-point office. “Everybody’s afraid of something or other.”

    While waiting for the Moscow train Andrei and I sat in the waiting room. Here there were many officers in Polish uniform, including the Polish square military caps. They were all talking in Russian, resorting to Polish only for swearing. They were officers of Marshal Rokossovsky’s Soviet forces stationed in Poland and dressed in Polish uniforms. Some of the Russian officers returning from Berlin fell into conversation with them.

    “Well, how are things with you in Germany?” an officer with an unmistakable Siberian accent and with a Polish eagle in his cap asked a lieutenant who had come from Dresden. “D’you find the Germans a handful?”

    “Not in the least,” the lieutenant answered casually. “They’re a disciplined people. Tell them they mustn’t, and they don’t. At first we thought we’d have to deal with unrest and even attempts on our lives. Nothing of the sort!”

    “You don’t say!” The fellow from Siberia shook his head, obviously astonished. “But our ’gentlemen’ give us more than we bargain for. Not a night passes without someone being knocked off or shot. And this chicken is of no help whatever” - he pointed to the eagle in his cap.

    “You don’t know how to treat them!” the lieutenant said with a hint of superiority.

    “It isn’t so simple as that!” another Soviet officer in Polish uniform intervened. “During the war years Rokossovsky had sixteen expressions of Stalin’s thanks in orders of the day, but during his one year in Poland he has had twenty censures! All because of the Poles. They shoot at you round corners, and you aren’t allowed to raise a finger against them, otherwise you’ve had it! Court-martial for you. That’s politics!” He gave a deep sigh.

    Shortly after the train for Moscow had started our documents were checked again, this time in the carriage. We had traveled only a few hours when the procedure was repeated a second time.

    Andrei sat silent in a corner seat, taking no notice of what went on around him, sunk deep in thought. A passenger glanced in, noticed the M. V. D. officer’s uniform, and pretended he had made a mistake, and went to look for a seat elsewhere. Even in the second class, where every traveler had a Party ticket, people preferred to keep a respectable distance between them and the M. V. D.

    Towards evening Andrei livened up a little - he had not uttered a word for a long time. We began to talk about the past. Gradually his reminiscences turned to Halina. I sat listening in astonishment. Evidently he had been thinking of her all the time, but only now did he openly talk about her. Time and distance had blunted his feelings a little, but now his heart was burning once more with that same former fire.

    The story of Andrei’s pre-war relations with Halina was somewhat unusual. She was an extraordinarily beautiful girl, with a pure and exalted quality in her beauty. Above all, her character was in perfect harmony with her appearance. Andrei worshipped her. But for a long time she was indifferent to his attentions and did not notice his slavish devotion. Then a strong friendship developed between them. Possibly his sacrifice and devotion won her, or perhaps she felt that his love was different from other young men’s flattering attentions.

    Their acquaintances all thought this friendship queer; the contrast between his angular figure and her spiritual beauty was too obvious. Nobody could imagine what bound them to each other. Again and again her girl friends reduced her to tears, for they took every opportunity of pointing out Andrei’s defects. His comrades openly congratulated him on his ’undeserved good fortune’.

    More than once this sort of thing led to their separating for a time. And then Andrei had no rest. He wandered like a shade behind her, not daring to go up to her, yet lacking the strength to turn away. Thus they went on, all but inseparable, down to the outbreak of war. The war flung him into the partisans and directed his unbridled emotions in another direction. The town in which she was living was soon overrun by German troops, and they completely lost contact with each other.

    “We’re continually striving towards something,” he now said abruptly. "We strive for power, for fame, for distinction. But that is all outside us. And when you come to a certain point you realize that all the time you’ve only been giving out from yourself. And you ask yourself: what have you gained for it all?

    “I’ve got a strange feeling. Putting aside everything else and thinking only of myself, I get the impression that all I’ve done in my struggle to climb higher has been for Halina’s sake. Now I shall lay this uniform and these orders at her feet.”

    He ran his eyes over his perfectly fitting uniform, brushed a speck of dust from the blue riding breeches, and said dreamily:

    “Now Halina has graduated as an engineer; she’s living in Moscow, she has work worthy of her, and a comfortable home. And what more can any woman achieve today? And now, to complete it all, a major in the State Security Service will turn up as a guard and defender of her well being. Don’t you think that’s quite a logical conclusion? And now, old friend, I’m hoping that life will repay me with interest for everything.” He clapped his hand down on my knee, then rose and stared through the window into the darkness ahead, as though he hoped to discern what fate had in store for him.

    I had noticed before that he had rather queer ideas of his position with regard to Halina. He had put all his ardour into his ambitions and had received no satisfaction from life in return; on the contrary, he was tortured by his situation, in which he was compelled to act against his own convictions. And so he had subconsciously begun to seek for some compromise with life, he had begun to convince himself that his old love and the happiness of married life would fill the void in his soul. To meet Halina again had become an obsession with him; he thought of it as the miracle, which would bring him salvation.

    “D’you know what?” He turned round sharply. “I simply must get hold of a bottle of vodka.”

    “But you don’t drink.”

    “It’s for you,” he replied abruptly. “I want everybody round me to be jolly. Damn it all, I’m not going to a funeral, I’m going to a wedding!”

    I tried to dissuade him. “So you want to insult me? Is that it?” he demanded. I could only hope that he was unlikely to find vodka at that time of night.

    At the very next station he went out; a few minutes later he returned with a bulging pocket. “Obtained in perfect agreement with regulations!” he grinned. “The station commandant had confiscated it from someone, and I confiscated it from him. The raspberry capband has its uses!”

    He filled the glass so full that the vodka overflowed. “I’m all on fire inside, and there’s something lacking,” he said. “You drink for me. You know, there are times when I feel an emptiness inside me almost physically.” He sat with his feet planted widely apart, his hands on his knees. “Sometimes I think about God, and I envy those who believe in Him. It’s better to believe in a non-existent but infallible God than in the scoundrelly pretenders of this earth.”

    “When did you go to church last?” I asked.

    "Some twenty years ago. My father took me. When I was a boy I knew all the prayers by heart.

    “Yes, the soul of a man is not a piece of litmus paper,” he sighed. “You’ve got no means of deciding straight off whether it will be red or blue. In my damned job one often has to think about a human soul. I’ve developed quite a psychosis: I’m looking for people who believe in something.”

    All around us there was silence. Our native land sped towards us.

    The train arrived in Moscow next day. We went into the sunlit square outside the station and stopped to look about us. The trams clattered past, cars drove by silently, and people were hurrying about their affairs. All the feverish life of the capital city was opened before us. It was all so everyday, so simple. We felt as though we had never left Moscow.

    Thanks to his M. V. D. uniform and the gold star of a ’Hero of the Soviet Union’ Andrei easily obtained a room for two in the Staraya-Moskovskaya Hotel on the farther side of the river Moskva, right opposite the Kremlin. Our window looked out on to the river, and beyond we could see the new Stone Bridge, the rows of trees beginning to turn yellow along the Kremlin Embankment, the pointed towers and gold cupolas behind the Kremlin walls, and a long white building staring with innumerable windows. That building housed the brain of our country, the laboratory for the creation of a New World.

    We spent our first day aimlessly wandering about the city. We were both impatient to see Moscow life with our own eyes. Only a year had passed since I had last seen Moscow, but that year had been so filled with experiences that I felt now as though I were getting to know my own capital for the first time. Somewhere in the depths of my being I felt mingled feelings of expectation, distrust, and anxiety; as though, despite everything, I was trying to find something here that would make me change my mind, would lead me to revoke a firmly made decision.

    That summer evening Andrei and I wandered into Mayakovsky Square. Before us the black cube of the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute loomed up in the dusk. In that stone chest the brain of Lenin, the ideologist and founder of the Soviet State, is preserved in spirit as a very sacred object. To the left of the square rose the editorial offices of Pravda.

    At roof level an illuminated sign was announcing the latest news. Nobody in the square paid any attention to it. But we craned our necks and began to read: ’The farmers report... the accomplishment of the plan for handing in the harvest... ’ Andrei and I looked at each other. Evening after evening, year after year, similar reports had been flashed along the roof of Pravda before the war. And it was still the same today. Hadn’t there been any war and all that the war connoted?

    “What does it say up there, little son?” An old, feeble, quavering voice sounded behind us.

    Beside Andrei a decrepit old man was standing. He was wearing a homespun coat of uncertain color, and a tangled, reddish beard framed his face and brightly twinkling eyes. His long hair hung down from beneath his old peaked cap.

    “My eyes are weak, little son, and besides, I’m not good at reading,” he murmured. “Tell me what it says.”

    He addressed Andrei in the tone that simple folk use to their superiors: with respect and wheedling sincerity.

    “Why haven’t you learned to read and write, daddy?” Andrei asked with a warm smile, touched by the old fellow’s request.

    “What do we simple people need to know them for? That’s what learned men are for, to understand everything.”

    “Where are you from, daddy?” Andrei asked.

    “My village is a little way outside Moscow,” the old man answered. “Nearly forty miles from here.”

    “Are you in town to visit your son?” Andrei asked again.

    “No, little son; I’m here to look for bread.”

    “Why, haven’t you any in your village?”

    “No, little son. We’ve handed over all our corn. Now all we can do is sell our potatoes in the Moscow market in order to buy bread.”

    “What’s the price of bread in the market now?” Andrei inquired.

    “Seventy rubles a kilo, little son.”

    “And how much did you sell your grain to the State for?”

    The old fellow fidgeted from foot to foot, sighed and said reluctantly:

    “Seven kopecks a kilo....”

    There was an awkward silence. We behaved as though we had forgotten his request that we should read the news to him, and walked on. In the middle of the square we came to a halt before a granite obelisk; it had a bronze plaque fastened to each of its sides. Andrei and I went closer to read the inscriptions on the plaques.

    “Little son, perhaps you’ll tell me what it says on those boards.” We again heard that feeble, aged voice behind us. The old man stood there like a shade, shifting from foot to foot.

    A smile slipped over Andrei’s face, and he turned his eyes back to the obelisk, intending this time to satisfy the old man. Slowly he read the first few words aloud, but then he broke off and read the further lines in silence.

    “What’s the matter, little son?” the old man asked with some concern. “Isn’t it written in Russian?”

    Andrei was silent; he avoided the old man’s eyes. In the dusk I too read the words. The plaques carried extracts from the Soviet Constitution, dealing with the rights and liberties of Soviet citizens. Hungry and ragged Moscow, this old peasant arrived in search of bread, and the bronze promises of an earthly paradise! I realized why Andrei was silent.

    The next day was a Saturday; we decided to find out where Halina lived and call on her. Through letters from mutual acquaintances I had learnt that she was working as an engineer in one of the Moscow factories. But when Andrei phoned the works administration they told him she was no longer working there, and refused to give any further information. On making inquiries at the Bureau for Ad-dresses we were amazed to be given an address in one of the out-lying suburbs, an hour’s journey by electric train.

    The sun was sinking behind the crowns of the pine forest when Andrei and I knocked at the door of a small timber-built house in a summer settlement not far from the railway. A negligently dressed, elderly woman opened the door to us, gave us an unfriendly look, listened to us in silence, and silently pointed up a rickety staircase to the first floor. Andrei let me go in front, and I could not see his face; but by the sound of his footsteps and the way he leaned heavily on the shaking banister rail I could tell how much this meeting meant to him.

    On the landing damp underwear was hung out to dry. Dirty pans and old rags littered the windowsill. A board door, hanging by rusty hinges, had tufts of wool blocking the chinks between the planks. I irresolutely took hold of the handle, and knocked.

    We heard shuffling footsteps. The door shook on its hinges and scraped over the floor as it was slowly opened; to reveal a woman simply dressed, with old shoes on her stockingless feet. She gazed interrogatively into the dimly lit landing. Then she distinguished men in military uniform, and the astonishment in her eyes was changed to fear.

    “Halina!” Andrei called quietly.

    The young woman’s face flushed crimson. She fell back. “Andrei!” a half-suppressed cry broke from her lips. She stood breathing rapidly and heavily, as though short of breath.

    Andrei avoided looking about him. He tried not to see the wretched furnishing of the half-empty room; he tried to ignore her old clothes and worn shoes. He saw only the familiar features of the woman he loved. All the world was lost in oblivion, sunk beneath the burning depths of her eyes fixed on him.

    How often during all the long years had he dreamed of her eyes! And now those eyes slowly took him in, from head to foot. They rested on the gold epaulettes with the blue facings, on the star indicating his major’s rank, on the brilliant raspberry band of his service cap. Her eyes turned to the M. V. D. insignia on his sleeve, then stared into his eyes.

    “Halina!” he repeated again as though in a dream; he stretched out both his hands to her.

    “Gregory, shut the door, please!” she said to me, as though she had not noticed Andrei or heard his voice. Her tone was cold, her eyes faded, her features set. She avoided Andrei’s eyes and, not saying a word, went to the open window at the far end of the room.

    “Halina, what’s the matter?” he asked anxiously. “How is it you’re living here... in such conditions?”

    “Perhaps you’d better tell your story first,” she answered. She seemed to be finding our visit a torture.

    “Halina! What’s the matter with you?” A growing alarm sounded in his voice.

    There was a long silence. Then she turned her back on us and said in a voice that was almost inaudible as she gazed out of the window:

    “I’ve been dismissed... and exiled from Moscow.”

    “Why?”

    “I am an enemy of the people,” she said quietly.

    “But what for?”

    Another silence. Then, like a rustle of wind outside the window:

    “Because I loved my baby....”

    “Are you married?” His voice broke with the despair of a man who has just heard his death sentence.

    “No.” The word came softly.

    “Then... then it’s not so bad, Halina.” The fear in his voice turned to a note of relief.

    There was another silence, disturbed only by his panting breath.

    “Look at that!” She nodded at a small photograph standing on the table. Andrei followed her glance. From the simple wooden photograph frame a man in German officer’s uniform smiled at the major of the Soviet State Security Service. “He was the father of my child,” she said from the window.

    “Halina... I don’t understand.... Tell me what happened.” He dropped helplessly into a chair; all his body was trembling.

    “I fell in love with him when our town was under German occupation,” she answered, after turning away from us again. “When the Germans retreated I hid the child. Someone informed on me. And of course you know the rest....”

    “But where is the child?” Andrei asked.

    “It was taken from me.” Her voice choked. Her shoulders shook with dry sobbing.

    “Who took it from you?” There was a threat in his tone.

    “Who?” she echoed him. “Men in the same uniform as you’re wearing.”

    She turned her face to us. It had nothing in common with the face of the gentle and friendly girl we had known in past days. Before us stood a woman in all the nakedness of her womanly pain.

    “And now I must ask you to leave my house.” She stared fixedly at Andrei’s motionless figure. He sat with shoulders bowed as though under the blows of a knout, staring at the floorboards: his back huddled, his eyes expressionless, and his body lifeless.

    The sun was glowing orange beyond the window. The branches of the dusty pines swayed silently. The sun lighted up the fluffy hair of the woman standing at the window caressed her proudly carried head, the gentle outlines of her neck, the frail shoulders under the old dress. The light left in shadow all the wretched furniture of the half-empty room and all the signs and tokens of human need. At the window stood a woman now farther off than ever, but now more desired than ever. On a chair in the middle of the room slumped a living corpse.

    “Halina... I’ll try...” he said thickly. He himself had no idea what he could hope to do, and he was silent again.

    “We have nothing more to talk about,” she answered quietly and firmly.

    He rose heavily to his feet, looked helplessly about him. He muttered something, held out his hand as though asking for something, or maybe in farewell. She looked away, taking no notice of his hand. There was another long silence.

    I crept out of the room as though from the presence of the dead. Andrei followed me. As he went downstairs he clung to the wall like a blind man. His face was ashen; words came incoherently from his lips. Our steps sounded hollowly on the creaking stairs.

    In the train he stared with glassy eyes out of the window and was obdurately silent. I tried to distract his thoughts with talk. He did not hear my voice; he took no notice of me whatever.

    As we made our way to the Moscow Underground station he broke the silence by asking: “Which way are you going?” I guessed he wanted to get rid of me, but I also felt that on no account could I dare to leave him to himself.

    We returned to our hotel. All the rest of the evening I followed him like a shadow. When he left the room for a moment I unloaded our pistols, which were lying in the table drawer. He would not have any supper, and went to bed unusually early. But he tossed and turned and could not sleep. He wished to escape from this life at least in his sleep, to find release from his torment; but he could not.

    “Andrei, the best thing would be for you to go home tomorrow,” I said.

    “I have no home,” came from his bed after a long silence.

    “Then go to your family,” I persisted.

    “I have no family,” he said thickly.

    “Your father...”

    “My father has disowned me.”

    Andrei’s father was a man of the old school, hard as oak and as obstinate as a mule. When the years of collectivization arrived the old cossack had preferred to leave his native soil to live in a town, rather than join a collective farm. In the town he had become an artisan. No repressive measures, no amount of taxation could drive him into an artisans’ cooperative. “I was born free, I shall die free!” was his one answer. He had given all his strength to bring up his son, in the hope that the lad would be a comfort to his old age. But when he heard that his Andrei had gone over to the enemy he disowned him.

    All night Andrei tossed and turned in his bed. All night I lay in the darkness, not closing my eyes, fighting to keep from falling asleep. The hours passed. The ruby stars of the Kremlin towers shone in through the open window. As the sky turned pale and the first feeble light stole into the room, I saw that Andrei was still awake. He had buried his face in the pillow, and his arms hung helplessly down, one on either side of the bed. In the silence I caught words that came strangely from his lips, words that I remembered from times long past, the time of my childhood. They came in a passionate whisper: “Lord, incline Thine ear and hear my prayer, for I am miserable and weak.”

    For the first time that night I closed my eyes. I would not hinder a man who stood on the confines of this world. And again in the early morning stillness I heard a whisper that had nothing earthly in it, the words of a long forgotten prayer: “Lord, forgive thy sinful slave...”

    On the farther side of the river the Kremlin clock chimed in answer.

    While in Berlin I had exchanged very little correspondence with Genia. She was too sensitive to the least hint of insincerity and mental reservations; moreover, there was still a military censor-ship, and that had to be taken into account. A frank description of my present life and of our impressions of the real world around us would have been unforgivable lunacy. And we had no private life in Karlshorst that I could write about. Both she and I were too young and too fond of life to write each other insane letters out of sheer amiability.

    So I preferred to use the nights when I had a twenty-four-hour turn of duty in the staff headquarters, and was alone in the commander-in-chief’s private office, for getting direct telephonic contact with Moscow and talking to Genia. On such occasions we had long conversations that had no connection with the marshal’s office, or policy. The people tapping the telephone could go on reading their novels unperturbed.

    On returning to Moscow I looked forward impatiently to seeing Genia again. And in preparing for my first visit I spent a long time pondering what to wear - my military uniform or civilian clothes. I finally decided in favor of the civvies.

    I found only Anna Petrovna at home. She was feeling bored, and she took the opportunity to ply me with questions concerning Berlin, and simultaneously to retail the latest Moscow news.

    Now the family was reunited. Genia’s father, Nikolai Sergeivich, had returned home after the conclusion of operations against Japan. But even now, when he was stationed in Moscow, his wife knew as little as ever about his duties and activities, and she lived in constant dread of his being sent off again in some unknown direction and for an indefinite period.

    After lunch Genia decided that she and I would go off into the country for the rest of the day. I was very grateful to her for taking me to her parents’ country house, for the small summer villa outside the city had been the scene of my first meeting with her, in the early days of the war. She herself drove her sports-model Captain.

    When we reached the villa she began to question me at great length and in unusual detail about life in Germany. All my explanations and descriptions failed to satisfy her. Suddenly, quite unexpectedly, she gazed into my eyes and asked: “But why are you so thin?”

    “I’m feeling fine!” I replied. “It may be just overwork.”

    “No, it isn’t that.” She shook her head. “You look really bad. You’re keeping something from me.” She gazed at me closely, as though trying to read my thoughts.

    “Maybe there is something,” I assented, touched by her anxious tone. “But if there is I haven’t noticed it.”

    “But I do,” she whispered. “At first I thought it must be some-thing coming between us... Now I see it’s something else. Forget it!”

    And I did forget it. I was boundlessly happy to see the familiar walls around me, and to hear only Genia, to think only of Genia.

    As the evening twilight settled over the forest and shadows began to steal through the room she decided to celebrate my arrival with a supper.

    “Today you’re mine.” She flashed her eyes at me. “Let father be annoyed because we’ve gone off! Let him know how mother worries when he’s not at home! I’ll show him!”

    We had hardly sat down to eat when we heard the sound of a car approaching. Genia raised her eyebrows anxiously. The car stopped outside, and a moment later Anna Petrovna entered. She was followed by Nikolai Sergeivich and a colleague of his, Colonel-General Klykov. They were all in a very cheerful mood, and the house was filled with their laughter and talk.

    “Now isn’t this wonderful! We’ve only just arrived, and the table’s already laid!” Klykov laughed and rubbed his hands. “Nikolai Sergeivich, your daughter’s a treasure!”

    “D’you think she’s prepared all this for us?” Nikolai Sergeivich answered. “You must excuse us for interrupting, Yevgenia Nikolaevna,” he said very formally, turning to his daughter. “Would you permit us to join your company?”

    “And you’re a fine one!” he added, turning to me. “Get into civilian clothes and you immediately forget your army regulations! You know your first duty is to present yourself to your superiors! Ah, you youngsters....”

    “But we were just getting ready to go home,” Genia began.

    “Then why have you laid the table? For us?” Her father roared with laughter. “So we drive here, and you go back there! You think you’re clever, my girl. But I’m no fool either. Just to punish you we’ll spend all the evening with you.”

    Anna Petrovna set to work to prepare supper. They had brought cans and bottles of a striking diversity of labels with them. All the lands of eastern Europe were represented: Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary. These commodities were not spoils of war, but normal peacetime production. There were American conserves too, obviously the remnants of lend-lease deliveries. None of these things could be bought in the Moscow shops, but they were available in abundance in the special distribution centers to which generals had access.

    “Well, Gregory, now tell us all about it from the beginning.” Nikolai Sergeivich turned to me when the dessert arrived. “What is life in Germany like?”

    “Not too bad,” I answered vaguely, waiting for him to be more definite in his questions.

    “In any case he has a better apartment there than we have,” Genia intervened.

    The general ignored her, and asked: “What’s Sokolovsky doing?”

    “What Moscow orders,” I replied, involuntarily smiling. “You people here should know best what he’s doing.”

    Obviously I had given Nikolai Sergeivich the opening he was fishing for. He sat turning over his thoughts. Genia looked about her with a bored air.

    “Germany’s a tough nut.” General Klykov broke the silence. “It’ll be a long time before we crack it. The Allies won’t clear out of western Germany without giving trouble, and there isn’t much to be expected simply from eastern Germany. Not like the Slavonic countries: no sooner said than done! I think our first task is to create a strong bloc of Slavonic states. If we form a Slavonic bloc we shall have a good cordon sanitaire around our frontiers. And our positions in Europe will be strong enough to prevent any repetition of 1941.”

    “My friend, you’re always looking backward, but we’ve got to look forward.” Nikolai Sergeivich shook his head reproachfully. “What do we want a Slavonic bloc for? The old dreams of a pan-Slav empire! Today we’re in the epoch of the communist advance along the whole front. Eastern Europe and the western Slavonic states are of interest to us now chiefly as providing a favorable base for penetration and further action.”

    “So far the masters are pursuing a quite clear pan-Slavonic policy,” the colonel-general retorted. Like all the upper circles of Moscow he resorted to the vague term ’masters’ to denote the Kremlin and the Politburo.

    “That’s what policy’s for, to conceal the ultimate aims,” Nikolai Sergeivich said. “It would be a crying shame not to exploit our possibilities today. One half of Europe belongs to us, and the other half is inviting us to take it over and give it order.”

    It was now quite dark outside. Moths fluttered through the open window and beat against the lamp glass, burning their wings. A drowsy fly crawled over the table, moving its legs painfully. The fly had no aim, it simply crawled.

    “There’s Europe!” the general said with a contemptuous smile, and he unhurriedly picked up the fly between two fingers. “You don’t even have to catch it, you simply take it.”

    “But tell us frankly, Nikolai Sergeivich, what do you need that dead fly for? What good will it be to you?” the colonel-general asked.

    “Of course we’re not greatly interested in western Europe as such,” the general answered after a moment’s thought. “It’ll probably be more difficult to plant communism in the Europeans than in any other peoples. They’re too spoilt economically and culturally.”

    “There you are! You yourself admit it’s very difficult to make Europe communist,” Klykov expressed his thoughts aloud. “If we intend to build communism seriously there we’ll have to send half the population to Siberia and feed the other half at our expense. And what’s the sense of that?”

    “We need Europe so as to deprive America of her European markets, and then she’ll go under economically. But in any case...” The general was silent, thoughtfully rolling the unfortunate fly between his thumb and fingers. Then, as though he had come to a definite decision, he flung the fly away and repeated: “But in any case... neither you nor I know what the masters are thinking. And it’s just as well that we don’t,” he went on after another pause. His tone suggested that he knew more than he proposed to say.

    “Communist theory lays it down that the revolution should develop where there are the best prerequisites for it: in the weakest link of the capitalist system. And at the moment that isn’t in Europe. Today Asia is ripe for revolution. There we can gain the greatest possible successes with the least risk and the least expenditure. Asia is waking up nationally, and we must use this movement in order to further our objectives. The Asiatics are not so cultured and spoilt as the Europeans.”

    He paused again, then went on: “It’s more important to have Asia in our hands than Europe. All the more so as Japan has dropped out of the running. Today China is the key to Asia. Nowhere else in the world are the prerequisites for revolution so favorable as in China.”

    “All right, I give you China,” the colonel-general said in a joking tone. “And what will you do with it?”

    “China is an enormous reservoir of vital forces,” Nikolai Sergeivich replied. “It would be a tremendous thing to have such a reserve at our disposal, for the army and for industry. And, above all, that’s the way we shall force America to her knees.”

    “So America’s giving you trouble again?” Klykov laughed.

    “Sooner or later our roads will cross,” Nikolai Sergeivich answered. “Either we must renounce our historical mission or follow it through to the end.”

    “All the same, I assume that our post-war policy is directed towards ensuring the security of our frontiers, both in the West and in the East.” The colonel-general held to his views. But he prudently made his remarks sound more like a commentary on Kremlin policy than an expression of his own attitude.

    The general put on a smile of superiority. “Don’t forget, my friend, that one can build socialism in one country, but communism only in all the world.”

    “What’s the world to do with you, when you’re a Russian?”

    “We’re communists first, and Russians only second....”

    “So you need the whole world.” The colonel-general drummed his fingers ironically on the table.

    “That is the general line of the Party,” the general answered coldly.

    “Our policy during the war...” Klykov put up a feeble opposition.

    “Policy can change with circumstances, but the general line remains the general line;” the general would not let him finish. “It has to be so,” he went on slowly. “It’s a historical necessity. We’ve already exhausted all the possibilities of internal development. Internal stagnation is equivalent to death of old age. Either we finally retreat on the internal front, or we go forward on the external front. That is the law of dialectical development that applies to every state system.”

    “You’re going too far, Nikolai Sergeivich. You’re placing the interests of the state system above those of your people and your country.”

    “That’s why you and I are communists,” Genia’s father said slowly and firmly, raising his glass as though to confirm his words. Klykov pretended not to notice this invitation, and felt for his cigarettes. Anna Petrovna and Genia sat listening to the conversation with bored expressions on their faces.

    “What you’ve just said, Nikolai Sergeivich, is one thing in words, but in reality it means war,” Klykov said after a long silence. “You underestimate the external factors-America, for instance,”

    “And what is America?” Nikolai Sergeivich asked. “An agglomeration of people who represent no nation and possess no ideals, and whose basis of unity is the dollar. At a certain stage her living standards will fall inevitably, the class antagonisms will grow sharper, and then favorable conditions will arise for the development of the class struggle. The war will be shifted from the front to the rear of the enemy.”

    “And that’s what you and I are generals for - to wage war,” he added.

    “A general should be a citizen of his country first and foremost.” Klykov drew at his cigarette and sent the smoke curling up to the ceiling. “A general without a native country is...” He did not finish the sentence.

    During the war Colonel-General Klykov had successfully commanded large Soviet forces in the field. Shortly before the war ended he had been recalled from the front and given a comparatively subordinate post in the Commissariat for Defense. Generals on active service were not subjected to such changes without reason.

    Before leaving Moscow to join the S. M. A. I had met Klykov more than once at the home of Genia’s parents. Whenever the talk turned to politics he had always been very moderate, taking the attitude that the war was one of defense of the national fatherland. At that time, just about the close of hostilities, there was a good deal of rather independent discussion, or rather surmise, as to the U. S. S. R.’s future policy. It is hardly to be doubted that Klykov had been rather too frank in expressing his opinions, which did not entirely coincide with the Politburo’s secret plans, and that this had been the reason for his recall to the rear, closer to the Kremlin’s ever-watchful eye.

    “But we won’t argue about that, Nikolai Sergeivich,” he said in a conciliatory tone, after a long pause. “In the Kremlin there are wiser heads than yours or mine. Let them decide.”

    They fell into a long silence. Anna Petrovna sat turning over the pages of a periodical. Genia looked at the clock, then at the moon rising through the trees. At last she could stand no more, and she jumped up.

    “Well, you can go on dividing up the world, but we’re going home.”

    “Why, is the moon making you restless?” her father laughed. “Off you go, then, only don’t get lost on the way. If anything happens, Gregory, I shall hold you responsible.” He jokingly wagged his finger at me.

    A minute or two later we drove off. In the moonlight, the shadows of the trees fell spectrally across the ground. Here and there the windowpanes of summer villas gleamed through the trees. The car bumped over the hummocky forest road. I sat at the wheel, not speaking.

    “What were you so dumb for this evening?” Genia asked.

    “What could I talk about?” I asked.

    “What others talk about.”

    “I can’t repeat the sort of thing your father says. And I mustn’t support Klykov.”

    “Why not?”

    “Because I don’t happen to be Klykov. Your father would never stand from me what he takes from Klykov. Klykov gives expression to very imprudent views.”

    “Let’s forget politics!” she whispered. She put her hand to the dashboard and switched off the headlamps. The night, the marvelous moonlit night, caressed us with its silence. I gazed into her face, into her eyes, veiled in the half-light. My foot slowly released the accelerator.

    “If you don’t close your eyes again...” she murmured.

    “Genia, I’ve got to steer the car.”

    Instead of an answer, a neat little foot was set on the brake pedal. The car slowly pulled sideways and came to a stop.

    I spent the next few days visiting my numerous Moscow friends and acquaintances. Everywhere I was bombarded with questions about life in Germany. Although occupied Germany was no longer ’foreign’ in the full meaning of the word, and many Russians had already seen the country with their own eyes, there was no falling off in the morbid interest the Russian people showed in the world on the farther side of the frontier.

    This interest and the exaggeratedly rosy ideas of life abroad were a reaction from Soviet Russia’s complete isolation. Moreover, the Russians have one trait, which is seldom found in other nations: they are constantly seeking to find the good sides of their neighbors in the world. The Germans used to regard this as evidence of the primitive ways of thought in the East.

    After I had satisfied my friends’ curiosity as far as possible I turned to questioning them about life in Moscow. But while they were very ready to listen to my guarded accounts of life in Germany, they were very unwilling to answer my questions about life in Moscow. The general mood was joyless. Everybody had hoped that living conditions would improve after the war. But now there were signs of famine. And in addition, the papers were again talking hysterically of a new war danger.

    When my friends learned that we in Berlin were in the habit of meeting Americans, talking to them and even shaking their hands, they stared at me as if I were a ghost, and did not know what comment to make. Although there had been a considerable cooling off in relations between the Allies during the first twelve months after the war, the very fact that we lived in the same city did to some extent mitigate the growing tension in official relations.

    But in Moscow the one-sided and continual abuse in which all the press and propaganda weapons were indulging was leading the people, despite their own personal convictions, to think of the Americans as cannibals. The propaganda poison was having its effect.

    One evening I went as usual to see Genia, and found all the family making ready for a journey. Anna Petrovna explained that they were going next morning to see Nikolai Sergeivich’s parents, who lived in a village between Moscow and Yaroslavl, and she invited me in her husband’s name to go with them. I knew already that his parents were simple peasants, and that, despite their son’s attempts to persuade them, they had refused to move to Moscow, preferring to remain on their land and continue as peasants.

    I readily accepted the invitation, though Genia turned up her nose a little and made no comment. I had observed already that she was not fond of visiting her grandparents, and did so only because her father wished her to. She had grown up in the Moscow milieu, and was completely alien to her peasant origins.

    Early next morning Nikolai Sergeivich, Anna Petrovna, Genia and I drove in the general’s limousine out of Moscow. We passed through the suburbs with its factories and small houses, and plunged into the forests surrounding the city. Towards midday, after a long journey over by-roads, we drew near to our destination. Bumping over the potholes, the car crawled into a village street. It was enveloped in a deathly silence; there was not a sign of life anywhere. No domestic animals, no chickens, not even a dog to be heard. It seemed to have been deserted by its inhabitants.

    Our car stopped at one of the houses on the outskirts. With a groan the general climbed out and stretched his legs after the long drive. Anna Petrovna gathered her things together. Genia and I waited for them to lead the way. There was no sign of life in the hut. Nobody came out to welcome us.

    Finally, the general went up the steps of the porch and opened the unfastened door. We went through a dark entry smelling of dung. The general opened the living-room door without knocking. In the middle of the room a girl about eight years old, bare-foot and straight haired, was sitting on the floor, swinging a cradle hanging from the ceiling. She was singing under her breath. When she saw us she stopped, and stared half in wonder, half in alarm, without rising.

    “Good morning, my child,” the general said to her. “Have you lost your tongue?”

    In her confusion she only stuck her finger into her mouth.

    “Where is everybody?” Nikolai Sergeivich asked again.

    “They’ve gone to work,” the child answered.

    At that moment we heard a noise behind us, and a pair of legs shod in worn feltboots began to stir on the enormous Russian stove that filled half the room. A muffled coughing and groaning came from the shelf for a few moments, then a shaggy, gray head was stuck out from behind a cloth curtain.

    “Ah.... So it’s you, Nikolai!” an aged, rather hoarse voice said. “So you’ve come again!” It was the general’s father. The old man’s face showed no sign of pleasure at the sight of his son.

    “Who else should it be?” the general thundered with forced gaiety as the old man climbed down from the stove. “I’ve brought something for you, Sergei Vassilievich. Something for the pain in your legs. You won’t refuse a bottle of vodka, I’m sure!”

    “Bread would have been more acceptable than vodka!” the old man grumbled.

    “Marusia, run to the chairman of the collective farm” - the general turned to the child - “and ask him to release all our people from work today. Tell him the general’s arrived.”

    “The general... the general....” the old man mumbled in his beard. He laid his hand affectionately on Genia’s head. “You’re looking well, dragon-fly. So you haven’t forgotten your old grand-dad in that Moscow of yours?”

    I went to the car and brought in the packets and bundles of presents we had brought with us. One after another the rest of the family arrived, all the general’s numerous kindred and their grown-up children. They all seemed rather awkward, and showed no sign of pleasure at the arrival of guests. The last to enter was a man who had been wounded in the war, and now walked with the aid of a stick. He was the general’s cousin, and the collective farm store-keeper.

    As usual in the country, the oldest man of the family issued the orders. The grandfather waved to one of the women:

    “Lay the table, Serafima. We’ll have dinner now we’ve got guests.” Turning to his son, he remarked: “I don’t suppose you’ve eaten potatoes for a long time, Nikolai? Well, you can have some now. We haven’t any bread, so we’re eating potatoes instead.”

    “What’s happened to your corn then?” Nikolai asked. “Haven’t you received anything yet from the collective farm?”

    “Received anything...” the old man muttered. “The collective farm handed over everything down to the last grain to the State, and that still left it in debt. We haven’t met our delivery plan. We’re managing with potatoes at present, but when winter comes... we haven’t any idea what we’ll eat.”

    “Well, don’t worry!” the general reassured him. “We’ve brought bread with us.”

    “Ah, Nikolai, Nikolai! If you weren’t my son I’d show you the door! Brought your bread to make a mock of us country-people, have you? You know our custom: the host provides for the guest. You’ll eat what we eat. And no arguments! Don’t turn up your nose at our food.”

    With a sweeping gesture he invited everybody to sit down at the table, on which Serafima had set a huge iron pot of steaming beetroot soup. Next to it she placed a pot of potatoes boiled in their jackets. Then she arranged earthenware plates and wooden spoons round the table. The general was the first to sit down.

    He was the most talkative of all the company, and tried hard to show that he was perfectly at home in the house where he had been born. He joked as he peeled his potatoes, readily held out his plate for Serafima to fill with the ’beetroot soup’, which apparently had been made without meat or fat. For some time only the clatter of the wooden spoons was to be heard.

    “What’s a dinner without vodka?” the general exclaimed at last, and he rose and went across to his packages. “We’ll throw back a glass all round, and then we’ll feel more cheerful.”

    All the men in the house readily accepted his invitation, and the bottle was swiftly emptied. A second followed it. The plain peasant food was quickly disposed of. The general again resorted to his packages, and littered the table with cans of preserves labeled in all the languages of Europe. His old father watched him glumly, and tried to protest; but then he held his peace and, staring at the strange labels, confined himself to the brief remark: “You’ve done some looting....”

    The plentiful supply of vodka had its effect; they all found their tongues.

    “Well, Nikolai, tell us. They say there’s a smell of war around again,” the old man asked, a little more amiable after several glasses of vodka.

    “We’re a long way off war at the moment, but we must always be ready for surprises,” the general replied. “We’ve won the war, now we must win the peace,” he added self-importantly.

    “What sort of world?” his father asked, screwing up his eyes cunningly. “That old story again... ’proletarians of all countries unite... ’?” (The Russian word ’mir’ has two meanings: ’peace’, and ’world’; the old man deliberately twists his son’s remark.)

    “Why of course, we mustn’t forget the proletarians of other countries,” the general said sluggishly, conscious of the ineptitude of his remark. “Proletarian solidarity,” he added, avoiding his father’s eyes.

    “Of course, of course.... My belly tells me every day that we’re proletarians. But as for the solidarity! D’you mean that others are to go hungry with us? Is that it?”

    “Let’s have another drink, Sergei Vassilievich,” his son proposed, realizing that there was no point in arguing with him. He filled his glass again.

    “But tell me just one thing, Nikolai.” His father went over to the offensive. “I don’t say anything about our having shed our blood and gone hungry in this war. God be thanked that it ended as it did. But tell me one thing: did the soldiers want to fight at the beginning, or didn’t they? You should know the answer, you’re a general.”

    The general stared silently at his plate.

    “Nothing to say?” the old fellow crowed. “The soldiers didn’t want to fight. And you know very well why. Because they’d had enough of that song long before. You can’t fill your belly with songs.”

    “But all the same we won the war,” the general said in his own defense.

    “Nikolai! I’m your father, and you needn’t tell me lies. Have you forgotten what was promised us during the war? Why were the churches opened again? Why have you been given Russian epaulettes? Why have you tsarist ribbons on your chest? You hid behind the backs of the Russian people! We were promised land and freedom. That’s what we fought for! And where is it all?” He banged his fist down on the table, making the glasses jingle. “Where is it all?” he shouted again, furiously pointing a skinny finger at the potato skins littered about the table.

    “You can’t have everything at once,” the general feebly protested.

    “What do you mean by that? You can’t have everything at once!” The old man exploded like a gunpowder barrel. “D’you mean it’s going to be still worse?”

    “Oh no.... But when everything’s been destroyed it can’t all be restored at once;” the general made his retreat.

    “Ah, now that’s a different story! But you began at first with the old song: Solidarity! Proletariat! We know it all by heart. We even know it backward!”

    The general said no more, but apathetically chewed a bread-crust. The old man could not get over his excitement. With a trembling hand he helped himself to a glass of vodka and tossed it off. He wiped his mouth with the back of his hand, then looked about him to see if anyone was daring to oppose him. But they all sat staring indifferently into their empty plates.

    “Don’t tell me any of your fairy-stories, Nikolai!” the old fellow said decisively, with a challenging stare across the table. “I know all that you’ve been up to! D’you think I don’t know how for the last twenty years you’ve been going about the world with a flaming torch? D’you think I don’t know where you got all those gewgaws from?”

    He pointed to the orders on his son’s chest. “When you were lying in that cradle,” he nodded to the cradle hanging from the ceiling," we didn’t only have bread in the house, we had everything in plenty. Now you’ve become a general, but the child in that cradle is crying with hunger. What’s happened to your conscience? Answer me! Have you exchanged your conscience for those gewgaws?"

    “Grand-dad, where could I find a basket?” Genia, who had been sitting silent next to her father, asked the old man. She rose from the table to go out.

    “What, dragon-fly, had enough?” Her grandfather gazed after her. “Go and pick some mushrooms in the forest, then we’ll have mushrooms as well as potatoes for supper.”

    Genia stood at the door with a basket on her arm, and nodded to me to go with her. As I left the room I heard the old man say:

    “I tell you, Nikolai, I don’t want to hear any more about the proletariat in my house. If there’s anybody who’s the last, the very bottom-most proletariat, it’s us, and not anybody else. If anybody’s got to be set free, it’s us! Get that? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!”

    Genia and I walked out of the village. The forest began almost at the last house. The sky was overcast with gray. The air was autumn-ally clear, and pervaded with the scent of rotting leaves and dampness. Genia had flung a kerchief over her head, knotting it beneath her chin. She took off her high-heeled shoes and dropped them into her basket, and went on in front without saying a word, cautiously stepping with her bare feet through the grass.

    I followed her, my eyes delighting in her supple figure. We went deeper and deeper into the forest, and at last came to a clearing littered with the great, mossy trunks of felled trees; all around them was a wilderness of wild berries, mushrooms, and grasses.

    “But what does father come here for at all?” Genia broke the silence. She walked aimlessly along with bent head, gazing at the ground. “Granddad always entertains him with this sort of performance, and father seems to like it.”

    “Perhaps he likes to see the difference between what he was and what he is now,” I suggested.

    “I’ve had enough of this comedy, long since!” she went on. “And this time it’s all the more unpleasant because you’ve seen it.”

    “Genia!” I called quietly.

    She turned round so swiftly and so readily that she might have been waiting for the call. Her chestnut eyes were fixed on me with a look of expectation.

    “Genia, what comedy are you referring to?” I asked, feeling an unpleasant suspicion rising in my mind. She stood embarrassed, disturbed by the tone of my voice. I took her by the hands and set her against a large, mossy stump rising as high as her head. She humbly stood as I had placed her.

    “Don’t you see it for yourself?” She attempted to avoid my question.

    “But it the comedy itself you mind?” I gazed into her eyes and saw that she was expecting, yet fearing, my question. “Which one do you think is the comedian?”

    “I... I don’t know, Grisha....”

    “Genia, which one do you regard as the comedian?” I repeated harshly.

    “I’m sorry for granddad,” she whispered, lowering her eyes. I could see that this talk was torturing her. “But it’s all so silly...” she added, as though excusing herself.

    “So you think your grandfather is a comedian?” I insisted.

    “No; he’s quite right. But...” Tears came into her eyes.

    I had a feeling of relief, mingled with a warm tenderness. I took her head between my hands and kissed her on the lips. I had no wish to go on tormenting her, by forcing her to disavow her own father. There was no need for me to say more.

    “D’you know what, Genia?” I said, as I played with a strand of her hair. “I’m very grateful to you at this moment.”

    “Why?” she whispered in surprise.

    "I was afraid for you. I was afraid you’d say something else....

    “I felt really upset for the old man,” I added thoughtfully. “Before the war came, each of us lived in his own nest, and each built his life to the best of his ability. During the war everything was changed, everybody was threatened and everybody was equal in the presence of death. In those days of blood and evil I experienced so much good from people I didn’t know at all, from simple people like your grandfather. The war brought us together in a brotherhood of blood. Now I feel sick at heart for these people.”

    A gray pall crept across the sky. The scent of rawness rose from the earth. A bird fluttered about for a moment, then flew off. “You and I are on top,” I went on quietly. “We must never forget that. Our being on top and remaining there only makes sense if we don’t forget it. I think your father has. And I was afraid you bad too....”

    The rustles of the autumnal forest stirred through the glade. I looked at Genia’s bare feet, at her peasant’s kerchief, at the basket standing beside her. In her hands she held a sprig of ash berries which she had broken off as she walked along.

    “I’d be tremendously happy if you were only your grandfather’s granddaughter and lived in that hut,” I said.

    She pressed closer to me, as if she were cold.

    “For then I’d know you belong to me,” I whispered into her ear. “You know, I often think of the first days we met. When you were simply Genia, a delightful girl who was a soldier’s friend. D’you remember how I knocked at your door, straight back from the front, in a soldier’s dirty greatcoat? I was always so proud of you... A soldier’s little wife...”

    “Grisha, tell me quite frankly.” As she learned against the mossy stump she bore little resemblance to the saucy and carefree girl I had once known. She spoke quietly, seriously. “You’ve come back from Berlin completely changed.... And you talk so little... I feel that something’s getting you down. What is it?”

    “Genia, it’s because I’m sorry that our friendship will never be anything more than that...”

    “What’s preventing it?”

    “When I first met your father I was proud of him. I thought of him in those days as an example to be followed...”

    “And now?” She looked into my eyes with a strange look.

    I did not answer at once. I could not yet put what I felt into words. “That you should leave the life you’re living now and belong only to me... I can’t insist that you should do that,” I said quietly. "But if you were to include me in your life, it would be the end for all of us.

    “So my father stands in the way?” she said with a strange calm. The words came as an answer to my own thoughts. I remained silent, gently stroking her shoulders. The leaves of the birches rustled quietly. The cloudy sky was silent. Ants crawled aimlessly over the stump.

    “Don’t be afraid, Grisha. I’d come to the same conclusion my-self.” Her voice betrayed her weariness. “There’s just one thing I want to say: it isn’t my father that stands between us. What has come between us is something that long since came between me and my father. I am only a woman and a daughter. But I feel differently about that.” She was silent for a moment, then she went on: “I’ve told you once already I’m an orphan...”

    She raised the sprig of mountain ash to her face and brushed her cheeks with the cluster of berries. The air was fresh with the autumn. We stood silent in the forest glade, forgetting what we had come there for.

    “And so you’ve quite made up your mind?” she asked at last.

    I only shrugged my shoulders impotently.

    “But supposing I throw up everything and come to you in Berlin?”

    “My position there is too insecure. I can’t risk your future...”

    She played thoughtfully with the cluster of orange berries. Her eyes gazed over my shoulder into the distance.

    “I shall never forget you, my dear,” I began, and was not at all sure whom I was trying to comfort, her or myself. My heart quivered once more with all the pang of a soldier’s parting, with sadness and tenderness, as in times past. But now the girl’s body did not quiver and caress me as it had done in the past. It was lifeless and cold.

    “Don’t be angry with me,” I pleaded. “It’s very difficult for me too. Very...”

    She raised her head. The emptiness in her eyes slowly gave place to the irresistible call of life. “If it has to be so,” she whispered, “the soldier’s little wife won’t cry.” She smiled through her tears. Then she set both her hands on my shoulders and threw her head back as though she were looking at me for the first time. A burning kiss scalded our lips.

    After a fortnight in Moscow I suddenly felt a griping void and restlessness. I hurried to put my affairs in order, feeling rather like a man afraid of being late for a train.

    Andrei Kovtun had already left Moscow. After his meeting with Halina he had wandered about for several days as though in a trance, dead to everything around him. I had great difficulty in persuading him to take the train to Sochi on the Black Sea, to spend the rest of his leave in a sanatorium. Even when I saw him off at the station he did not smile, and as he shook my hand he gazed aside.

    When I left Berlin to return to Russia I had not felt any need of a rest. But now, after a fortnight in Moscow, I felt desperately tired and in need of a break.

    One morning towards the end of the third week I hurriedly packed my few belongings and took a trolley-bus for the Central Aerodrome. I had already phoned and found out that there were always free places in the S. M. A. planes flying from Moscow to Berlin. And now, just as I had done more than a year before, I stood in the airport office, entering my name in the passenger list.

    With a pain in my heart I went to a telephone kiosk and called up Genia. When I heard her familiar voice I said:

    “Genia, I’m phoning from the airport. I’ve been urgently called back to Berlin.”

    “Don’t tell lies,” I heard her say. “But I’m not angry with you. Only it’s a pity you didn’t give me a parting kiss...”

    I was about to say something, but she had already rung off.

    Half an hour later our plane was airborne. This time the pilot did not make a farewell circle above Moscow. This time I did not gaze out of the window. And I did not look forward with any feeling of pleasure to what lay ahead of me. I tried to avoid thinking of what I had left behind me.

    Sommaire https://seenthis.net/messages/683905
    #anticommunisme #histoire #Berlin #occupation #guerre_froide

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine. Chapter 13
    http://g-klimov.info/klimov-pp-e/ETM13.htm

    Between Two Worlds

    Before the war I came across a book by Paul de Cruis: Is Life Worth Living? The book was a real find for the Soviet State Publishing Company; it was in complete accord with the Politburo course of that time, with its attack on the ’rotten democracies’. And so the book was translated and published in huge editions.

    The Russian edition had a foreword by the author; it was so amazing that I read it aloud to a friend: "’I cannot pass myself off as a proletarian; rather am I a bourgeois of the bourgeois, enervated and corrupted by the blessings of my social state.

    With a partridge wing in one hand and a glass of Burgundy in the other, I find it difficult to reflect on the social ulcers and painful problems of modern society. Nonetheless I am enthusiastic for the great Soviet experiment, I raise my right fist’ - holding the partridge wing or the Burgundy? - ’and cry: “Red Front!”’

    At this point my friend had had enough, and, swearing violently, he flung the book away. Both of us bitterly regretted that we hadn’t got the simple-minded Frenchman in the room with us. It may be there are people who get pleasure out of watching a dissected rabbit, but the rabbit itself hardly shares the pleasure.

    Paul de Cruis truthfully and honestly analyzed the defects of modem American society; he was indignant at the fact that American unemployed workers were living in extremely wretched conditions, and that their food consisted chiefly of fried potatoes and horribly salted pork. And their children received only a liter of ordinary milk a day, as an act of charity. And he exclaimed: “Is their life worth living?”

    Naturally, standards of good and bad are always relative. And possibly he was justified in concluding that in comparison with American living conditions generally such a state of affairs was very bad.

    But a Soviet reader reading those words might well ask: “And what is the state of the Soviet workers, who work themselves to death to earn a wage - not unemployment pay - which only very rarely assures them such a treat as pork, whether salted or unsalted? And what of their children, who even in the best years, received less milk than an American unemployed worker’s child? What answer could be given to the question: ’Was it worth while for these children to be born?”’

    After the war I recalled Paul de Cruis’ book, and especially his question: ’Is life worth living?’ For now some of us have had an opportunity to see the children of the democratic world, and that in conquered Germany, in conditions that were, generally speaking, worse than those applying in other democratic countries. Now we have had a chance to draw comparisons.

    In Germany the difference between the children of the two systems was painfully obvious. At first we noticed only the superficial differences; but when we had lived in Berlin for some time we saw another, much more profound difference. Soviet children seem like little soulless automata, with all their childish joy and lack of restraint suppressed.

    That is the result of many years of replacing the family by the State. Soviet children grow up in an atmosphere of mistrust, suspicion, and segregation. We in Berlin found it much more difficult to strike up a conversation with the child of a Soviet officer who was quite well known to us than with any German street urchin in the Berlin streets.

    The German children born in the Hitler epoch, and those who have grown up in the years following the capitulation, could hardly be exemplary in their characters. So we found it all the more depressing to note these vast internal and external differences between the children of the two systems.

    Here is a significant detail. The Germans are not in the habit of having their mother-in-law in the young married couple’s home; it is regarded as a family disaster. The German mothers-in-law themselves take the attitude that when they have disposed of their daughters they can ’enjoy life’; they ride cycles, visit the pictures, and live their own lives.

    In a Soviet family the exact opposite is the case. It is a bit of luck for the wife, and even more for the children, if her mother-in-law is living with them. Soviet children usually grow up in their grandmother’s care.

    Whereas the German woman of forty or more often begins a ’second youth’ when her daughter gets married, the Russian woman of over forty no longer has any personal life, she devotes herself wholly and entirely to her ’second family’, to her grandchildren. Only then is there any surety that the children will be brought up in a normal manner.

    Generalizing on this difference, one can say that the German woman belongs to the family, the Soviet woman to the State. A Soviet woman can become an engine driver, a miner, or a stonemason. In addition, she has the honorable right of voting for Stalin, and of being her husband’s hostage if the M. V. D. is interested in him. Only one small right is denied her: the right to be a happy mother.

    For a long time there were two conflicting theories as to the formation of the child character, and Soviet pedagogues were divided into two camps. The heredity theory maintained that the chief part in the development of human characteristics was played by the inherited genes; this theory came to be widely accepted by pedagogues after the emergence of a separate science of genetics. The second, environment, theory declared that the infant mind was a tabula rasa, on which environment wrote the laws of human development.

    This made the child’s characteristics exclusively dependent on the influences of its milieu. In due course the Politburo issued a specific instruction that the environmental theory was to be accepted as the basis of Soviet pedagogy. The totalitarian State fights wholeheartedly for the souls as well as the bodies of its citizens; it cannot stand any rivals in the formation of the citizen - not even genes. Soviet pedagogy now declares in so many words that the Soviet child is a hundred-per-cent product of its communist environment.

    During the period before this approach was finally established the Politburo based its system of Soviet education on a tenden-tious curriculum and the political organization of the youth in the Pioneers and the Young Communist League; in these organizations the children began when quite young to render their service to the State. The years passed, and after much experimentation the authorities went over from the ’method of conviction’ to the ’method of compulsion’.

    In 1940 a ’Committee for the Problem of Labor Reserves’ was set up as a subsidiary of the Council of People’s Commissars, and trades and technical schools attached to the factories and works were organized. The pupils for these educational institutions were compulsorily recruited at the age of fourteen, under the pretext of mobilizing labor reserves.

    In 1948 a State decree established the Suvorov and Nakhimov Cadet Schools. The task of these schools - there are some forty of them - is to prepare children of eight years and upward for a military career by a barrack style of education and training.

    I once had the opportunity to visit the Suvorov Cadet School at Kalinin. It was not far from Moscow, and consequently was the most privileged of all these schools, there being no Suvorov school in Moscow itself. At Kalinin I met a number of lads who were the grandsons of Politburo members.

    Petka Ordjonokidze, the grandson of Sergo Ordjonokidze, at one time People’s Commissar for Heavy Industry, was sitting in his underwear on his bed, for his uniform trousers were being repaired, and service regulations prescribed only one pair per child. In this respect, to have a highly influential and famous grandfather was of no advantage whatever. The teacher, a captain, complained of his delicate position in regard to Mikoyan’s youngest scion, who kept the whole establishment supplied with cigarettes, which he smuggled into the school.

    He could hardly be punished with the cells, for his grandfather was still alive and had a very good seat in the Politburo. Some of these lads of twelve or thirteen years old were wearing service decorations, which they had won as partisans. Seen close up, all this doesn’t look too bad: the Suvorov schools are privileged institutions in which the children are clothed, fed, and educated at the State expense.

    There are candidates and to spare for all vacancies, so it isn’t easy for the ordinary child to get to these schools. In that at Kalinin about half the pupils consisted of relations of generals and other members of the Soviet aristocracy.

    On leaving these schools the pupils may not enter any other than an officers’ training college. Their fate, their future career, are decided when they are eight years old. The classless society divides its children at an early age into strictly delimited castes: the privileged caste of the military and the caste of the proletarians, whose job is to do productive work, to multiply up to the approved limits, and to die for the glory of the leader.

    In 1946 an urgent conference was called by the head of the S. M. A. Political Administration to discuss the question of improving educational work in the Russian school at Karlshorst. Certain unhealthy trends had been noted among the scholars in the higher forms. A month or so before, a scholar in the ninth form had shot his father and his father’s young mistress.

    The father was a Party member, a lieutenant-general, and an official in the S. M. A. legal department. Apparently he had taken a fancy to wartime habits, and had been untroubled by the circumstance that he had been living with his paramour under the very eyes of his grown-up son and daughter, whose mother had remained in Russia.

    After fruitless talks, pleadings, and quarrels with his father, the son, a seventeen-year-old member of the Young Communist League, had decided to appeal to the advice and assistance of the Party organization. He had put in an official report to the head of the Political Department.

    When a Party man is accused of moral or criminal misconduct the Party organs usually act on the principle of not washing dirty linen in public. So the Political Department tried to hush up the affair, and only passed on the report to the father. The result could have been anticipated. The father was furious, and took active steps against his son. It ended by the son snatching up his father’s pistol and shooting him.

    Hardly had the commotion died down after this tragic incident when the Karlshorst commandant, Colonel Maximov, had to entrust a rather unusual task to a company of the commandatura guard. A mysterious band of robbers was operating in the wooded sand dunes and wilderness around Karlshorst, and filling the entire district with alarm and terror.

    The company sent to deal with it was strictly enjoined not to shoot without special orders from the officer in command, but to take the robbers alive. For they were scholars from higher forms of the Karlshorst school, and were led by the son of one of the S. M. A. generals. They were very well armed, with their father’s pistols, and some of them even with machine pistols.

    The district was combed thoroughly, the robbers’ headquarters were found in the cellar of a ruined house, and it was formally besieged. Only after long negotiations conducted through emissaries did the head of the band declare himself ready to capitulate. It is striking that the first of his conditions for surrender was that they were not to be sent back to the Soviet Union as a punishment. The officer in command of the company had to send a courier to the S. M. A. staff to obtain the necessary agreement to the condition. The stipulation greatly disturbed the S. M. A. Political Department.

    It was discovered that the results achieved in the higher forms of the Karlshorst school were not up to the standard of corresponding forms in the U. S. S. R., and on the other hand there was a considerable increase in truancy. The only improvement shown was in regard to German conversation, and this did not please the school authorities at all, as it showed that the pupils were in contact with the German world around them. That might have unpleasant consequences for the school staff.

    The commandatura patrols regularly hauled scholars out of the darkness of the Berlin cinemas in school hours. A search of the desks of older scholars led to the discovery of hand-written copies of banned Yesenin poems and amoral couplets by Konstantin Semionov, which soldiers had passed from hand to hand during the war. Worst of all, the S. M. A. hospital notified the chief of staff that several cases of venereal disease had occurred among the senior scholars. A sixteen-year-old girl was brought to the hospital suffering from a serious hemorrhage as the result of a clumsy attempt at abortion. Another girl lay between life and death for several months after she had made an attempt to gas herself because of an unhappy love affair.

    All these things had led to the Political Department calling an urgent conference, which decided that radical measures must be taken to improve the communist education of the Soviet children and youths in Germany. It was agreed that the most effective step towards effecting such an improvement was the approved panacea for all diseases: additional lessons on the ’Short Course of History of the C. P. S. U.’ and on the childhood and youth of the leaders of the world proletariat, Lenin and his true friend, collaborator and pupil, Joseph Stalin. It was also decided incidentally to send the incorrigible sinners home to the Soviet Union, a punishment which hitherto had been applied only to the adult members of the Karlshorst Soviet colony.

    *

    “Well, did you like it?”

    “Oh yes. An outstanding piece of work.”

    “Unquestionably. A real chef-d’oeuvre.”

    The solid stream of human beings carried us in the darkness out of the cinema of the officers’ club in Karlshorst. The crowd expressed their opinions about the film as they poured out.

    That morning Nadia, the secretary to the Party Organizer in the Administration for Industry, had rather startled us by her obliging conduct. She had gone from room to room, handing each of us a cinema ticket, and even asking affably how many we would like. Normally it wasn’t so easy to get hold of tickets; if you wanted to go you had to apply to Nadia very early.

    “Ah, Nadia, my dear! And what is showing today?” I asked, rather touched by her amiability.

    “A very good one, Gregory Petrovich. The Vow. How many tickets would you like?”

    “Ah! The Vow,” I murmured respectfully. “In that case let me have two.”

    The Soviet press had devoted a great deal of space to this film, extolling it to the skies as a new masterpiece of cinematic art. Although, generally speaking, I am skeptical of proclaimed masterpieces, I decided to go. It was so remarkably publicized that it would have been quite dangerous not to.

    Within five minutes of its beginning Captain Bagdassarian and I were watching the clock rather than the screen. It would have been an act of madness to leave, and yet to sit and watch the film...

    ’Let’s act as though we were going to the toilet, and then slip out," Bagdassarian whispered.

    “You’d better sit still and see it, out of scientific interest!” I advised him.

    Even in the pre-war Soviet films Stalin had begun to acquire a stature equal to Lenin’s. But in The Vow Lenin served only as a decorative motif. When they heard that Lenin was seriously ill the peasants from the entire neighboring district went on pilgrimage to the village of Gorky, where Lenin was living. But now it appeared that they had gone to Gorky only to plead, with tears in their eyes, for Stalin to be their leader. They swore their troth and fidelity to him for thousands of feet.

    I swore too. I swore that never in all my life, not even in pre-war days, had I seen such stupid, coarse, and unashamed botching. No wonder that our officers’ club had stopped showing foreign films for some months past.

    “Show a film like that abroad,” Bagdassarian said as we went home, “and they’ll believe that all Russians are a lot of fools.”

    “They’ve got plenty of rotten films of their own.” I tried to appease him.

    The few foreign films, which had been shown from time to time in the Soviet Union, were real masterpieces of the international cinema. Of course such films were shown only when they corresponded with higher interests and in conformity with the sinuosities of Soviet foreign policy.

    The result was that Soviet citizens came to have an exaggeratedly enthusiastic opinion of foreign cinema art. In Berlin we had extensive opportunities to see the achievements of various countries in this sphere. We often laughed till we cried at some heartrending American picture, with more shooting than dialogue, with blood streaming off the screen right into the hall, and it was quite impossible to tell who was killing whom, and why. It is a striking fact that, if one may dogmatize on the tastes of the ’common people’ at all, the ordinary Russian soldiers never got any enjoyment out of such films.

    It may seem strange, but we liked German films most of all. Whether in music, literature, or cinematic art-all of them spiritual revelations of national life - the German soul is more intelligible than any other to the Russians is. It has the same sentimentality, the same touch of sadness, the same quest for the fundamental bases of phenomena. It is significant that Dostoyevsky has enjoyed even greater popularity among the Germans than among Russians themselves, and that Faust is the crowning achievement of the Russian theater.

    We Russians often had interesting discussions about German films and plays. The Soviet viewer is struck by the unusual attention given to details, to facts, and to the actors themselves. These films provided plenty of matter for argument. The Vow provided no matter for argument.

    “Their art is passive, ours is active. Their art exhibits, ours commands,” Bagdassarian remarked. “Have you seen Judgement of the Nations’!”

    “Yes. It’s a powerful piece of work.”

    “I saw it recently in the American sector. They’ve given it quite different montage treatment, and call it Nuremberg. It’s the same theme, yet it makes no impact whatever.”

    We arrived at Bagdassarian’s apartment. Still under the influence of the film we had just seen, we sat discussing the possibilities of propaganda through art.

    “It’ll take the Americans another hundred years to learn how to make black white,” he said as he took off his greatcoat.

    “If they have to, they’ll soon learn,” I answered.

    “It can’t be done in a day. The masses have to be educated over many years.”

    “Why are you so anxious about the Americans?” I asked.

    “Only from the aspect of absolute justice.”

    “Who’s interested in justice? Might is right. Justice is a fairy-tale for the simple-minded.”

    “I award you full marks in Dialectical Materialism,” the captain sarcastically observed. “But, you know, during the war things were grand!” He sighed. “D’you remember the films the Americans sent us?”

    “Yes, they were pretty good. Only it was rather amusing to see how little they know about our life. In Polar Star the collective farmers had more and better food than Sokolovsky gets.”

    “Yes, and they danced round dances in the meadows, just like in the good old days.” He laughed aloud.

    In 1943 and later, American films on Russian subjects were shown in the Soviet Union. We particularly remembered Polar Star. Although it was very naive, and showed complete ignorance of the Soviet reality, it revealed genuine sympathy for the Russians.

    After a performance one often heard the Russian audience remark: “Fine fellows, the Americans”; although the film represented only Russian characters. The Russians took this kindly presentation of themselves as evidence of the American people’s sympathy for them.

    “That film had a number of expert advisers with Russian names,” I said. “I don’t suppose they’d seen Russia for thirty years or more. The American technique is good, but they haven’t any ideology. Probably they don’t even know what it is.”

    “Stalin’s making hell hot for them, but all they do is gape,” Bagdassarian meditated. “They don’t know what to do. Now they’re beginning to sneer at Russian Ivan: he’s pockmarked, he squints, and his teeth are crooked. The fools! The last thirty years of Russian history are still a white patch to them, yet it’s an inexhaustible well. They’ve only got to strip Stalin naked and the entire world would spit in disgust. And we Soviet people wouldn’t object. But when they start to sneer at Russian Ivan...”

    He sniffed, annoyed to think that the Americans couldn’t tumble to anything so simple.

    We were often amazed to see how little the outside world knew of the true position in Soviet Russia. The thirty years’ activity of the State lie-factory, and the hermetical closure of Russia to free information, had done their work.

    The world is told, as though it was a little child that the capitalist system is doomed to go under. But on that question Soviet people have no hard-and-fast standpoint. History is continually developing, and requiring new forms in its development. But even so, for us the historical inevitability of communism, the thesis that ’all roads lead to communism’, is the one constant factor in an equation which has many unknown and negative factors. For us Soviet people this equation has already acquired an irrational quality.

    We are united not by the intrinsic unity of a State conception, but by the extrinsic forms of material dependence, personal interests, or a career. And all these are dominated by fear. For some this fear is direct, physical, perceptible; for others it is an unavoidable consequence if they behave or even think otherwise than as the totalitarian machine demands.

    Later, in the West, I had an opportunity to see the American film The Iron Curtain, which dealt with the break-up of Soviet atomic espionage in Canada. I had already read various criticisms of this film, as well as the angry outbursts of the communist press, and I was interested to see how the Americans had handled this pregnant theme. It left two impressions.

    On the one hand, a feeling of satisfaction: the types were well chosen; the life of the official Soviet representatives abroad and the role of the local Communist Party were presented quite accurately. Once more I lived through my years in the Berlin Kremlin. No Russian would have any criticism to make of this presentation. It was not surprising that the foreign communist parties were furious with the film, for in this game they play the dirtiest role. Something, which for the staff of the military attaché’s department is a service duty, is treachery to their country when performed by the communist hirelings.

    On the other hand, the film left me with a vague feeling of annoyance. The Americans hadn’t exploited all the possibilities. The Soviet peoples are accustomed to films with the focus on politics, in which the audience is led to draw the requisite conclusions. In this respect The Iron Curtain scenario was obviously weak.

    In Berlin we Soviet officers were able to compare two worlds. It was interesting to set the impression made by real life against the fictions that the Soviet State creates and maintains. The direct creators of this fiction are the toilers with the pen, the ’engineers of human souls’, as they been have called in the Soviet Union.

    Of course we were chiefly interested in the writers who dealt with the problem of Soviet Russia. They can be divided into three main categories: the Soviet writers, who are slaves of the ’social command’; the foreign writers who have turned their backs on Stalinism; and, finally, those problematic foreigners who even today are still anxious to find pearls in the dungheap.

    Let us consider them as a Soviet man sees them.

    One day I found a French novel on Belyavsky’s desk. I picked it up to read the name of the author, and was astonished: it was Ilia Ehrenburg.

    “But haven’t you read it in Russian already?” I asked him.

    “It hasn’t been published in Russian.”

    “What do you mean?”

    “It’s quite simple.”

    He was right. Soviet experts on literature maintain that the finest journalists of the time are Egon Erwin Kisch, Mikhail Koltsov, and Ilia Ehrenburg. There is no disputing that they are all brilliant writers. Koltsov’s literary career came to an abrupt end in 1937, through the intervention of the N. K. V. D. It is said that he is now writing his memoirs in a Siberian concentration camp. For many years Ehrenburg was classified as a ’fellow-traveler’.

    With a Soviet passport in his pocket, he wisely preferred to live abroad, at a respectable distance from the Kremlin. This assured him some independence. His books were published in big editions in Soviet Russia, after they had been thoroughly edited. It was not surprising that I had found a book by him which was in French and unknown in the U. S. S. R. Only the Hitlerite invasion of France drove him back to his native land.

    First and foremost, Ehrenburg is a cosmopolitan. Many people think of him as a communist. True, he subtly and intelligently criticized the defects of Europe and the democratic world. But one doesn’t need to be a communist to do that-many non-communist writers do the same. After he had rid his system of his rabid, guttersnipe denunciations of the Nazi invaders he began to compose mellifluous articles about beautiful, violated France, the steadfast British lion, and democratic America.

    During the war we were glad to read these articles; but it seemed like a bad joke when we saw his signature beneath them. Today, obedient to his masters, he is thundering away at the American ’imperialists’. Ehrenburg, who once enjoyed some independence, has been completely caught in the Kremlin toils.

    His career and fate are very typical of Soviet writers generally. They have only two alternatives: either to write what the Politburo prescribes, or to be condemned to literary extinction. If Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Pushkin or Lermontov had lived in the age of Stalin, their names would never have been added to the Pantheon of human culture. When I was a student books such as Kazakov’s Nine Points, Lebedenko’s Iron Division, and Soboliev’s General Overhaul were passed from hand to hand.

    These names are not well known to the public generally, the books were printed in very small editions and it was difficult to get hold of copies. It is characteristic that they all dealt with the 1917-21 period, when the masses were still inspired with enthusiasm and hope. Their consciences did not allow these writers to write about later times; faced with the alternative of lying or being silent, they preferred silence.

    One cannot condemn the Soviet writers. Man is flesh and blood, and flesh and blood are weaker than lead and barbed wire. In addition there is the great temptation not only to avoid creative and physical death, but also to enjoy all the advantages of a privileged position. Some people may think it strange that there are millionaires in the land of communism. Genuine millionaires with an account in the State bank and owning property valued at more than a million rubles. Alexei Tolstoy, the author of Peter I and scenarios for Ivan the Terrible, was an example of the Soviet millionaire. Who can throw the first stone at a man faced with such alternatives?

    As for the foreign writers, they are simply not to be trusted! Not even the dead. At one time John Reed was in charge of the American section of the Comintern. True, he lived in Moscow, but that was in the order of things. He conscientiously wrote a solid book on the Russian revolution: Ten Days that Shook the World. Lunacharsky, the then People’s Commissar for Education, and Lenin’s wife, Krupskaya, wrote introductions to the book in which they con-firmed that it was a perfectly truthful description of the October Revolution. John Reed departed from this life not very long after he had written the book, and his mortal remains were interred in the Kremlin wall: the highest distinction for outstanding communists.

    Then there was trouble! Reed had not foreseen that in Stalinist Russia history would be stood on its head. In all his story of the revolution he had devoted only two lines to Stalin, and those only in passing, whereas he had extolled to the skies Trotsky and the other creators of the revolution, all those who after Lenin’s death began to pass out with colds in the head and similar ailments.

    So John Reed’s remains had to be removed from the Kremlin wall.

    One can think of dozens of world-famous writers who in their quest for new ways for man waxed enthusiastic over communism. As soon as they came to know the Soviet reality they were permanently cured of their enthusiasm. I need mention only one of the latest of these. Theodor Plievier, author of the book Stalingrad, a German writer and communist who had spent many years in Moscow, fled from the Soviet zone into western Germany.

    In an interview given to the press he explained that there was not a trace of communism left in Stalinist Russia, that all communistic ideas were strangled and all the socialistic institutions had been turned into instruments of the Kremlin’s totalitarian regime. He discovered this quite soon after his arrival in Moscow, but he had to keep quiet and reconcile himself to the situation, since he was to all intents and purposes a prisoner.

    It is difficult to convict the Kremlin propagandists of pure lying. There is a refined art of lying, consisting in the one-sided ventilation of a question. In this field the Kremlin jugglers and commercial travelers have achieved a very high level of artistry: they pass over one side in complete silence, or even furiously revile it, while exalting the other side to the skies.

    In Berlin we often got hold of amusing little books written by foreign authors and published by foreign publishers, extolling Stalin and his regime. It is noteworthy that these books are either not translated into Russian at all, or they are published only in very small editions, and it is virtually impossible to buy copies. They are intended purely for external consumption. The Kremlin prefers that the Russians should not see such books: the lies are too obvious.

    Not far from the Brandenburg Gate there is a bookshop, ’Das Internationale Buch’. It is a Soviet shop selling literature in foreign languages and intended for foreign readers. We often visited it. Of course we didn’t buy Lenin’s works but ordinary gramophone records. Things that can’t be bought at any price in Moscow are offered in abundance to foreigners.

    Propaganda: only a Soviet man has any idea what that is! It is said of a famous drink that two parts of the price are for the mixture and three for the advertising, and many consumers are convinced that there is nothing in the world more tasty, healthy, and costly. Such is the power of advertising.

    Among the Soviet people communism is in a somewhat similar case. They are continually being told that communism is the finest of all systems, an achievement that is unsurpassable. The mixture is rather more complicated than that of any drink. It is injected into the Soviet man - day in and day out, from the moment of his birth. What advertising does in the Western World, propaganda takes care of in the U. S. S. R. The people are hungry, naked, thrust down to the level of speechless robots, and meanwhile they are assured that the complete opposite is the case. Most astonishing of all, they believe it, or try to. That makes life easier.

    The Kremlin knows what enormous power propaganda has over human souls; it knows the danger that threatens it if the mirage is dispelled. Under the Nazis during the war the Germans were for-bidden to listen to enemy broadcasts, but they were not deprived of their receiving sets. But the Kremlin did otherwise: in the U. S. S. R. all receiving sets were confiscated on the very first day of the war. The Kremlin knew its weak spot only too well. If its thirty years of propaganda are undermined, the ephemeral spiritual unity of the Kremlin and the people will vanish like mist.

    “The Press is our Party’s strongest weapon,” Stalin has said. In other words, the Kremlin’s strongest weapon is propaganda. Propaganda welds the internal forces and disintegrates the external ones. So much the better for Stalin that his opponents haven’t any real idea of the accuracy and significance of his words.

    Sommaire https://seenthis.net/messages/683905
    #anticommunisme #histoire #Berlin #occupation #guerre_froide

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine. Chapter 07
    http://g-klimov.info/klimov-pp-e/ETM07.htm

    In The Control Commission

    One afternoon General Shabalin sent for me. When I reported he handed me an invitation from American headquarters, asking him and his coworkers to take part in a conference at Frankfurt-on-Main to discuss the liquidation of the I.G. Farben Industry. “Take my car,” he said, “and drive to Zehlendorf. Hand in the list of our delegation, and find out when the plane leaves. If there isn’t a plane, obtain passes for us to use our cars for the journey.”

    It was five-fifteen when I arrived outside the American headquarters. ’Well, now I shall have to wait an hour for an interview,’ I pondered. ’And I’ve got to see Eisenhower’s economic adviser, but I haven’t any letter of introduction, only my personal documents.’

    I stopped the car at the gate and took out my documents. The American guard, in white helmet, white canvas belt, and white gaiters, raised his white-gloved hand in salute and seemed to be completely uninterested in my documents. To give some excuse for stopping the car, I asked him some meaningless question. Without speaking, he pointed to a board with an arrow and the one word: ’Information’. I drove past the Information Bureau slowly, and glanced back casually to see whether anybody was watching me. ’I’ll find what I want, myself; it’s a good opportunity to have a look round without trouble. I’ll see what sort of fellows these Americans are. They may not pull me up at once. And if necessary I’ll simply say I took the wrong way.’

    I strictly ordered Misha to remain in the car and not stir a step. Who knows whether he might be kidnapped, and then I’d lose my head!

    I went along a corridor. All the doors were wide open, the rooms were empty. Here and there German women cleaners were sweeping the floors. On each door was an ordinary tablet: ’Major So-and-so’ or ’Colonel So-and-so’, and the name of the department. What on earth did it all means? Not a sign of security precautions. We Soviet authorities did not hang out name-boards on the doors to inform our internal and external enemies who was inside.

    I felt a little uncomfortable, almost queer, with anxiety. As though I had got into a secret department by accident and was afraid of being caught. In search of the right room I looked at one nameplate after another and felt as though I was a spy going through the card index of an enemy General Staff. And I was in full Soviet uniform, too!

    One of our officers had once told me there was no point in visiting an American office after five p. m. “After that they’re all out with German girls,” he explained, and I couldn’t be sure whether his words expressed contempt or simply envy of American methods. “They think anyone who sits in an office after office-hours doesn’t know how to work or arrange his time.”

    ’He was right,’ I thought now. ’The Americans obviously don’t intend to work themselves to death. General Shabalin’s working day really begins at seven in the evening. I suppose I must apply to “Information” after all.’

    In the Information Bureau I found two negroes extended in easy chairs, their feet on the desk. They were chewing gum. I had some difficulty in getting them to understand that I wanted to speak to General Clay. Without stopping his chewing one of them called something incomprehensible through a small window into the next room. Even if I had been President Truman, Marshal Stalin, or a horned devil, I doubt whether he would have removed his feet from the desk or shifted the gum from his right to his left cheek. And yet ’Information’ functioned perfectly: a sergeant behind the window said something into a telephone, and a few minutes later an American lieutenant arrived and courteously asked me to follow him.

    In General Clay’s outer office a woman secretary was turning over the pages of a glossy magazine. ’She’ll probably put her feet on the typewriter too,’ I thought, and prudently sat down at a safe distance. While I was wondering whether to remain silent or enter into conversation with the ’Allies’, a long-nosed little soldier burst through the door leading to the general’s room. He tore through the outer office and snatched his cap down from a nail, saying a few hurried words to the secretary.

    ’The general must be a bit of a martinet, if his men rush about like that,’ I thought.

    At that moment the soldier held out his hand to me and let loose a flood of words which overwhelmed my weak knowledge of English. “General Clay,” the secretary said in an explanatory tone behind my back. Before I could recover my wits the general had vanished again. He wasn’t a general; he was an atom bomb! All I had under-stood was ’Okay’; and that the necessary order had already been issued. And in addition, that here it wasn’t at all easy to tell the difference between a general and a GI The privates stretched themselves out with their feet on the desk while the generals tore around like messenger boys.

    Another officer appeared at the same door, and invited me into his room. This time I prudently glanced at his tabs. Another general! Without offering me a chair, but not sitting down himself, the general listened to me with cool efficiency. Then he nodded and went out.

    I looked round the room. A modest writing desk. Modest inkstands. A thick wad of newspapers. A number of pencils. Nothing unnecessary. A room to work in, not to catch flies in. When a writing desk adequate for General Shabalin’s rank was required, all Karlshorst and all the booty warehouses were turned upside down. The inkstands were obtained specially from Dresden for him.

    A little later the American general returned and told me, apparently on the basis of a telephone conversation, when the aeroplane would be ready. I had plenty of opportunities to see later on that where we Soviet authorities would demand a ’document’ signed by three generals and duly stamped, the Americans found a telephone conversation sufficient.

    I did not have to present the list of the Soviet delegation at all. Here everything was done without resort to a liaison service and without any counter-check by the Ministry of Internal Affairs! The general handed me a packet of materials on the I.G. Farben Industry, so that we could familiarize ourselves with the tasks of the conference.

    Next morning the Soviet delegation, consisting of General Shabalin, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov, Major Kuznetsov, two interpreters, and myself went to the Tempelhof landing ground. There the sergeant on duty explained that he had been fully informed concerning us, and spent a little time in phoning to various offices. Then he asked us to wait, as our plane would be starting rather later than arranged. I had the feeling that the Americans were holding up our departure for some reason. Machines rolled slowly on to the tarmac in the distance, but not one of them showed the least intention of taking us with it. The general swore, and, as he did not know whom to vent his anger upon, he turned to me. “What did they really say to you yesterday? Why didn’t you get it in writing?”

    “I was quite clearly informed,” I answered; “this morning at ten, the Tempelhof airground. A special machine would be waiting for us, and the airport commandant was notified.”

    The general clasped his hands behind his back, drew his head down between his shoulders, and marched up and down the concrete road outside the building without deigning to give us another glance.

    To pass the time. Major Kuznetsov and I began to make a closer inspection of the landing ground. Not far away an American soldier in overalls was hanging about, giving us inquisitively friendly glances, and obviously seeking an excuse to speak to us. Now a blunt-nosed Douglas rolled up to the start. During the war these transport machines had reached the Soviet Union in wholesale quantities as part of the lend-lease deliveries; every Russian knew them. The American soldier smiled, pointed to the machine, and said:"S-47."

    I looked to where he was pointing, and corrected him: “Douglas.” He shook his head and said: “No... no. S-47. Sikorsky... Russian constructor....”

    ’Was it really one of Igor Sikorsky’s designs?’ I wondered. Sikorsky had been the pioneer of Russian aviation in the first world war, and the constructor of the first multi-engine machine, Ilya Mourometz. I knew that, like Boris Seversky, he was working in the field of American aviation, but I had not known that the Douglas was his job. It was interesting that Pravda hadn’t taken the opportunity to make a big song of it.

    The soldier pointed his finger first at the clock, then into the sky. With his hand he imitated a plane landing, and explained as he pointed to the ground: “General Eisenhower.”

    ’Well, if General Eisenhower’s arriving,’ I thought, ’that probably explains why we couldn’t start.’

    While we were talking to the soldier a machine grounded just behind us, and a group of cheerful old gentlemen poured out of it. Like a horde of children just out of school they surrounded General Shabalin and began to shake his hand so heartily that you would have thought it was the one thing they had flown from America for. The general was carried away by their exuberance and shook their hands in turn. Later it transpired that they had mistaken Shabalin for General Zhukov. Meanwhile, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov had found out somewhere that these gay old boys were American senators, who were on their way to Moscow. He whispered this news into the general’s ear, but it was too late. Shabalin had already exchanged cordial handshakes with these sworn enemies of the communist order.

    All around them, camera shutters were clicking. The senators seemed to get a great kick out of posing with General Shabalin, holding his hands. The general had little wish to be photographed in such compromising company, but he had to put a good face on it. He was quite convinced that all these photos would find their way into the archives of some foreign secret service, and thence into the archives of the Narcomvnudel. And then the fat would be in the fire.

    Major Kuznetsov asked Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov incredulously: “But are they really senators?”

    “Yes, and the very worst of them all, the Senate Political Commission,” Orlov replied.

    “But they don’t look at all like capitalists.” Kuznetsov still felt dubious.

    “Yes, they look quite harmless; but they’ve got millions in their pockets. They’re cold-blooded sharks,” Orlov retorted. Evidently he regarded it as a mortal sin to have money in one’s pocket. But then, he was a dyed-in-the-wool party man.

    “So they’re the lords of America, and they behave like that. Now if one of our ministers....” Kuznetsov’s reflections were interrupted by the arrival of a column of closed cars, which drove straight on to the landing ground. A group of Soviet officers stepped out. The gold braid on their caps and the red piping on their coats showed that they were generals.

    “Now we’re in for a parade!” Kuznetsov muttered. “That’s Marshal Zhukov and all his staff. We’d better take cover in the bushes.”

    General Shabalin seemed to be of the same opinion. He had not been invited to this meeting, and to be an uninvited guest of Marshal Zhukov was rather a ticklish matter. But his general’s uniform made it impossible for him to hide behind others’ backs.

    In this hour of need the lively old gentlemen from America came to the rescue. With unreserved ’Hellos’, friendly handshakes and back-slayings, an unstained, friendly atmosphere was created. “I like these senators!” Kuznetsov enthused. “They slap hands together like a lot of horse-dealers at a market. Great old boys!” He licked his lips as though he had just drunk to brotherhood with the American senators.

    Marshal Zhukov, a medium-sized, thickset man with a prominent chin, always dressed and behaved with unusual simplicity. He took hardly any notice of the bustle all around him, but seemed to be waiting for the moment when they would come at last to business. Unlike many other generals who owed their career to the war, by all his bearing he clearly showed that he was only a soldier. It was characteristic of the man that, without any encouragement from official Kremlin propaganda, he had become known all over Russia as the second Kutuzov, as the savior of the fatherland in the second great patriotic war.

    The airground grew more and more animated. Forces of military police in parade uniforms marched on. The servicing personnel hurried to and from. A guard of honor took up its position not far from us.

    A four-engine machine landed quietly. The swarm of autograph hunters suffered disillusionment: double rows of guards swiftly and thoroughly cut them off from the landing spot.

    Major Kuznetzov looked at the guards and remarked: “Clean work! Look at those cutthroats. They must have been taken into the army straight from gangsterdom.”

    The first line of military police was certainly an impressive lot. They looked pretty sinister, even though they were clean-shaven. The second line might well have been pugilists and cowboys, mounted not on horses but on motorcycles that made more noise than aeroplanes.

    Meanwhile the guard of honor had begun to perform some extraordinary exercise. The men raised their arms shoulder-high and spread out as though about to do Swedish gymnastics. Decidedly inept and un-military by our standards. “It reminds me of operetta,” Kuznetsov said to the lieutenant-general. “What are they doing that for?”

    Orlov waved his hand contemptuously. “Like senators, like soldiers! They’re chocolate soldiers. Give them black bread to eat and they’d be ill.”

    “Are you so fond of black bread then?” Kuznetsov sneered. “Or are you simply concerned for well-being of your fellowmen, as usual?”

    Orlov ignored the questions. He was attached to our delegation as a legal expert. Also, he was public prosecutor to the military court, and knew well enough what might be the consequences of talking too frankly.

    General Eisenhower stepped out of the plane, wearing a soldier’s greatcoat, the usual broad grin on his face. He greeted Marshal Zhukov. Then he signed a few autographs, asked where they could have breakfast, and took Zhukov off with him.

    Hardly had the distinguished guests departed when the dispatcher announced that our plane was ready to start. Now we knew why we had had to wait so long.

    A man in the uniform of an American brigadier-general addressed General Shabalin in the purest of Russian. Apparently he had learnt that we were flying to Frankfurt, and now he offered us his services. He spoke better Russian than we did, if I may put it so. He had left Russia thirty or more years before, and spoke the kind of Russian common in the old aristocratic circles. Our speech had been modified by the new conditions, it was contaminated with jargon and included a mess of new words.

    I had no idea why Eisenhower and Zhukov were flying to Russia. The Soviet papers carried no official communiqué on the subject. A week later, as I was making my usual report to General Shabalin, he asked me: “Do you know why Eisenhower flew to Moscow?”

    “Probably to be a guest of honor at the recent parade,” I answered.

    “We know how to be hospitable,” the general said. “They entertained him with such excellent vodka that he sang songs all night. Arm in arm with Budionny. They always bring out Budionny as an ornament on such occasions.” Apparently that was all the general knew about Eisenhower’s visit to Moscow; but he put his finger to his lips, then wagged it admonitorily.

    Such small incidents clearly revealed the true position of the man who was deputy head of the S. M. A. He was really nothing but an errand-boy, and only by accident knew what was happening ’above’.

    An American officer stepped into Major Kuznetsov’s room. He thrust his cap in the hip pocket of his trousers, then swung his hand up to his uncovered head in salute. After which he introduced himself in the purest of Russian: “John Yablokov, captain of the American Army.”

    Kuznetsov was a very intelligent man, but he was also a humorist and a bit of a wag. He replied to the American with: “Greetings, Ivan Ivanovich! How do you do!”

    The American Ivan Ivanovich seemed to be no greenhorn, and he did not allow the major’s sneering smile to put him out. In fact, it transpired later that John Yablokov was one of those men who are the life and soul of the party. Either to please us or to show that, although American, he was a progressive; he rejoiced our ears with a flood of Russian oaths that would have brought down the Empire State Building. But that was later. At the moment Captain Yablokov had arrived on an official visit to invite General Shabalin to the first organizational conference of the Control Commission Economic Directorate. The general twisted the invitation and the agenda paper (both were in English) between his fingers. Trying not to reveal that English was all Greek to him, he asked: “Well, what’s the news your way?”

    A second American officer who had accompanied Captain Yablokov answered also in Russian: “Our chief, General Draper, has the honor to invite you to a...” He did not seem very well acquainted with the terminology of Red conferences, and was forced to fall back on the wording of the invitation: “... to a meeting, General.”

    Now the general was seated comfortably in the saddle. He did not know English, but he knew the Stalinist terminology thoroughly. He gave the American the sort of look he had given subordinate Party officials in his capacity as secretary of the Sverdlovsk District Party Committee, and explained in a hortatory tone: “We have to work, not attend meetings.”

    That was a standing Stalinist phrase, which all party officials used as a lash. But at this juncture it sounded rather rude. However, the general held to the principle that too much butter can’t spoil any bread, and that Stalin’s words can never be repeated enough.

    I sat in a corner and enjoyed myself immensely. The general would be starting to give the Americans a lecture on party training next. As was his habit in intercourse with foreigners, he observed the unwritten law never to trust one interpreter and always to apply the method of cross-examination, especially when the interpreter belonged to the other camp. While the Americans did their best to explain what they meant by a ’meeting’, I, too, attempted to help. The general never liked being prompted, but he always snorted afterwards: “Why didn’t you say so before?” So I tactfully observed: “It’s not really important, Comrade General. Let them hold their meeting and we’ll work.”

    After we had settled a number of minor questions the Americans went back to their Chevrolet and drove home. Major Kuznetsov remarked: “But they could talk excellent Russian. The one with the little mustache looked like Douglas Fairbanks.” The general pulled him up: “You can see at once what sort of birds they are. That fellow strikes me as Chinese. They’re spies.”

    The general appeared to fathom the true nature of his future colleagues extraordinarily well! A few days later, during a talk, Captain Yablokov informed me quite frankly that he had formerly worked in the American secret service in China. He did not appear to think he was in any way betraying service secrets. If a Soviet officer had mentioned such a fact he would have been committing a serious breach of his duty.

    Some days later we drove to the first meeting of the Control Commission; we went with the firm intention of working and not holding meetings. The Allied Control Commission had taken over the former Palace of Justice in Elshoizstrasse. The conference hall was almost empty; the delegations were only just beginning to assemble. I felt genuinely afraid that I would be exposed to ridicule: we had no interpreter with us, and I didn’t know English too well. When I mentioned this to the general he told me curtly: “You should know!” Another Party slogan, but it didn’t make things any easier for me. Until the meeting was officially opened we relied on German, for all the Allies without exception could speak German more or less well.

    When the general noticed that I was talking to French and English colleagues he barked at me as he passed: “You wait, Major, I’ll cure you of your mock modesty! You and your ’don’t know English’! Now you’re talking away, even to the French, nineteen to the dozen, but you never told me you knew French.” It was hopeless to think of explaining. And the general would probably stick me in a comer to exercise control over the French interpreters too, as he had done with the Americans.

    That, too, was due to the general’s Party experience. It is a common thing in the Soviet Union for specialists and experts to dodge responsible posts. Gifted engineers, or former directors of large trusts and combines, get appointments as ’technical managers’ to some small factory or a cooperative of war-wounded, which employs only five or six workmen. In such positions they are less exposed to the risk of being flung behind the bars as ’saboteurs’, and so they keep quiet about their abilities and their diplomas. The Party officials are aware of this trick, and do their utmost to round up the ’pretenders’. And so even if you try to escape responsibility you’re in the wrong: you’re a ’passive saboteur’.

    I breathed a sigh of relief when I discovered that the American and British delegations had first-class Russian interpreters.

    Another difficult problem for me was my uniform. I looked as though I had covered the entire journey from Stalingrad to Berlin crawling on my belly. My uniform had been washed in all the rivers of Russia and Eastern Europe, the color had faded from it completely; in addition, I was wearing ordinary military boots. Before we drove to the conference General Shabalin gave me a critical look up and down and snarled: “Haven’t you got any shabbier-clothes you can wear?” He knew quite well that I had left my good uniforms in Moscow as an iron reserve.

    Many of us took the view that, after all, the army wasn’t a puppet-show, and in any case children were running about naked at home. One man had a little sister, another a young nephew. Warm clothes or breeches could be made for them out of a uniform, and the kids would be hugely delighted: “Uncle Gregory has fought in this uniform,” the child would say, pointing proudly to the holes left by the pins of orders. I, too, had left several complete outfits in Moscow. In any case I would be getting the so-called ’Foreign Equipment’ when I reached Berlin. Only I had overlooked the possibility that I would have to take part in meetings of the Control Commission before the new equipment arrived.

    As our Administration for Economy developed its organization and activities, more and more men arrived from Moscow to work with us. Usually, deputies of the People’s Commissars for the corresponding Moscow commissariats were appointed heads of the S. M. A. departments, which in practice were functioning as the ministries of the Soviet zone. One and all, these men were old Party officials, specialists in the running of Soviet economic affairs. When they took over their new posts one could hardly avoid laughing: they were pure crusaders of communism.

    In due course we were rejoiced at the sight of the newly appointed head of the Industrial Department, Alexandrov, and his deputy, Smirnov. They both wore squeaking, highlegged boots of Stalin pattern, which its creator had himself long since discarded. Above the boots they had riding breeches of heavy overcoating material, and to crown this rigout they had dark blue military tunics dating from the period of revolutionary communism. At one time such attire was very fashionable among Party officials, from the local chairmen of Machinery-Tractor Stations right up to People’s Commissars, for it was symbolical not only of outward, but of inward devotion to the leader. For a long time now the People’s Commissars had been wearing ordinary European clothes, and one came across antiquated garb chiefly in remote collective farms. I can imagine what sort of impression these scarecrows made on the Germans; they were exact copies of the Hitlerite caricatures of bolsheviks.

    It was not long before these over-zealous Party crusaders them-selves felt that their historical costumes were hardly suited to the changed conditions, and gradually began to adapt themselves to their surroundings. Later still, all the civilian personnel of the S. M. A. were dressed in accordance with the latest European fashions, and even with a touch of elegance. All the leading officials, especially those occupied in the Control Commission, received coupons en-titling them to ’foreign equipment’ corresponding with their position.

    I stood at a window, talking to the head of the French delegation, General Sergent. Our conversation was on quite unimportant subjects, and I prudently tried to keep it concentrated on the weather. Prudence was always advisable; this Frenchman might be a communist at heart, or in all innocence he might repeat our conversation to someone, and in the end it would find its way... I knew too well from my own experience how thoroughly our secret service was informed of all that went on among the Allies.

    When we Soviet officers working in the Control Commission discussed our impressions some time later I realized why we were all cautioned against talking with foreigners. A captain remarked: “All these stories about spies are only in order to make us keep our mouths shut. It’s to prevent our giving away other secrets.” He said no more; we didn’t talk about those secrets even to each other.

    The Control Commission session began punctually at ten o’clock. After settling the details of the agenda relating to the work of the Economic Directorate, the times of meeting, and the rotation of chairmanship, we turned to drawing up the agenda for the next meeting. The head of the American delegation, which was chairman at this first meeting, proposed that the first item on the agenda should be: ’Working out of basic policy for the economic demilitarization of Germany.’

    The Potsdam Conference had ended the previous week; at the conference it had been decided to demilitarize Germany economically, so that restoration of German military power would be impossible, and to draw up a peacetime economic potential for the country. The decision was remitted to the Allied Control Commission to be put into effect.

    The interpreters now translated the chairman’s phrase into Russian as: ’Working out the policy of economic demobilization.’ Another of those borderline cases in linguistics! The English formula had used the word ’policy’. The interpreters translated this literally into the Russian word ’politik1, although the English word had a much wider meaning, and the Russian phrase for ’guiding principles’ would have been a more satisfactory translation.

    At the word ’politick’ General Shabalin sprang up as though stung. “What ’politick’? All the political questions were settled at the Potsdam Conference!”

    The American chairman. General Draper, agreed: “Quite correct, they were. Our task is simply to translate the decision into action, and so we have to lay down the guiding policy...”

    The interpreters, both American and English, again translated with one accord: “... ’Politick’.”

    General Shabalin stuck to his guns: “There must be nothing about politics. That’s all settled. Please don’t try to exert pressure on me.”

    “But it’s got nothing to do with politics,” the interpreters tried to reassure him. “The word is ’policy’.”

    “I see no difference,” the general objected. “I have no intention of revising the Potsdam Conference. We’re here to work, not to hold meetings.”

    That was the beginning of the first hour-long battle round the oval table. Solely and simply over the awkward word ’policy’, which General Shabalin was not prepared to see in the agenda or in the minutes of the meeting.

    It was often said in the economic spheres of the S. M. A. headquarters that the Kremlin regarded the decisions of the Potsdam Conference as a great victory for Soviet diplomacy. The Moscow instructions emphasized this aspect at every opportunity. At the Potsdam Conference the Soviet diplomats won concessions from the Western Allies to an extent that the diplomats themselves had not expected. Perhaps this was due to the intoxication of victory and an honorable desire to recompense Russia for her heroic exertions and incredible sacrifices. And perhaps it was due to the circumstance that two new Allied representatives took part in the conference, and that President Truman and Mr. Attlee had not yet got to the bottom of the methods of Soviet diplomacy.

    The Potsdam Agreement practically gave the Soviet Union the right of disposal of Germany. Its terms were expressed in very subtle language, and they were open to various constructions later on, whenever it seemed desirable. The task of the S. M. A. now was to extract full value from the advantages won by Soviet diplomacy. “Nothing of politick!” General Shabalin defended himself like a bear threatened with a javelin. And in all probability he was thinking: ’Do you want to send me to Siberia?’ Once more the old reaction of even the highest of Soviet officials, not to do anything on their own responsibility and risk. One reason why all decisions is made from above.

    Subsequently I myself saw that the American or the British delegation could change its decisions in the actual course of negotiations. But the Soviet delegation always came and went with previously formulated decisions, or else with red questionmarks on the appropriate document, which the general kept in a red document-case always under his hand. At the Control Council he acted more like a messenger than an active partner. A question that arose in the course of discussion was never decided the same day, it was only discussed.

    Then the general would return to his office and make direct telephonic contact that night with Moscow. Usually Mikoyan, a member of the Politburo and plenipotentiary extraordinary for Germany under the Ministerial Council of the U. S. S. R., was at the Moscow end of the line. He was in effect the Kremlin’s viceroy for Germany. And during those telephone conversations the decisions were taken, or rather the orders were issued, on which the Allied delegations later broke their teeth.

    Even at that first meeting with the Allies one could not help noticing a great difference between them and us. They welcomed us as joint victors and sincere allies in war and peace. Each of their delegations approached questions from the national aspect. And they considered that there could be no conflict of national interests or antagonisms among us victor powers, neither then nor in the immediate future. They assumed that this was a simple fact that must be as clear to us as it was to them.

    We, on the other hand, regarded the ’Allies’ as the opposing party, as enemies with whom we had to sit at the one table only for tactical reasons. We decided questions from the ideological aspect. The Allies believed that Marx and Lenin were dead. But now the shades of these two men stood behind us in the Control Commission conference hall. The Allies could not understand that? So much the worse for them!

    Generally speaking, the members of the delegations not only represented their state interests, but were also unusually typical representatives of their respective nations. Of course this doesn’t mean that Dimitry Shabalin smoked the coarse Russian Mahorka tobacco or that William Draper chewed gum. Not, at any rate, during the sessions.

    The American delegation was headed by the American director in the Economic Directorate, General William Draper: a thin, athletic figure, with angular, swarthy features-a lively and energetic man. When he laughed, he revealed the spotless white of strong, wolfish teeth beneath his black mustache. Better not put your finger between those teeth! He set the tone at the sessions, even when he was not in the chair. He had an abundance of the healthy energy peculiar to young, self-confident nations. I don’t know how many millions General Draper really had in his pocket, I know only that General Shabalin remarked more than once: “Ah! A millionaire! A shark!” It would have been interesting to know what he based his remark on: his communist beliefs or the reports of our secret service.

    The head of the British delegation and the British director of the Economic Directorate were Sir Percy Mills. A typical Briton. He gave off the smell of fog and Trafalgar Square. He wore a military uniform of thick cloth, with no insignia of rank. From the way everybody deferred to his opinion it was obvious that he was a recognized authority in the economic field. According to General Shabalin he was a director of the large British firm of Metro-Vickers. He was painfully clean-shaven; if he ever thought it necessary to smile, only the folds around his mouth came into action, while his eyes remained fixed on his documents and his ears listened closely to his numerous advisers.

    In the person of Sir Percy Mills, Great Britain worked hard, but always paid attention to the voice of its young ally and victorious rival, America.

    At the conference table of the Control Commission the historical changes that had occurred in the world influence of the various great powers were very perceptible. Great Britain had played out her role, and now, with a pride born of self-confidence, was surrendering her place to the younger and stronger. As befitted a gentleman!

    France was the reflection of all the greatness to be found in European culture. But only the reflection. Her representatives were the successors to Bonaparte and Voltaire, the contemporaries of Pierre Petain and Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism. How to keep one’s head above water. The French director of the Economic Directorate, General Sergent, had nothing better to do than to maneuver as tactfully as possible, and not agree too completely with the West, nor be too much in opposition to the East.

    The great Eastern Ally was represented by General Shabalin, a man who had a mortal terror of the word ’politick’, and by Major Klimov, who simultaneously performed the duties of secretary, interpreter, and general adviser. The Soviet side could have been represented just as successfully by one man to act as a postman. However, in those days I still naively believed that something was really being decided in those meetings. And, although we were armed to the teeth with communist theory, I felt really uncomfortable when I noted the large size of the other delegations and the sort of men who composed them.

    ’Nothing new in the West.’ The Allies, as one man, clung to the word ’policy’, while for three hours General Shabalin repeated: “Nothing of politick... At the Potsdam Conference....” In confirmation of his views he took a newspaper from his document-case and pointed to a passage underlined in red. Then his fellow-members in the commission also brought out newspapers and began to compare the texts. Truly, it was very interesting to take part in one session of the Control Commission; it was more interesting than the operetta. But to take part in them week after week was dangerous: one might easily have a nervous breakdown. Half a day spent in fighting over one word in the agenda for the next meeting!

    The members of the other delegations looked more and more frequently at their watches. The Western European stomach is used to punctuality. At last even General Shabalin lost his patience and he officially demanded: “What is it you really want to do to me: violate me? Yes?” The interpreters wondered whether they had heard aright, and asked irresolutely, not knowing whether to regard his remark as a joke: “Are we to translate that literally?”

    “Of course, literally,” the general obstinately replied.

    Sir Percy Mills tried to indicate that he found it highly amusing, and twisted his lips into a smile. The chairman for the session, General Draper, rose and said: “I propose that we adjourn the meeting. Let’s go and have some eats.” It was difficult to tell whether he really was hungry or whether he was fed up with Soviet diplomacy. Everybody breathed more easily, and the sitting ended.

    We departed as victors. We had won a whole week. The same night General Shabalin would be able to ask Comrade Mikoyan whether the word ’politick’ could be included on the agenda or not.

    While we were holding our meeting, the Special Committee for Dismantling, and the Reparations Department, with General Zorin at its head, was hard at work. The Allies would be faced with an accomplished fact. Okay! In the last resort each defends his own interests.

    The Control Commission gave me my first opportunity to get to know our Western Allies personally. During the war I had come across, or rather seen, many Americans and British in Gorky, and later in Moscow. But I had then had no official excuse for personal contact with them, and without the special permission of the Commissariat for Internal Affairs even the most harmless acquaintance, even a conversation with a foreigner, is sheer lunacy in the Soviet True, there is no open interdiction, but every Soviet citizen knows exactly what unfortunate consequences are entailed by such thoughtless behavior. Give a foreigner a light for his cigarette in the street and you are hauled immediately before the Ministry for Internal Affairs and subjected to strict interrogation. That, at the best. At the worst, one disappears into a Minvnudel camp, for ’spying’, and thus one helps to fill out the labor reserve.

    To stop all contact between Soviet people and foreigners, the Kremlin spreads the story that all foreigners are spies. So anybody who has any contact with a foreigner is also a spy. It’s as simple as that.

    One of the Soviet government’s greatest achievements has been to raise lawlessness to a law, with all the paralyzing fear of ’authority’ that follows from it. Every individual lives in a state of anxiety. The Kremlin exploits this mood as a highly effective means of training and guiding the masses. Not even the members of the Politburo are free from it.

    Once, after one of the usual fruitless debates in the Control Commission, Sir Percy Mills proposed that we adjourn, and then invited the members of the other delegations to lunch with him.

    General Shabalin went and rode with his British colleague. I had received no instructions whatever so I got into the general’s seat in our car and ordered Misha to drive immediately behind the one in which our chief was traveling. I entered Sir Percy’s house with decidedly mixed feelings. All the guests left their hats and document-cases on a small table or on the hallstand. The maid-servant took my cap from me, and held out her hand to take my document-case. I was at a loss to know what to do; it was the general’s red case that I was carrying. It had nothing of importance in it: just the minutes of the last sitting, which on this occasion had been sent to us by the British. I couldn’t leave the case in the car, but to leave it on the hall table with the others would have been a crime against the State. Yet to take it with me looked rather silly.

    General Shabalin himself rescued me from my awkward situation. He came across to me and said quietly:

    “What are you doing here. Major? Go and wait for me in the car.”

    I felt relieved, went out, got into our car, and lit a cigarette. A few minutes later a British captain, Sir Percy Mills’ adjutant, came to the door and invited me in again. I tried to get out of it by saying I wasn’t hungry, but he stared at me in such bewilderment that there was nothing to be done but follow him. As I entered the hall where the guests were waiting the general gave me a sidelong look, but said nothing. Later it transpired that our host had asked his permission to send the adjutant for me. The British are justly famous as the most tactful people in the world.

    I gave the document-case to the general. Of all the idiotic possibilities that seemed the most harmless. Let him feel a fool!

    I stood at a great Venetian window looking out on to the garden, and talked to Brigadier Bader. The brigadier was a real colonial wolf. Sandy, sunbleached hair and eyebrows, gray, lively eyes behind bleached eyelashes, a complexion dry with the tropical sun. According to General Shabalin’s amiable description he was nothing less than one of the cleverest of international spies. And now I had the honor of chatting with this distinguished person. We talked in a mixture of English and German.

    “How do you like being in Germany?” he asked.

    “Oh, not bad!” I answered.

    “Everything’s kaput,” he went on.

    “Oh yes, ganz kaput,” I agreed.

    After disposing of German problems we turned to others. The summer of 1945 was unusually hot, and I asked:

    “After the English climate, don’t you find it very hot here?”

    “Oh no, I’m used to the heat,” he smiled. “I’ve spent many years in the colonies, in Africa and India.”

    I carefully avoided addressing my companion directly. What form of address was I to use? ’Herr’? That was rather awkward. To our ears ’mister’ sounds contemptuous. ’Comrade’? No, for the time being I kept off that word.

    Just then I noticed General Shabalin’s eyes fixed on me. In all probability my chief was afraid the brigadier was already enrolling me as his agent. At that very moment a maid came up to us with a tray. Bader took one of the small glasses of colorless fluid, raised it to eye-level, and invited me to help myself. I put the glass to my lips, then set it down on the windowsill. While the brigadier had his eyes turned away for a second I threw the whisky out of the window. Stupid, I know, but it was the only thing to be done. And the worst of it was that the general would never believe I had performed such a patriotic act. Whether flung down my throat or out of the window, that whisky would be put to the debit side of my personal account.

    An air of open cordiality and hospitality reigned in the room where we were waiting for Sir Percy Mills to take us to lunch. This inter-national assembly felt no constraint in face of that variety of uniforms and babel of tongues. Only the Soviet delegate Kurmashev, head of the S. M. A. Fuel and Power Department, sat alone in his easy chair, one leg crossed over the other, and apparently suffering torments. He felt more uncomfortable than a missionary among cannibals; he wiped the sweat from his forehead and looked again and again at the clock. When we were invited to the dining room he clearly heaved a sigh of relief. I am sure he would have been only too glad to talk to his neighbor, even if he had had to resort to sign language; he would have been delighted to laugh and toss off a couple of whiskies. But he was not a man like other men. He was the representative, and the slave, of communist philosophy.

    At table General Shabalin sat on the right hand of his host, who conversed with him through an interpreter. His uniform gave him confidence and certainly more sureness than was possessed by Kurmashev, who was a civilian. But in his civilian clothes Kurmashev tried to show that he was completely indifferent to all that went on around him, and tackled his food with the utmost ferocity. It was no easy task to fill your mouth so full that you couldn’t talk with your neighbors.

    My chief smiled formally and forced out a laugh at Sir Percy’s jokes. But for his part he made no attempt to keep the conversation going. No wonder the British think it difficult to talk to Russians not only at the conference, but even at the dining table. At one time we contemptuously called the English narrow-minded; now the boot is on the other foot.

    I was sitting at the far end of the table, between Brigadier Bader and the British adjutant. As I chanced to look up from my plate I met General Shabalin’s eyes gazing at me keenly. The longer the lunch continued the more the general eased his bolshevik armor plate, and finally he went so far as to propose a toast to our host. But meanwhile he gave me frequent interrogative glances.

    Of course I knew the general was in duty bound to keep an eye on me. But I noticed that he was not so much watching me as attempting to decide whether I was watching him. He was firmly convinced that I had been set to watch over him. Kurmashev was afraid of the general, the general was on his guard against me, and I distrusted myself. The higher one climbs in the Soviet hierarchy, the more one is gripped by this constant fear and distrust.

    And the one who suffers most of all from this remarkable system is its creator. When one observed how Soviet higher officials suffered from fear and distrusts one lost all desire to make a Soviet career. General Shabalin had been unquestionably a much happier man when he was minding sheep or tilling the soil.

    After lunch we all gathered again in the hall. Brigadier Bader offered me a thick cigar with a gold band, and wrapped in cellophane. I turned it over curiously in my fingers. A real Havana! Hitherto I had known them only from caricatures, in which millionaires always had them stuck between their teeth. With the air of an experienced cigar-smoker I tried to bite off the tip, but that damned cigar was tough. I got a mouthful of bitter leaf, and to make matters worse I couldn’t spit it out.

    “How did you like the food?” the brigadier asked genially.

    “Oh, very good!” I answered as genially, carefully blowing the bluish smoke through my nose.

    At that moment General Shabalin beckoned to me. I asked the brigadier’s pardon, prudently stuck the cigar in a flowerpot, and followed my chief. We went out into the garden, as though we wanted a breath of fresh air.

    “What have you been talking about with that...?” the general muttered, avoiding mention of any name.

    “About the weather, Comrade General.”

    “Hm... hm....” Shabalin rubbed his nose with the knuckle of his forefinger, a trick of his during conversations of a semi-official nature. Then he unexpectedly changed his tone:

    “I think there’s nothing more for you to do here. Take a day off. Have my car and go for a drive through Berlin. Take a look at the girls....”

    He made a very frivolous remark, and smiled forcibly. I listened closely as I walked with him about the garden. What did all this condescension and thought for me mean?

    “Call up Kuznetsov this evening and tell him I shall go straight home,” was the general’s final word as he went up the verandah steps.

    So he had no intention of returning to the office today. There all the ordinary routine was waiting for him, to keep him as a rule till three in the morning. That was not compulsory, it was his duty as a bolshevik. He must be around in case the ’master’ called him up in the middle of the night. But now, after a very good lunch and a few glasses of wine, he felt the need to be a man like other men for a few hours at least. The comfort of the villa and the open cordiality of the company had had its effect even on the old Party wolf. Just for once he felt impelled to throw off the mask of an iron bolshevik, to laugh aloud and smack his colleagues on the shoulders, to be a man, not a Party ticket. And he thought of me as the eye and ear of the Party. So he was dismissing me on the pretext of being kind to me.

    I returned to the house, picked up my cap as unobtrusively as possible, and went out. Misha was dozing at the wheel.

    “Ah, Comrade Major!” He gave a deep sigh as I opened the door. “After a lunch like that, what man wouldn’t like to stretch himself out on the grass and sleep for an hour or two!”

    “Why, have you had some lunch too?” I asked in surprise.

    “What do you think! I’ve eaten like a prince.”

    “Where?”

    “Why, here. A special table was laid for us. Like in the fairy story. And do you know what, Comrade Major?” He looked sidelong at me, with all the air of a conspirator. “Even our general doesn’t have such good grub as I’ve had today.”

    After seeing Sir Percy Mills’ house, I could not help comparing it with General Shabalin’s flat. In the Control Commission the habit developed for the directors to take turns in inviting their colleagues home. The first time it was Shabalin’s turn to issue the invitations he ignored the habit, as though he had forgotten it. The real reason was that he had no place to which he could invite the foreigners.

    Of course he could have requisitioned and furnished a house in conformity with his rank. But he could not bring himself to do this on his own responsibility, while the head of the Administrative Department, General Devidov, simply would not do it for him, since under the army regulations such luxury was incompatible with the position of Soviet generals. The authorities had got to the point of providing special ’foreign equipment’, but nobody had yet thought of suitable residences. Shabalin had exchanged his small house for a five-roomed apartment in the house where most of the workers in the Administration for Economy were accommodated. Nikolai, his orderly, and Misha, the chauffeur, had collected furniture and all sorts of lumber from all over the district for the apartment, but it looked more like a thieves’ kitchen than a general’s home. It was impossible to receive foreign guests there: even Shabalin was conscious of that.

    Once more, the contradiction between bolshevik theory and bolshevik practice. The Kremlin aristocracy had long since discarded the proletarian morals they still preached, and lived in a luxury that not every capitalist could afford. They could do so without embarrassment because their personal lives were secured from the people’s eyes by several walls. The smaller leaders tended to follow the same course. The Party aristocracy, men like Shabalin, lived a double life; in words they were ideal bolsheviks, but in reality they trampled on the ideals they themselves preached. It was not easy to reconcile these two things. It all had to be done secretly, prudently, one had continually to be on guard. Here in Germany there was no Kremlin and no area forbidden to the public, here everything was comparatively open. And supposing the lords of the Kremlin started to shout!

    At first General Shabalin had taken his meals in the canteen of the Soviet Military Council-in other words, in the generals’ casino. But now Dusia, his illegal maidservant, was taking the car to the canteen three times a day and bringing the food home. Yet even in such circumstances the general could not invite any guests to his apartment, and visitors, especially foreigners, were not allowed in the canteen.

    Even here, in occupied Germany, where we were not restricted by problems of living space or rationing, and where we could literally pick up everything we liked, even here we kept to our Soviet way of life.

    A little later the S. M. A. staff accommodated itself to circumstances and solved the problem in the old Potiomkin fashion. (Prince Gregory Potiomkin, favorite of Empress Catharine, who organized show-places and even ’model villages’ to impress the Empress. - Tr.). A special club was set up, in which the leading officials of the S. M. A. could hold receptions for their western colleagues. In each separate case an exact list of the proposed guests had to be sent in advance to the S. M. A. liaison service, to be carefully checked by the Narcomvnudel, and to be countersigned by the S. M. A. chief of staff". Of course such a simple form of invitation as that of Sir Percy Mills-"come and have lunch with me, gentlemen", and including even the chauffeurs-was quite impossible in such circumstances.

    During those early meetings with the Western Allies I was seriously afraid that I would be asked too many questions that I could not, or rather that I dared not, answer. But the longer I worked in the Control Commission the less was I able to understand their behavior. The representatives of the democratic world not only made no attempt to ask us political questions, as I had thought was simply bound to happen when representatives of completely opposed state systems came together, but they displayed a perfectly in-comprehensible indifference to the subject.

    At first I thought this was out of tactfulness. But then I felt sure it must be due to something else. The average western man was far less interested in politics and all that goes with it than the average Soviet man. The men of the West were much more interested in the number of bottles of champagne that had been drunk at a diplomatic reception in the Kremlin, and in the evening gown Madame Molotov had worn on the occasion. This was in the best case, but usually they confined their interests to sport and the beautiful girls on the covers of magazines. To any man living in normal conditions this seemed perfectly natural. If the Soviet men could have chosen they would have done the same.

    At that stage the West had no idea of the extraordinary dichotomy of Soviet existence. In thirty years we have changed fundamentally, to a certain extent we are Sovietized. But while becoming Sovietized we have simultaneously become immunized against communism. The West has no suspicion of this. It is with good reason that the Politburo has begun to underpin the Soviet edifice with the old national foundations, which proved themselves so well during the war. After the war the process of giving the rotting state organism a blood transfusion was continued. The method will doubtless meet with success for a time; it will confuse some and arouse illusory hopes in others. But the Kremlin’s plans will not be modified to any extent.

    A small but characteristic example: in occupied Germany all the Russian soldiers and officers suddenly began to use the word ’Rossiia’-’Russia’. The movement was quite spontaneous. Some-times out of habit one would let ’U. S. S. R.’ slip out; but it was corrected to ’Rossiia’ at once. We ourselves were surprised at this fact, but it was so. Yet for twenty-five years anyone who used the word ’Rossiia’ was liable to be accused of chauvinism, and quite possibly to be charged under the corresponding article of the Narcomvnudel code. One could not help noticing this seemingly small detail when one found the word ’Rossiia’ coming to every soldier’s lips.

    Unconsciously he was emphasizing the difference between the concepts ’Soviet’ and ’Russian’. As though in spite, the foreign press confused these concepts. What we ourselves couldn’t stand they called ’Russian’; all that was dear and precious to us they described as ’Soviet’. The Soviet people neither wish to nor do they need to teach foreigners their political ABC. Why risk one’s head simply to satisfy a stranger’s idle curiosity?

    How constrained Soviet people feel in intercourse with ’foreigners’ is shown by the following incident.

    One day, during an interval in the sittings of the Control Commission, several members of various delegations were discussing what they would like to do on the following Sunday. Kozlov, the chairman of the Soviet delegation in the Industrial Committee, let slip the unwise admission that he was going hunting with a group of colleagues. Kozlov’s foreign colleagues were enthusiastic at the idea of spending a Sunday all together, and said they would gladly join the party. Kozlov had to behave as though he were delighted beyond measure.

    On the Sunday the hunters set out in several cars. During the journey the Soviet members of the party racked their brains over the problem of how to give their Allies the slip. But the need to show some courtesy, plus the excellence of the western cars, gave Kozlov no chance of getting away from his unwanted friends. At the rendezvous the Allies got out and lay about on the grass, with the idea of having a little snack and a little chat. To avoid this, Kozlov and the other Russians slipped off through the bushes, and wandered about the forest all day, cursing Fate for pushing such politically unreliable companions on to them.

    In order to secure himself against the possibility of being reprimanded, Kozlov spent all the following week cursing and swearing to other members of the Administration for Economy about his bad luck, and carefully emphasizing his own ’vigilant* conduct. We could not enter freely into intercourse with the West. But what was the West doing to obtain information on Soviet problems?

    I had several opportunities of observing how the West obtained knowledge of Soviet Russia from ’reliable and competent’ sources. Those sources were usually journalists. The American and British journalists went to great trouble to get together with their Soviet colleagues, for they were convinced that these colleagues could and would answer their questions exhaustively and truthfully. Naive fellows! One can no more expect truth from a Soviet journalist than chastity from a prostitute.

    The American journalists in Berlin tried hard to get together with their Soviet brothers, free of constraint. But the Soviet journalists did their best to avoid any such meeting. Finally it had to be arranged: they had to invite the foreigners to their Press Club. It was at least a step forward that the Americans took the opportunity to ask questions which even the very adroit Soviet journalists could not easily answer. All they could do was keep their mouths shut. It was also very good that the Americans gradually realized the true meaning of ’Narcomvnudel’; they thought their Soviet colleagues were victims of the Narcomvnudel and were ringed about with spies, and that a dictaphone was built into every desk. Of course it would have been even more sound to assume that their hosts were themselves Narcomvnudel agents. My experiences in the college had taught me that all the Soviet Union’s foreign correspondents were coworkers of that organization.

    The Americans took their Soviet colleagues’ silent reserve as indicating their anxiety. This was pretty near, but not quite, the truth. Once the Americans even raised the subject of the ’Soul of the Soviet Man’, but they made the mistake of discussing the soul as such. The Soviet soul is a function of the Soviet reality; it cannot be analyzed in isolation from its milieu.

    Our work in the Control Commission was very instructive. From the very first sittings I realized that the widely held view that a diplomat’s life is easy and carefree was false. In reality it is a devilishly hard, or rather a tedious, occupation. One needs to have the hide of a hippopotamus, the sensitiveness of an antelope, nerves of manila rope and the endurance of a hunter. An English saying has it that it is the highest achievement of good manners to be bored to death without showing it. Now General Shabalin gave his colleagues extensive opportunities to demonstrate the truth of this remark. It was astonishing to see how earnestly earnest people could struggle for hours and days on end with an insoluble problem before they would admit that it was insoluble!

    In selecting their diplomats the British act on the principle that the least suitable of all candidates is one who is energetic and stupid; one who is energetic and clever is not very suitable, and the most suitable of all is a man who is clever and passive. The British prefer to be slow in drawing the right conclusion, and they fear nothing more than precipitate unsound decisions.

    This same rule applies to Soviet diplomats, only in reverse. The ideal Soviet diplomat must be exceptionally energetic and exception-ally stupid. He needs no intelligence, as he may not take any independent decisions in any case. On the other hand, energy is a quality needed by every commercial traveler, whether it is razor blades he is trying to sell, or his master’s policy. General Shabalin was an out-standing example of this type of Soviet diplomat. For that matter, all Soviet diplomats are distinguished by their enormous activity. The Kremlin can be charged with anything rather than passivity.

    Our first encounters in the Control Commission were quite educative. Despite my skeptical attitude to the policy of the western powers, I could not help reaching the conviction that they were genuinely anxious to work together with us for the solution of post-war problems. The creation of the United Nations Organization testified to the western democracies’ desire to secure peace to the world.

    Outwardly, we, too, gave out that we were interested in the same thing and wanted to take the same road. But the very first practical measures proposed indicated that the opposite was the truth. Our readiness for collaboration on the problem of world peace was nothing but a tactical maneuver with the object of maintaining the democratic mask, winning time for the reorganization of our forces, and exploiting the democratic platforms in order to sabotage world public opinion. The very first sittings of the Control Commission opened my eyes to all this.

    I recalled Anna Petrovna’s remark, which had so astounded me, when I was in Moscow. From her words I could only deduce that the Kremlin was thinking of active operations for the Soviet fighting forces in the post-war period. Yet it seemed absurd to think of any kind of war plans when we had only just ended terrible battles, and all the world wished for nothing more urgently and passionately than peace. Now, after those first sittings of the Control Commission it was clear, to me at least, who was neither diplomat nor politician, which the Kremlin had not the slightest desire to collaborate with the democratic West.

    The representatives of the western democracies racked their brains to find an explanation for their eastern ally’s extraordinary conduct. They sought persistently for a modus vivendi with the Kremlin. They sought a key to the enigma of the soul of the East, they turned over the pages of the historical tomes; but it never occurred to them to study the million-copy editions of Lenin’s and Stalin’s works. They attached too much importance to the dissolution of the Comintern. They are not acquainted with the winged words by which the Soviet leaders justify their every deviation from the Party general line: “A temporary deviation is completely justified if it is necessary for reorganization and the accumulation of new strength for the next advance.” The inflexible general line can wind like an adder.

    Sommaire https://seenthis.net/messages/683905
    #anticommunisme #histoire #Berlin #occupation #guerre_froide

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine. Chapter 04
    http://g-klimov.info/klimov-pp-e/ETM04.htm

    The Rational Basis

    In the spring of 1945 one of the officers studying at the college was the victim of an extraordinary, an idiotic incident. He had just graduated from the last course of the Japanese Department, and had already been nominated to a senior post in the foreign service; in addition, he was happily married. He seemed to be on the threshold of a brilliant future. And yet...

    Two of the college buildings fronted on to the street, with a gap of some fifty yards between them. An ordinary fence blocked this gap, and General Biyasi, who took great pride in the outward appearance not only of the students but also of his buildings, ordered the old fence to be taken down and one more worthy of the college erected. When the old fence was taken down the students found they had a very convenient route through to the car-stop on the street, whereas previously it had been necessary to make a considerable detour to leave by the main door.

    As a result, all the college began to come and go through the ’new gateway’. When the general discovered what was happening he had a one-man guard posted at the gap, giving him the strict command that nobody was to be allowed to pass through. But how can one man be expected to hold a fifty-yard front against an entire college, his own comrades into the bargain? So the general sent for the guard and personally gave him a dressing-down, threatening him with the clink.

    “But what am I to do, General?” the man pleaded. “Shoot?”

    “Of course! A guard post is sacred. You know your service regulations,” General Biyasi answered.

    At the close of studies for the day a crowd of officers once more poured through the gap. The guard shouted and threatened them till he was hoarse. In vain. But in the distance the general’s tubby form was to be seen on a tour of inspection. At that very moment the ’Japanese’ captain was passing the guard, taking no notice of his shouts.

    “Halt!” the man shouted desperately.

    The captain went on his way, apparently sunken in thought.

    “Halt, or I’ll fire!” the guard roared again.

    The captain went on; but the general steadily drew closer.

    Almost frantic, the guard threw up his rifle and shot without taking aim. It was four in the afternoon, the street was crowded with people, and the man was so agitated that if he had taken deliberate aim he would almost certainly have missed. But now the captain dropped to the sidewalk with a bullet through his head. During the war he had not spent one day at the front, he had never heard the whistle of a bullet; but a few days after the war had ended he was struck down by a comrade’s deadly bullet, in a Moscow street.

    Of course nothing happened to the guard. Although the affair was really scandalous, the general sent him a message expressing his gratitude for ’exemplary performance of his duty’. In such cases the guard is free from blame. The army regulation says on this point: ’When on guard it is better to shoot someone who is innocent than to miss an enemy.’

    This incident involuntarily turned ray thoughts to reflections on fate. ’No man can avoid his destiny,’ our forefathers used to say. We don’t believe that any more; or rather, we have been taught not to believe it. Then there is more room for belief in the leader.

    At that moment I had every reason to reflect on my destiny. I had finished the college course, and was standing on the threshold of a new phase in my life. I saw clearly the crossroads that lay before me, but I saw even more clearly that once I had set out along any one of those roads there could be no turning back. At the moment I had at least some possibility of choice, so I must give ample thought to the choice.

    Recently I had heard rumors that I was being considered as a candidate for a teaching post at the college. One could not have had a more brilliant prospect. Practically speaking, that represented the finest opportunity a graduate could have. The teaching staff was in a continual state of flux, for it constituted an immediate reserve for the army General Staff, which always gave close consideration to the claims of college staff when there were special tasks to be performed abroad.

    Today one might be sent to somewhere in Europe, tomorrow to America. Truly, the chosen individual usually went as an unassuming auxiliary member of an impressive delegation, but he always had independent and responsible special commissions to execute. And on return to Moscow he reported not to the civil authorities who had sent the delegation, but to the corresponding department of the General Staff.

    Only a short time before, one of the college staff had been sent on a round tour of Czechoslovakia, Austria, and other countries of central Europe. He had gone as an ’interpreter’ for a world-famous Soviet botanist, a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. It is easy enough to guess what sort of plants the professor had in mind to bring home with the aid of such an ’interpreter’, and who was principal and who subordinate.

    Once attached to the college staff, one was at the starting point of many highly promising paths. The staff was very well informed on the backstairs questions of the General Staff. And personal understandings, patronage, connections, played a great part. In such a post one could always bring unobtrusive influence to bear. In a few words, membership of the college staff was the surest start to a career of which the majority of the students could only dream.

    When I first heard that I was being considered for such a prospect I had decidedly mixed feelings. On the one hand, it meant life in Moscow, mingling in the new leading circles, the broadest of possibilities, an extensive field of activity, alluring prospects. But... There was a very weighty ’but’. That road led in one direction. One glance back or aside and you were finished. If you wished to travel that road, you must be completely free from inner conflict and possess perfect faith in the rightness of what you were doing.

    Of course there are substitutes for these things: hypocrisy, careerism, lack of principle in the choice of means. I was an educational product of the Stalin era and had had ample opportunity to see that in the Soviet Union these substitutes played a fundamental role. And yet, could I be satisfied with them? I was not a naive youngster, nor was I a philanthropist: I could justify the application of dubious means in order to achieve a higher end. But before I could do so in this case I had to be perfectly sure that the final goal was beyond criticism. And, despite my own personal desires, I did not feel that surety.

    After the jubilant days of victory the atmosphere in Moscow had grown gray and monotonous. A fresh breeze was blowing in Europe; a great historical transformation was being accomplished there. College students who returned from short official journeys to the west had interesting things to report. It would do me, too, no harm to get to know the patient I would be called upon to cure.

    For me, personally, the best thing would be to be sent to one of the European occupied countries. There, in a new environment, in lands where we had gained the victory, in creative work I could recover my shaken equilibrium and return to Moscow full of confidence, full of faith. In any case, I would still be part of the General Staff Reserve.

    These reflections provided the stimulus to a conversation I had with Lieutenant-Colonel Taube.

    Professor Baron von Taube was one of Colonel Gorokhov’s deputies in the Educational Department. In the college he was regarded as a kind of museum piece, and yet, because of his extraordinary range of knowledge, and his capacities, he was irreplaceable. Despite his compromising ’von’, his name carried weight and his word was quite often of decisive significance. The students regarded him as an extremely cultivated man, a practical and observant officer and teacher, with whom one could talk openly.

    Besides Lieutenant-Colonel Taube, Major-General Ignatiev, too, had a good name in the college. In his youth he had been a page to the last tsar, and then had studied at the tsarist General Staff Academy; later he had been tsarist military attaché in Paris for many years. After the revolution he remained abroad quite a long time as an émigré, but in the ’thirties, for unknown reasons, he took the road to Canossa. His memoirs, Fifty Years in the Ranks, enjoyed a great success among the students.

    Now the former Guards officer. Count Ignatiev, was wearing a general’s uniform again, and had been appointed historian of the Red Army. Naturally, he was not trusted, and his chief task was to proclaim the Soviet regime’s tolerance towards repentant sinners. In his memoirs he gave a vague reason for his return, but in Moscow it was openly said that he had got tired of washing dishes in Paris restaurants.

    During the last year or so of the war a number of more or less well-known émigrés had returned to the Soviet Union. For instance, the once famous writer Kuprin had recently arrived in Moscow. It is said that when he walked out of the railway station he put down his case and knelt to bow his head to his native earth in sight of all the people. When he got up he found his case had vanished.

    Only recently, Belyavsky and I had heard a concert given by Alexander Vertinsky. His public appearance was quite unexpected, and most people were delighted, regarding it as confirmation of a new, liberal course in governmental policy. It is true that he could appear only at small clubs in the suburbs. But the very fact that he could appear was more important and more pleasant than his performance. A smell of morphine came from the stage, and the human wreck that walked on, accompanied by his wife, a young singer, made a wretched and sentimental impression. The past is more pleasant in memory than in its resurrection as a corpse from the grave.

    It may not have been in their minds, but the government took a clever step in letting the young generation see the old world in this form. With our own eyes, without propaganda, we clearly saw how far our world and our interests had advanced in the meantime.

    Lieutenant-Colonel Taube listened closely to my superficial arguments-naturally, I made no mention of the personal reasons leading me to ask to be sent abroad-and promised to speak in favor of the proposal to the higher authorities, while not withdrawing my candidature for the college staff.

    Besides the lieutenant-colonel, I brought influence to bear on other people who had some say in the allocation of posts to college graduates.

    Some time later I was summoned to Colonel Gorokhov. He greeted me as an old acquaintance.

    “Ah, Major Klimov! I’m glad to see you!” he began affably, as though to see me was all he wanted of life. I at once took guard. The more affable he was, the more unexpected the conversation might prove to be.

    “So you didn’t follow my advice after all. You turned your back on the Eastern Department.” He shook his head mournfully. “I wouldn’t forgive you, except that you’ve had such good reports.”

    I remained silent, waiting for him to come to the point.

    “So you would like to have the opportunity to work in perfect freedom?” came the friendly question.

    I raised my eyebrows in astonishment.

    “We were thinking of keeping you here,” he went on. “But now it’s proposed to give you an opportunity to prove yourself in a different post. I take it that this has come about not entirely with-out your intervention....”

    He looked at me ironically. No doubt he had guessed long since what part I myself had played in getting transferred from the Eastern to the Western Faculty.

    “I do not object to your being sent abroad,” he said after a brief silence. “I think you don’t, either.”

    I tried to look unconcerned. It is better for an officer of the General Staff to avoid displaying excessive curiosity.

    “You have just one defect,” he continued. “Why haven’t you yet joined the Party?”

    “I’ve been at the college only a year, Comrade Colonel,” I replied. “And one has to have the recommendation of three Party members, one of whom must have worked together with the candidate for at least two years.”

    “And before you came to the college?”

    “I’ve never had the opportunity to remain two years in one post.”

    I felt like telling the colonel frankly that I considered a man should join the Party only when he had become a leading member of society, and not in order to use his membership as a springboard for his career. The majority of the present-day ’true communists’ worked to the latter principle. It was they who made the most stir, in order to show how ’true to the Party line’ they were. But those who had achieved something by their own merits, and in con-sequence, for good or ill, had to join the Party, were usually passive and silent camp-followers.

    But could I have told him all that? It would have meant that I was myself uncertain, dubious. And if a Soviet citizen wishes to live, from the day of his birth he must believe absolutely in the infallibility of the Party line. I would have shown myself a poor student of his college if I had told the colonel such things.

    “I hope that by our next meeting you will have remedied this defect,” he said in conclusion. “Apart from that, our reports on you are excellent. Your case will be remitted to the army Personnel Department, and they will notify you of your future post.”

    After this conversation I waited to go through the usual examination by still higher instances.

    The students of our college normally had to pass very thorough-going tests, but before being appointed to a post abroad even they were customarily subjected to a questionnaire test by the Mandate Commission of the Red Army Personnel Department and the Foreign Department of the Soviet Communist Party. One could never be sufficiently on one’s guard. It was always possible that meanwhile someone or other had become ’worm-eaten’, or important changes might have occurred among his or his wife’s relations.

    One of the most unpleasant features of Soviet life is the collective responsibility of all one’s relatives. No matter how beyond reproach a man may be as a member of Soviet society, if any even of his distant relations comes into conflict with the Narcomvnudel he is automatically entered in the category of ’politically unreliable’.

    During the war there was a special category of ’unreliable’, which were not called up for military service. Many of them had to serve in labor battalions. They were not issued weapons and were kept at a safe distance from the front. They consisted mainly of people whose relatives had made too close acquaintance with the Narcomvnudel. Anyone who had personally come into contact with the Narcomvnudel or was on their black lists was rounded up and interned in the first few days of the war.

    If any ’unreliable’ offered to go as a volunteer to the front, he was arrested at once and sent to a Narcomvnudel camp. The military command knew what value to set on this kind of patriotism. The Soviet government reckoned that despite the long years of re-education, the feeling of loyalty to one’s father, or mother, and one’s own blood was stronger in the Russian soul than the husks of communist teaching.

    During the later years of the war, owing to the great shortage of manpower some of the ’unreliable’ were taken into the regular army. Although the majority of them had had higher education and were officers on the reserve, they had to go to the front as privates.

    During the many years of the Soviet experiment the number of those who had suffered repression reached such an enormous figure that without doubt the automatically ’unreliable’ group constitutes the most important social stratum of the new Soviet society. Both sides have got to seek a way out of this complicated situation. Men want to live, and the regime needs men. But between the reconcilement of these two necessities there is an insurmountable obstacle: the questionnaire. Many of these ’unreliable’ have never seen their ’evil genius’, they have never had anything to do with him, and naturally they make no mention of him when filling up their questionnaires.

    The authorities know quite well that the questionnaire is not filled in with strict accuracy, but they often find themselves forced to ’overlook’ this inexactitude. Their terror policy has driven the Soviet rulers into a blind alley: if one accepts the Soviet classification, there are fewer immaculate and reliable citizens in the Soviet Union today than there were thirty years ago. And so, if the case is not highly important, or if there is urgent need for any particular individual, they check the details of his questionnaire less strictly. On the other hand, in important cases they trust no questionnaires whatever, nor even the opinion they have themselves formed concerning the person under consideration, so they put him under examination again and again, with hysterical distrust and a meticulous scrupulosity.

    Between three and six months elapse between the first candidature and the final appointment to a foreign post, during which period the candidate is subjected to various checks. Thus, the local Narcomvnudel in his place of residence has to check his statements relating thereto, and if it is established that some distant relative, it may be, has vanished without trace in mysterious circumstances, that in itself is sufficient to dispose of the candidate. Any circumstance not clarified is taken as a negative factor.

    I was expecting to be summoned to the Personnel Department of the General Staff; but a few days later I received the order to report to the head of the college. This was outside the normal routine, and I was rather troubled to know what lay behind it.

    Opinions concerning the head of the college, General Biyasi, were wildly contradictory. One section of the students rather suspiciously expressed great enthusiasm for his unusual ability and declared that he was a highly cultured man, that at one time he had been Soviet minister to Italy and was not only perfect in all the languages covered by the college, but could even read human hearts and discover one’s most secret thoughts. No doubt these students would climb higher up the diplomatic ladder than those who declared that the general had begun his career by selling Halva and fruits in the Tiflis market, and who considered that his only out-standing qualities were his glossy exterior and his floridly mellifluous manners and speech.

    Anybody summoned to the general’s room could never be certain of the outcome. We were always ready at any time for the greatest of surprises. For instance, only recently the entire Japanese Department, with the exception of the last course, had been reorganized for the preparation of army translators in a short course of instruction. The disillusioned would-be diplomats were assured that it was only a temporary measure, that they would all have the opportunity to continue their studies later. But meanwhile they were sitting all day grinding at Japanese military terminology. This reorganization occurred immediately after the Yalta Conference, and the rate of instruction was accelerated to such an extent that the students gave one another unequivocal glances.

    The plan clearly indicated the date by which the training had to be completed, and therefore the way the wind was blowing. For that matter, from the beginning the secret clauses of the Yalta agreement were no secret for us. We saw the point when we were informed that the members of the foreign legations would be very glad to make the acquaintance of any of us. Before that, if any one of us had ventured to exchange a few words with a foreigner in the streets of Moscow without special permission, he would have been presuming too much on the powers of his guardian angel.

    Before taking up a post abroad certain of the students were put through a special course of instruction in rules of conduct and good manners in relations with foreigners. In such courses a student would often be given individual instruction suited to the country to which he was assigned. And frequently special emphasis was laid on learning the modern dances of western countries or the art of relations with ladies, including the art of breaking hearts, which is one way of getting to diplomats’ private safes. In these courses General Biyasi had no rival as an instructor.

    After my rather gloomy reflections I was not a little surprised when he briefly informed me that by the command of higher authorities I had been posted to the staff of the Soviet Military Administration in Germany. Evidently I was regarded as so reliable and so thoroughly proved that a further check-up before my departure was superfluous.

    “We can be proud of you in every respect,” the general explained. “But don’t forget: wherever you may find yourself, you are and will remain one of us!” He put special emphasis on ’us’. “From now on you are under a different command, but we can order your recall at any moment we wish. If necessary you are fully entitled to get into contact with us over the head of your future superior officers. As you know, that is strictly forbidden in the army, but we are an exception to the rule. Your future destiny depends on how you show up in your practical work. I hope we shall meet again later...”

    The general’s words left me unusually calm. During the war I had been full of enthusiasm and ardor for all I experienced; I had definite objectives in front of me. But now I was filled only with icy calm. The same calm that I had felt in June 1941, on the outbreak of war. Then it had been due to the tense expectation of coming experiences. But now I simply could not understand why it was. Our inner world is the reflection of our surroundings. Now I was quite deliberately putting my inner world to the test. In active work, in the interplay of international interests, I would find the rational basis of our Soviet existence. One could hardly have a more suitable spot for that than Berlin.

    “I feel sure you will justify the trust the fatherland is placing in you, in sending you to the most important sector of the post-war front. The work to be done there is more important and more responsible than in war-time,” he ended, as he shook my hand. “I wish you every success, Major!”

    “Thank you, Comrade General!” I replied, looking him straight in the eyes and responding to his vigorous handshake. After all, wasn’t I going to Berlin in order to come back to Moscow a better Soviet citizen than I could be today?

    During the winter I had solved a riddle that puzzled me in regard to Genia. Her mother had returned to Moscow in January; all through the war she had worked as a doctor in front-line hospitals, in order to be near her husband. Now she had been demobilized.

    Anna Petrovna was the exact opposite of her daughter Genia. Her greatest interest in life was to talk about her husband. I needed no little patience and endurance to listen to the same story and display the same interest for the umpteenth time: how they had got married, how he was never at home because he devoted all his time to his service, how hard it was to be the wife of a professional officer.

    She gave me long descriptions of her and his parents, simple people; of his gradual advancement, and then his breathtaking career during the war. Anna Petrovna was extremely pleasant and frank. Though she was the wife of a well-known general, she was not at all conceited about his position; on the contrary, she had a partiality for telling stories about the lack of culture and the ignorance of the new aristocracy. She had a clear realization of the responsibility her husband’s high position placed on her, and she tried her utmost to keep up with the times and with him. Both outwardly and in her character she fully justified the place she held in society.

    There was a general tendency among Soviet people to regard the new aristocracy very skeptically, as a lot of upstarts. To a large extent this was because quite unknown people had come to the top during the revolution. That had been perfectly natural. Later on these same people were appointed to leading State positions, for which they were often fitted neither by their knowledge nor by their capacity for the particular job. One thing has to be granted to the leading Soviet officials, they had a restless energy and inexhaustible perseverance. As time passed the revolutionary old guard grew still older, they outlived their day, and their incapacity for- the new tasks showed up more and more obviously.

    Meanwhile new cadres of specialists were being developed in all branches of activity. They came from the masses of the people, but they had the requisite education and special professional training, and they acquired practical experience in responsible activity.

    The bureaucratic ulcer burst at the beginning of the war, and it became necessary to replace the tarnished heroes of the revolutionary period by younger leaders of the Soviet school. Inevitably, during the war years, and especially in the army, new and talented military leaders who had been vegetating unrecognized came to the forefront.

    The pre-war Party and bureaucratic aristocracy spent their days in the same luxury and magnificence that the tsarist aristocracy had formerly been reproached with. During the war, in order to save the situation, the finest members of the nation replaced them, perhaps only temporarily. Genia’s father belonged to this elite. And Anna Petrovna was unusually proud of her husband’s career. Her only regret was that it had practically put an end to their family life.

    I had not seen Genia while I was taking my State examination, and had only phoned her occasionally. But now I had my assignment to Berlin in my pocket, and I could call on her again. I hardly expected the affectionate reception she gave me; it was so demonstrative that even Anna Petrovna shook her head disapprovingly. “Don’t forget that I’m here too,” she remarked.

    “Grisha!” Genia said as she whirled me like a top round the room. “Daddy’s been home two whole weeks.... Just imagine: two whole weeks! Come and see what he’s brought me.”

    Full of pride, she showed me quite a number of presents her father had given her. Even before this, whole cases of trophies had collected in their apartment. Each time one of the staff officers traveled from the front to Moscow he brought with him presents from the general. That was common in all the officers’ families during the Red Army’s advance into East Prussia. The junior officers sent only small articles, but the seniors even sent back solid items like furniture and pianos. From the legal aspect, robbery; in the wartime language they were called trophies. And besides, everybody considered that this was only taking back from the Germans what they had taken from us.

    About this time there was a story running through Moscow about a front-line officer who sent a case of soap home to his wife. She did not stop to think about it but sold the whole lot at once in the market. A few days later she received a letter from her husband, in which he mentioned that one of the cakes of soap had a gold watch concealed in it. The story had various endings: one, that the woman hanged her-self; another, that she took to drink; a third, that she drank poison.

    A massive radio set was standing in the General’s living room. At first glance I could not decide whether it was a receiver or a transmitter. In fact he had got hold of a set perfectly fitted to his rank: it was a super-receiver, the latest model. I was about to plug it in and switch it on when Anna Petrovna raised her finger admonitorily: ’Grisha! For goodness’ sake don’t switch it in. Kolia [her husband] has strictly forbidden it."

    “But what are you afraid of?” I asked.

    “It mustn’t be touched. Not for anything, not till the ban’s raised. Even Kolia hasn’t switched it on yet.”

    What do you make of that? A month after the war had ended a victorious Soviet general did not dare to listen to the radio until the Kremlin had expressly given him permission.

    “Grisha, look at this!” Genia broke in. “A golden pistol!” She excitedly threw me something heavy in a yellow leather case.

    Thinking to find some original design of cigarette lighter, or some feminine trinket, I opened the case and took out a gleaming gilded pistol of the German ’Walter’ pattern. I noticed two lightning flashes, the sign of the S. S. And an inscription: “To S. S. General Adreas von Schonau, in the name of the Great German Reich. The Fuhrer.”

    “Now you’d better behave yourself!” Genia said as she produced a clip of cartridges. “It’s all ready for use.”

    As she threw it down, the clip slithered like a snake over the sofa cushion. I noticed the small red heads of the cartridges.

    “What an idea, to give anyone a pistol!” I said. “And you above all.”

    “Don’t get the wind up. If you behave yourself nothing will happen to you,” she reassured me. “And he brought two Opel cars back with him,” she chattered on. “The ’Admiral’ he’ll drive himself, and the ’Captain’s’ for me. So see that you turn up tomorrow morning. You must teach me to drive.”

    “But listen, Grisha, what are your plans for the future?” she asked playfully, her new toys already forgotten. With the same unconstraint with which she had handled her gold pistol she laid my head on her breast and described a large questionmark with her finger on my forehead.

    I hated to spoil her cheerful spirits. In my heart I began to feel regret that I would have to leave all this world behind the very next morning. But it had to be, and, anyway, it was not for ever.

    "Tomorrow I’m flying to Berlin. I said slowly, staring up at the ceiling. I spoke very quietly, as though I were somehow in the wrong.

    “What?” she said incredulously. “Is this another of your silly jokes?”

    “It isn’t a joke...”

    “You’re not flying anywhere. Forget it! Get that?”

    “It doesn’t depend on me.” I shrugged my shoulders helplessly.

    “My goodness! I’d like to skin you alive!” she exclaimed. “If you simply must see what it’s like abroad, go and spend an evening at the operetta. Don’t you feel any regret at going away again and leaving me behind here, with my everlasting, boring lessons?”

    She looked almost with entreaty into my eyes; they revealed more than a mere request or whim.

    “It isn’t what I want, Genia. Duty...”

    “Duty, duty!” she echoed. “I’m sick of that word.”

    All her carefree, joyful spirits were gone. Her voice was sad and earnest as she said:

    “I was so happy to think you were not a professional officer. I suppose you think I’ve had a happy home life. If you want to know the truth, I’m an orphan!”

    She suddenly sat straight up. Her face was pale; her slender fingers played nervously with the silk fringe of the cushion.

    “All my life I’ve only seen my father once a week, so to speak. We’re almost strangers to each other. Have you ever stopped to wonder why he overwhelms me with presents? He felt just as I do. First it was China, and then it was Spain, then something else. And so all my life.”

    Her voice shook, her eyes filled with tears. She lost her self-control, the words poured from her lips like a passionate complaint, like a reproach against fate.

    “My friends say I’m lucky; my father’s chest is loaded with orders. ... But I hate those orders... They’ve taken my father from me ... Every one of them means years of separation. Look at mother! Hardly has she got over her tears of joy for father being home again, alive and well, when there are more tears over something new. Often we go a whole year without a letter from him... And he, too, always says: ’Duty! Duty!’ And now you... I don’t want to live a life like my mother’s... I don’t want to live only on your letters...”

    She covered her face with her hands, her shoulders shook spasmodically. Then she buried her face in the cushion and wept bitterly, like a sick child.

    I silently stroked her hair and gazed at the sunlit roofs of the house opposite, at the blue vault of the summer sky, as though it might prompt me to an answer. What was I to do? Here at my side was the woman I loved and who loved me; and somewhere, a long way off, was duty.

    I spent the evening with Anna Petrovna in the living room. Genia had spread out her books on the dining-room table, and sat chewing her pencil; she was preparing for her finals. Anna Petrovna complained as usual about her lonely life.

    “He was offered a post in the Artillery Department; but no, he must go and stick his nose in hell again. At Konigsberg he was wounded in the head, but that isn’t enough for him. You’d think he’d got enough orders and decorations, and a high enough rank. But now he declares he’s going to be a marshal. Stalin himself told him so at the reception. And now he’s continually repeating it like a parrot.”

    The general had been urgently recalled to Moscow a few days before the capitulation of Germany. On 10 May 1945 he was present, with other high-ranking officers of the Red Army, at the Kremlin reception which the Politburo gave in celebration of the victory. Now another Lenin order decorated his broad chest, another star was added to his gold epaulettes. But Anna Petrovna was not destined to enjoy her husband’s company for long. He had been entrusted with a new, secret commission; he spent all his days in the General Staff, and whenever she asked him where he was going this time he only answered: “You’ll see when you get a letter with the field-post address.”

    She discovered where he had been sent only months later, when the war with Japan broke out. And even then she learnt it from the newspapers, which announced that the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet had awarded him a further distinction for special services in the struggle against Japan.

    “How can he become a marshal now the war’s over?” I asked her. “Whom will he be fighting next?”

    “I don’t know,” she sighed. “He avoids talking politics with me. He’s grown so cock-a-hoop since his last visit to the Kremlin. They’re obviously thinking something up, if they’re talking on those lines. Stalin’s the be-all and end-all of existence for him. If Stalin tells him: ’You’ll become a marshal,’ he’ll drag the marshal’s star down from heaven if necessary.”

    ’What new devilry is afoot now?’ I thought to myself. ’The Kremlin doesn’t talk idly.’ But I saw all the import of Anna Petrovna’s words only later, when sitting at the conference table in the Berlin Control Commission.

    That was my last day in Moscow. Next morning I went to the central aerodrome. It was early, a mist hung over the earth; every-thing was very still and quiet. Innumerable transport machines, all of them ’Douglases’, stretched their great wings over the out-fields. My heart was as light as the fresh morning air, as calm and still as the hoarfrosted field of the landing ground. I would be returning to Moscow in twelve months. And then the city would be even more dear to me than it was now.

    Two officers came up; evidently they were traveling with me.

    “Well, how’s things, Major?” One of them greeted me. “Off to Europe?”

    “Not a bad idea to see for yourself what old mother Europe really looks like,” the second added.

    The aerodrome came to life. Several other officers arrived, all of them assigned to the staff of the Soviet Military Administration. The S. M. A. had its own machines servicing the Berlin-Moscow route. On their return journey from Berlin to Moscow they were so heavily laden with important and urgent freight that they could hardly gain height. But from Moscow to Berlin they flew only half loaded. Our pilot waited a little longer, then shrugged his shoulders and signaled for permission to take off.

    Sommaire https://seenthis.net/messages/683905
    #anticommunisme #histoire #Berlin #occupation #guerre_froide

  • Staline, affligé, apprend la mort de Lénine
    bulle : « La classe ouvrière va pouvoir me lécher le cul J’ai enfin le Job du chef. »


    https://cartoliste.ficedl.info/article940.html

    impressionnante collection de cartes postales anarchistes.
    https://cartoliste.ficedl.info
    source : cira.ch
    http://www.cira.ch/liens
    #cartes_postales #anarchie #cira

  • #Equateur : un référendum pour en finir avec Rafael Correa
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/030218/equateur-un-referendum-pour-en-finir-avec-rafael-correa

    Rafael Correa en campagne pour le non, dans les environs de Quito, le 29 janvier 2017 © Reuters Le scrutin de ce dimanche 4 février, lancé par le président Lenín Moreno, sonne comme un coup de grâce porté contre son ancien mentor Rafael Correa. La bataille entre les deux hommes qui ont partagé le pouvoir rebat les cartes politiques. Mais si le « style » Moreno tranche avec celui de son prédécesseur, ce n’est pas encore le cas de son programme.

    #International

  • Revoliutsiia! Demonstratsiia! Soviet Art Put to the Test | The Art Institute of Chicago
    http://www.artic.edu/exhibition/revolutsiia-demonstratsiia-soviet-art-put-test

    Through January 15, 2018

    The October Revolution of 1917 changed the course of world history; it also turned Russia into a showcase filled with models. Every object and sphere of activity had to demonstrate how society could be remade according to revolutionary principles. It would take intensive experimentation and discussion to determine the shape of this unprecedented society. To be realized in any concrete way, communism had to be modeled and put on display.

    Soviet Art Put to the Test accordingly fills Regenstein Hall with ten model displays from the early Soviet era. Each of these sections, detailed below, holds rare works of art and features expert, life-size reconstructions of early Soviet display objects or spaces, commissioned especially for this exhibition.

    • Battleground: Posters from the Civil War years (1918–21) surround a “Lenin Wall” with three dozen works devoted to the first Soviet leader.
    • School: Rare works from Soviet art schools convey breakthroughs in abstraction. Many loans come from the storied Costakis art collection in Thessaloniki, Greece.
    • Theater: Model sets, props, and drawings bring to life classic Constructivist stagings that merged viewers and performers in a mass spectacle.
    • Press: A 14-foot multimedia kiosk built from a design by artist Gustav Klutsis and a suite of his original drawings anchor an extensive display of rare magazines and unique poster maquettes.
    • Factory: A 30-foot-long Workers’ Club designed by Aleksandr Rodchenko can be entered to see period books and magazines.
    • Exhibition: A reconstructed 1926 exhibition room by El Lissitzky features paintings by artists included in the original exhibition, among them Piet Mondrian, Francis Picabia, and Lissitzky himself.
    • Festival: A period model for Stalin’s Palace of the Soviets joins photographs of mass sports events and commemorative gatherings.
    • Cinema: A rotating program of Soviet cartoons and documentaries is shown in a space that evokes an agitprop train.
    • Storefront: Large picture windows showcase textiles, Constructivist advertisements, and Suprematist porcelain.
    • Home: Personal images of leading Soviet artists, porcelain figurines, and a painting by Socialist Realist Aleksandr Deineka populate a model interior also outfitted with furniture conceived for small or collective apartments.
    These ten displays—containing nearly 550 works—come together in the largest exhibition of Soviet art to take place in the United States in 25 years. Visitors have the opportunity to explore the trajectory of early Soviet art in all its forms and consider what it tells us about socially minded art now.

  • Ukrainian Soviet mosaics: one final look at the spectacular street art of the past — The Calvert Journal

    https://www.calvertjournal.com/photography/show/9114/decommunized-ukrainian-soviet-mosaics-photo-book-Yevgen-Nikiforov

    Juste époustouflant.

    et d’autres.

    Until recently, it was not unusual to come across bright, eye-catching masterpieces in mosaic on the streets of Ukraine, gracing residential blocks, facades of school, houses of culture, metro stations and bus stops. As with other Soviet relics outlawed by the Ukrainian government in April 2015, including the dismantling of a whopping 1,320 statues of Lenin, mosaics too have gradually begun to vanish across the country. Yevgen Nikiforov’s new book Decommunized: Ukrainian Soviet Mosaics, released by DOM and Osnovy Publishing, brings together over 1,000 of these stunning artefacts, which the Kiev-born photographer has been shooting over the last three years in 109 different cities in Ukraine. He found that those mosaics which have not already been destroyed are lost in the visual noise of post-Soviet cities. “Soviet monumental art had become a mere backdrop, as integral as the air we breathe, and equally invisible,” writes Nikiforov, who hopes his book will restore mosaic art to its former glory. Join us on Thursday 26 October 2017 at London’s Calvert 22 Bookshop, where you can hear Nikiforov talk about Ukraine’s recent “decommunisation” laws and how he managed to hunt down the last surviving mosaics, as well as preview more of the book’s stunning photography. The event is free, with a suggested £5 donation. You can purchase tickets and find out more here.

    #ukraine #mosaïque #images #visualisation #propagande #soviétisme #urss #ex-urss #union_soviétique

  • L’ANARCHISME DANS LA RÉVOLUTION RUSSE
    Daniel Guérin, 1965

    L’anarchisme, après avoir trouvé un deuxième souffle dans le syndicalisme révolutionnaire, en puisa un troisième dans la Révolution russe. Cette affirmation peut, au premier abord, surprendre le lecteur, habitué à considérer la grande mutation révolutionnaire d’Octobre 1917 comme l’œuvre et comme l’apanage des seuls bolcheviks. En réalité, la Révolution russe fut un vaste mouvement de masses, une vague de fond populaire qui dépassa et submergea les formations idéologiques. Elle n’appartint à personne, sinon au peuple. Dans la mesure où elle fut une authentique révolution, impulsée de bas en haut, produisant spontanément des organes de démocratie directe, elle présenta toutes les caractéristiques d’une révolution sociale à tendances libertaires. Toutefois la faiblesse relative des anarchistes russes les empêcha d’exploiter des situations exceptionnellement favorables au triomphe de leurs idées.
    La Révolution fut finalement confisquée et dénaturée par la maîtrise, diront les uns, l’astuce, diront les autres, de l’équipe de révolutionnaires professionnels groupée autour de Lénine. Mais cette défaite, à la fois de l’anarchisme et de l’authentique révolution populaire, ne fut pas entièrement stérile pour l’idée libertaire. Tout d’abord, l’appropriation collective des moyens de production ne fut pas remise en cause et le terrain ainsi sauvegardé sur lequel, un jour peut-être, le socialisme par en bas prévaudra sur l’encasernement étatique ; ensuite, l’expérience de l’U.R.S.S. fournit l’occasion à un certain nombre d’anarchistes russes et non russes de tirer les leçons complexes d’un temporaire échec — leçons dont Lénine lui-même semblait prendre conscience à la veille de mourir —, de repenser, à ce propos, les problèmes d’ensemble de la révolution et de l’anarchisme. En un mot, selon l’expression de Kropotkine, reprise par Voline, elle leur enseigna, si besoin était, comment il ne faut pas faire une révolution. Loin de prouver l’impraticabilité du socialisme libertaire, l’expérience soviétique, dans une large mesure, a confirmé, au contraire, la justesse prophétique des vues exprimées par les fondateurs de l’anarchisme et, notamment, de leur critique du socialisme « autoritaire ».

    UNE RÉVOLUTION LIBERTAIRE

    Le point de départ de la Révolution de 1917 avait été celle de 1905, au cours de laquelle avaient surgi des organes révolutionnaires d’un type nouveau : les soviets. Ils étaient nés dans les usines de Saint-Pétersbourg au cours d’une grève générale spontanée. Vu l’absence à peu près complète d’un mouvement syndical et d’une tradition syndicaliste, ils avaient comblé un vide en coordonnant la lutte des usines en grève. L’anarchiste Voline fut du petit groupe qui, en liaison étroite avec les ouvriers et sur leur suggestion, eut l’idée de créer le premier soviet. Son témoignage rejoint celui de Trotsky qui, quelques mois plus tard, devait devenir le président du Soviet, et qui sans aucune intention péjorative, bien au contraire, écrit, dans son témoignage sur 1905 : « L’activité du soviet signifiait l’organisation de l’anarchie. Son existence et son développement ultérieurs marquaient une consolidation de l’anarchie ».
    Cette expérience s’était gravée pour toujours dans la conscience ouvrière et, quand éclata la Révolution de Février 1917, les dirigeants révolutionnaires n’eurent rien à inventer. Les ouvriers s’emparèrent spontanément des usines. Les soviets resurgirent d’eux-mêmes. Une nouvelle fois, ils prirent à l’improviste les professionnels de la Révolution. De l’aveu même de Lénine, les masses ouvrières et paysannes étaient « cent fois plus à gauche » que les bolcheviks. Le prestige des soviets était tel que l’insurrection d’Octobre ne put être déclenchée qu’au nom et à l’appel de ces derniers.
    Mais, en dépit de leur élan, ils manquaient d’homogénéité, d’expérience révolutionnaire, de préparation idéologique. Ils étaient, de ce fait, la proie facile de partis politiques aux conceptions révolutionnaires vacillantes. Bien qu’organisation minoritaire, le parti bolchevique était la seule force révolutionnaire réellement organisée, et qui savait où elle allait. Il n’avait guère de rivaux à l’extrême-gauche, ni sur le plan politique, ni sur le plan syndical. Il disposait de cadres de premier ordre. Il déploya, comme l’admet Voline, « une activité farouche, fébrile, foudroyante ».
    Cependant l’appareil du Parti — dont Staline était encore à cette époque, un des obscurs fleurons — avait toujours regardé avec une certaine méfiance les soviets, concurrence gênante. Au lendemain de la prise du pouvoir, la tendance spontanée et irrésistible à la socialisation de la production fut d’abord canalisée par le moyen du contrôle ouvrier. Le décret du 14 novembre 1917 légalisa l’ingérence des travailleurs dans la gestion des entreprises, dans le calcul du prix de revient, abolit le secret commercial, obligea les patrons à exhiber leur correspondance et leurs comptes. « Les intentions des dirigeants de la Révolution, rapporte Victor Serge, n’étaient pas d’aller au-delà. » En avril 1918, ils envisageaient encore (...) la constitution de sociétés mixtes par actions, auxquelles eût participé, avec l’État soviétique, le capital russe et étranger ».
    « L’initiative des mesures expropriatrices partit des masses et non du pouvoir. »
    Dès le 20 octobre 1917, au premier congrès des conseils d’usine, fut présentée une motion, d’inspiration anarchiste, qui demandait : « Le contrôle de la production et les commissions de contrôle ne doivent pas être seulement des commissions de vérification, mais (...) les cellules de l’avenir qui, dès maintenant, préparent le transfert de la production aux mains des ouvriers. » « Au lendemain de la Révolution d’Octobre, observe A. Pankratova, ces tendances anarchistes s’affirmèrent avec d’autant plus de facilité et de succès que les capitalistes opposèrent la plus vive résistance à l’application du décret sur le contrôle ouvrier et continuèrent à refuser l’ingérence des travailleurs dans la production. »
    Le contrôle ouvrier, en effet, se révéla vite une demi-mesure, inopérante et boiteuse. Les employeurs sabotaient, dissimulaient leurs stocks, soustrayaient l’outillage, provoquaient ou lock-outaient les ouvriers ; parfois ils se servaient des comités d’usine comme de simples agents ou auxiliaires de la direction, ou bien même ils croyaient profitable d’essayer de se faire nationaliser. Les ouvriers répondirent à ces manœuvres en s’emparant de l’usine et en la remettant en marche pour leur propre compte. « Nous n’écarterons pas nous-mêmes les industriels », disaient les ouvriers dans leurs motions, « mais nous prendrons en main la production s’ils ne veulent pas assurer le fonctionnement des fabriques. » Pankratova ajoute que, dans cette première période de socialisation « chaotique » et « primitive », les conseils d’usine « prenaient fréquemment la direction des usines dont les propriétaires avaient été éliminés ou avaient pris la fuite ».
    Très vite le contrôle ouvrier dut s’effacer devant la socialisation. Lénine violenta littéralement ses lieutenants timorés en les jetant dans le « creuset de la vivante création populaire », en les obligeant à parler un langage authentiquement libertaire. La base de la reconstruction révolutionnaire devait être l’autogestion ouvrière. Elle seule pouvait susciter dans les masses un enthousiasme révolutionnaire tel que l’impossible deviendrait possible. Lorsque le dernier manœuvre, lorsque n’importe quel sans-travail, quelle cuisinière, verrait les usines, la terre, l’administration confiées aux associations d’ouvriers, d’employés, de fonctionnaires, de paysans, aux comités démocratiques du ravitaillement, etc., créés spontanément par le peuple, « quand les pauvres gens verront et sentiront cela, aucune force ne sera en état de vaincre la révolution sociale ». L’avenir s’ouvrait à une république du type de la Commune de 1871, à une république des soviets.
    « Afin de frapper l’esprit des masses, raconte Voline, gagner leur confiance et leurs sympathies, le parti bolchevique lança (...) des mots d’ordre qui, jusqu’alors, caractérisaient (...) l’anarchisme. » Tout le pouvoir aux soviets, ce slogan, les masses, intuitivement, le comprirent dans le sens libertaire. « Les travailleurs, témoigne Archinoff, interprétèrent l’idée du pouvoir soviétique comme celle de leur libre disposition d’eux- mêmes, socialement et économiquement. » Au IIIe congrès des soviets (au début de 1818) Lénine lança : « Les idées anarchistes revêtent maintenant des formes vivantes », et, peu après, au VIIe congrès du Parti (6-8 mars), il fit adopter des thèses où il était question, entre autres, de socialisation de la production administrée par les organisations ouvrières (syndicats, comités d’usines, etc.), d’abolition des fonctionnaires de métier, de la police et de l’armée, d’égalité des salaires et traitements, de participation de tous les membres des soviets à la gestion et à l’administration de l’État, de suppression complète progressive dudit État et du signe monétaire. Au congrès des Syndicats (printemps 1918), Lénine décrivit les usines comme des « communes se gouvernant elles-mêmes de producteurs et de consommateurs ». L’anarcho-syndicaliste Maximoff va jusqu’à soutenir : « Les bolcheviks avaient abandonné non seulement la théorie du dépérissement graduel de l’État, mais l’idéologie marxiste dans son ensemble. Ils étaient devenus des sortes d’anarchistes. »

    UNE RÉVOLUTION « AUTORITAIRE »

    Mais l’alignement audacieux sur l’instinct et sur la température révolutionnaire des masses, s’il réussit à donner aux bolcheviks la direction de la Révolution, ne correspondait pas à leur idéologie traditionnelle ni à leurs intentions véritables. De longue date, ils étaient des « autoritaires », férus des notions d’État, de dictature, de centralisation, de parti dirigeant, de gestion de l’économie par en haut, toutes choses en contradiction flagrante avec une conception réellement libertaire de la démocratie soviétique.
    L’État et la Révolution, écrit à la veille de l’insurrection d’Octobre, est un miroir où se reflète l’ambivalence de la pensée de Lénine. Certaines pages en pourraient être signées d’un libertaire et, comme on l’a vu plus haut, hommage y est rendu, au moins partiellement, aux anarchistes. Mais cet appel à la révolution par en bas se double d’un plaidoyer en faveur de la révolution par en haut. Les conceptions étatiques, centralisatrices, hiérarchiques ne prennent pas la forme d’arrière-pensées, plus ou moins dissimulées ; elles sont, au contraire, franchement étalées : l’État survivra à la conquête du pouvoir par le prolétariat, il ne dépérira qu’après une période transitoire. Combien de temps durera ce purgatoire ? Il ne nous est pas celé — on nous le dit sans regret, mais bien plutôt avec soulagement — que le processus sera « lent », de « longue durée ». Ce que la Révolution enfantera sera, sous l’apparence du pouvoir des soviets, l’« État prolétarien » ou « dictature du prolétariat », « l’État bourgeois sans bourgeoisie », lâche même l’auteur, quand il consent à aller au fond de sa pensée. Cet État omnivore a bien l’intention de tout absorber.
    Lénine se met à l’école de son contemporain, le capitalisme d’État allemand, la Kriegswirtschaft (économie de guerre). L’organisation de la grande industrie moderne par le capitalisme, avec sa « discipline de fer », est un autre de ses modèles. Il se pâme, notamment devant un monopole d’État tel que les P.T.T. et il s’écrie : « Quel mécanisme admirablement perfectionné ! Toute la vie économique organisée comme la Poste, (...) voilà l’État, voilà la base économique qu’il nous faut. » Vouloir se passer d’« autorité » et de « subordination », ce sont là des « rêves anarchistes », tranche-t-il. Tout à l’heure il s’échauffait à l’idée de confier aux associations ouvrières, à l’autogestion, la production et l’échange. Mais il y avait maldonne. Il ne cache pas sa recette magique : tous les citoyens devenus « les employés et les ouvriers d’un seul trust universel d’État », toute la société convertie en « un grand bureau et une grande fabrique ». Les soviets, bien sûr, mais placés sous la coupe du parti ouvrier, d’un parti dont c’est la tâche historique de « diriger » le prolétariat.
    Les plus lucides des anarchistes russes ne s’y trompèrent pas. A l’apogée de la période libertaire de Lénine, ils adjuraient déjà les travailleurs d’être sur leurs gardes :dans leur journal, Golos Truda (La Voix du Travail), on pouvait lire, dès les derniers mois de 1917 et le début de 1918, sous la plume de Voline, ces avertissements prophétiques : « Une fois leur pouvoir consolidé et légalisé, les bolcheviks — qui sont des socialistes, politiciens et étatistes, c’est-à-dire des hommes d’action centralistes et autoritaires — commenceront à arranger la vie du pays et du peuple avec des moyens gouvernementaux et dictatoriaux imposés par le centre (...). Vos soviets (...) deviendront peu à peu de simples organes exécutifs de la volonté du gouvernement central (...). On assistera à la mise en place d’un appareil autoritaire politique et étatique, qui agira par en haut et se mettra à écraser tout avec sa poigne de fer (...) Malheur à celui qui ne sera pas d’accord avec le pouvoir central. » « Tout le pouvoir aux Soviets deviendra, en fait, l’autorité des leaders du Parti. »
    Les tendances de plus en plus anarchisantes des masses obligeaient Lénine, toujours selon Voline, à s’écarter pour un temps de l’ancien chemin. Il ne laissait subsister l’État, l’autorité, la dictature que pour une heure, pour une toute petite minute. Et, après, ce serait « l’anarchisme ». « Mais, grands dieux, ne prévoyez- vous pas (...) ce que dira le citoyen Lénine lorsque le pouvoir actuel sera consolidé et qu’il deviendra possible de ne plus prêter l’oreille à la voix des masses ? » Il reviendra alors aux vieux sentiers battus. Il créera un « État marxiste », du type le plus accompli.
    Bien entendu, il serait hasardeux de soutenir que Lénine et son équipe tendirent consciemment un piège aux masses. Il y avait moins duplicité en eux que dualisme doctrinal. La contradiction était si évidente, si flagrante entre les deux pôles de leur pensée qu’il était à prévoir qu’elle ne tarderait pas à éclater dans les faits. Ou bien la pression anarchisante des masses obligerait les bolcheviks à oublier le versant autoritaire de leurs conceptions, ou, au contraire, la consolidation de leur pouvoir, en même temps que l’essoufflement de la révolution populaire, les amèneraient à ranger au magasin des accessoires leurs velléités anarchisantes.
    Un élément nouveau intervint, qui bouleversa les données du problème : les terribles circonstances de la guerre civile et de l’intervention étrangère, la désorganisation des transports, la pénurie de techniciens. Elles poussèrent les dirigeants bolcheviques à des mesures d’exception, à la dictature, à la centralisation, au recours à la « poigne de fer ». Mais les anarchistes contestèrent que ces difficultés eussent seulement des causes « objectives » et extérieures à la Révolution. Pour une part, elles étaient dues, à leur avis, à la logique interne des conceptions autoritaires du bolchevisme, à l’impuissance d’un pouvoir bureaucratisé et centralisé à l’excès. Selon Voline, c’était, entre autres, l’incompétence de l’État, sa prétention à vouloir tout diriger et contrôler qui le rendirent incapable de réorganiser la vie économique du pays et le conduisirent à une véritable « débâcle », marquée par la paralysie de l’activité industrielle, la ruine de l’agriculture, la destruction de tous liens entre les diverses branches de l’économie.
    Voline raconte, par exemple, que l’ancienne usine de pétrole Nobel, à Petrograd, ayant été abandonnée par ses propriétaires, ses quatre mille ouvriers décidèrent de la faire marcher collectivement. Ils s’adressèrent en vain au gouvernement bolchevique. Ils tentèrent alors de faire rouler l’entreprise par leurs propres moyens. Ils s’étaient répartis en groupes mobiles qui s’efforcèrent de trouver du combustible, des matières premières, des débouchés, des moyens de transport. Au sujet de ces derniers, ils avaient déjà entamé des pourparlers avec leurs camarades cheminots. Le gouvernement se fâcha. Responsable devant l’ensemble du pays il ne pouvait admettre que chaque usine agît à sa guise. S’obstinant, le conseil ouvrier convoqua une assemblée générale des travailleurs. Le commissaire du peuple au Travail se dérangea en personne pour mettre en garde les ouvriers contre « un acte d’indiscipline grave ». Il fustigea leur attitude « anarchiste et égoïste ». Il les menaça de licenciement sans indemnité. Les travailleurs rétorquèrent qu’ils ne sollicitaient aucun privilège : le gouvernement n’avait qu’à laisser les ouvriers et les paysans agir de la même façon dans tout le pays. En vain. Le gouvernement maintint son point de vue, et l’usine fut fermée.
    Le témoignage de Voline est corroboré par celui d’une communiste : Alexandra Kollontaï. Elle devait se plaindre, en 1921, de ce que d’innombrables exemples d’initiatives ouvrières eussent sombré dans la paperasserie et de stériles palabres administratives : « Combien d’amertume parmi les ouvriers (...) quand ils voient et savent [ce] que, si on leur avait donné le droit et la possibilité d’agir, ils auraient pu réaliser eux- mêmes (...) L’initiative s’affaiblit, le désir d’agir meurt. »
    Le pouvoir des soviets ne dura, en fait, que quelques mois, d’octobre 1917 au printemps de 1918. Très vite les conseils d’usine furent dépouillés de leurs attributions. Le prétexte invoqué fut que l’autogestion ne tenait pas compte des besoins « rationnels » de l’économie, qu’elle entretenait un égoïsme d’entreprises se faisant l’une à l’autre concurrence, se disputant de maigres ressources, voulant à tout prix survivre, bien que d’autres usines fussent plus importantes « pour l’État » et mieux équipées. En un mot, l’on aboutissait, selon les termes d’A. Pankratova, à une fragmentation de l’économie en « fédérations autonomes de producteurs du type rêvé par les anarchistes ». Sans aucun doute, la naissante autogestion ouvrière n’était pas sans reproche. Elle avait cherché péniblement, à tâtons, à créer de nouvelles formes de production qui n’avaient eu aucun précédent dans l’histoire humaine. Il lui était arrivé, certes, de se tromper, de faire fausse route. C’était le tribut de l’apprentissage. Comme le soutenait Kollontaï, le communisme ne pouvait naître que dans un processus de recherches pratiques, avec des erreurs peut-être, mais à partir des forces créatrices de la classe ouvrière elle-même ».
    Tel n’était pas le point de vue des dirigeants du Parti. Ils étaient trop heureux de reprendre aux comités d’usine les pouvoirs que, dans leur for intérieur, ils ne s’étaient que résignés à leur abandonner. Lénine, dès 1918, marquait ses préférences pour la « volonté d’un seul » dans la gestion des entreprises. Les travailleurs devaient obéir « inconditionnellement » à la volonté unique des dirigeants du processus de travail. Tous les chefs bolcheviques, nous dit Kollontaï, étaient « méfiants à l’égard des capacités créatrices des collectivités ouvrières ». Au surplus l’administration était envahie par de nombreux éléments petits-bourgeois, résidus de l’ancien capitalisme russe, qui s’étaient adaptés un peu trop vite aux institutions soviétiques, s’étaient fait attribuer des postes responsables dans les divers commissariats et entendaient que la gestion économique fût confiée, non aux organisations ouvrières, mais à eux-mêmes.
    On assista à l’immixtion croissante de la bureaucratie étatique dans l’économie. Dès le 5 décembre 1917, l’industrie fut coiffée par un Conseil Supérieur de l’Économie, chargé de coordonner autoritairement l’action de tous les organes de la production. Le congrès des Conseils de l’Économie (26 mai-4 juin 1918) décida la formation de directions d’entreprise dont les deux tiers des membres seraient nommés par les conseils régionaux ou le Conseil Supérieur de l’Économie et le troisième tiers seulement élu sur place par les ouvriers. Le décret du 28 mai 1918 étendit la collectivisation à l’ensemble de l’industrie, mais, du même coup, transforma les socialisations spontanées des premiers mois de la Révolution en nationalisations. C’était le Conseil Supérieur de l’Économie qui était chargé d’organiser l’administration des entreprises nationalisées.
    Les directeurs et cadres techniques demeuraient en fonctions, en tant qu’appointés de l’État. Au IIe congrès du Conseil Supérieur de l’Économie, à la fin de 1918, les conseils d’usine furent vertement tancés par le rapporteur pour diriger pratiquement l’usine, au lieu et place du conseil d’administration.
    Des élections aux comités d’usine continuèrent, pour la façade, à avoir lieu, mais un membre de la cellule communiste donnait lecture d’une liste de candidats fabriquée à l’avance et l’on procédait au vote à main levée, en présence des « gardes communistes », armés, de l’entreprise. Quiconque se déclarait contre les candidats proposés se voyait infliger des sanctions économiques (déclassement de salaires, etc.). Comme l’expose Archinoff, il n’y eut plus qu’un seul maître omniprésent, l’État. Les rapports entre les ouvriers et ce nouveau patron redevinrent ceux qui avaient existé entre le travail et le capital. Le salariat fut restauré, à la seule différence qu’il prenait désormais le caractère d’un devoir envers l’État.
    Les soviets n’eurent plus qu’une fonction nominale. Ils furent transformés en institutions de pouvoir gouvernemental. « Vous devez devenir les cellules étatiques de base » déclara Lénine, le 27 juin 1918, au congrès des conseils d’usine. Ils furent réduits, selon les termes de Voline, au rôle d’« organes purement administratifs et exécutifs, chargés de petites besognes locales sans importance, entièrement soumis aux “directives” des autorités centrales : gouvernement et organes dirigeants du Parti ». Ils n’eurent même plus « l’ombre d’un pouvoir ». Au IIIe congrès des syndicats (avril 1920), le rapporteur, Lozovsky, avoua : « Nous avons renoncé aux vieilles méthodes de contrôle ouvrier et nous n’en avons gardé que le principe étatique. » Désormais ce « contrôle » était exercé par un organisme de l’État : l’Inspection ouvrière et paysanne.
    Les fédération d’industrie, de structure centraliste, avaient, d’abord, servi aux bolcheviks à encadrer et à subordonner les conseils d’usine, fédéralistes et libertaires par nature. Dès le 1er avril 1918, la fusion entre les deux types d’organisation était un fait accompli. Désormais les syndicats, surveillés par le parti, jouèrent un rôle disciplinaire. Celui des métallurgistes de Petrograd interdit les « initiatives désorganisatrices » des conseils d’usine et blâma leurs tendances des plus dangereuses à faire passer aux mains des travailleurs telle ou telle entreprise. C’était là, disait-on, imiter de la pire façon les coopératives de production « dont l’idée avait, depuis longtemps, fait faillite et qui ne manqueraient pas de se transformer en entreprises capitalistes ».
    « Toute entreprise laissée à l’abandon ou sabotée par un industriel, dont la production était nécessaire à l’économie nationale, devait être placée sous la gestion de l’État. Il était « inadmissible » que les travailleurs prissent en main des entreprises sans l’approbation de l’appareil syndical.
    Après cette première opération d’encadrement, les syndicats ouvriers furent, à leur tour, domestiqués, dépouillés de toute autonomie, épurés, leurs congrès différés, leurs membres arrêtés, leurs organisations dissoutes ou fusionnées en unités plus larges. Au terme de ce processus, toute orientation anarcho- syndicaliste fut anéantie, le mouvement syndical étroitement subordonné à l’État et au parti unique.
    Il en fut de même en ce qui concerne les coopératives de consommation. Au début de la Révolution, elles avaient surgi de partout, s’étaient multipliées, fédérées. Mais elles avaient le tort d’échapper au contrôle du parti et un certain nombre de social-démocrates (mencheviks) s’y étaient infiltrés. On commença par priver les magasins locaux de leurs moyens de ravitaillement et de transport, sous le prétexte de « commerce privé » et de « spéculation », ou même sans le moindre prétexte. Ensuite furent fermées d’un coup toutes les coopératives libres, et, à leur place, installées, bureaucratiquement, des coopératives d’État. Le décret du 20 mars 1919 absorba les coopératives de consommation dans le commissariat au ravitaillement et les coopératives de production industrielle dans le Conseil Supérieur de l’Économie. De nombreux coopérateurs furent jetés en prison.
    La classe ouvrière ne réagit ni assez vite ni assez vigoureusement. Elle était disséminée, isolée dans un immense pays arriéré et en grande majorité rural, épuisée par les privations et les luttes révolutionnaires, plus encore, démoralisée. Ses meilleurs éléments, enfin, l’avaient quittée pour les fronts de la guerre civile ou avaient été absorbés par l’appareil du parti et du gouvernement. Cependant assez nombreux furent les travailleurs qui se sentirent plus ou moins frustrés de leurs conquêtes révolutionnaires, privés de leurs droits, mis en tutelle, humiliés par l’arrogance ou l’arbitraire des nouveaux maîtres, et qui prirent conscience de la véritable nature du prétendu « État prolétarien ». Ainsi, au cours de l’été 1918, des ouvriers mécontents
    élurent, dans les usines de Moscou et de Petrograd, des délégués pris dans leur sein, cherchant ainsi à opposer leurs authentiques « conseils de délégués » aux soviets d’entreprises déjà captés par le pouvoir. Comme en témoigne Kollontaï, l’ouvrier sentait, voyait et comprenait qu’il était mis à l’écart. Il put comparer le mode de vie des fonctionnaires soviétiques avec la façon dont il vivait lui — lui sur lequel reposait, au moins en théorie, la « dictature du prolétariat ».
    Mais quand les travailleurs virent tout à fait clair, il était déjà trop tard. Le pouvoir avait eu le temps de s’organiser solidement et disposait de forces de répression capables de briser toute tentation d’action autonome des masses. Au dire de Voline, une lutte âpre mais inégale, qui dura quelque trois ans et resta à peu près ignorée hors de Russie, opposa une avant-garde ouvrière à un appareil étatique qui s’obstinait à nier le divorce consommé entre lui et les masses. De 1919 à 1921, les grèves se multiplièrent dans les grands centres, à Petrograd, surtout, et même à Moscou. Elles furent, comme on le verra plus loin, durement réprimées.
    A l’intérieur même du Parti dirigeant, une « Opposition ouvrière » surgit qui réclama le retour à la démocratie soviétique et à l’autogestion. Au Xe congrès du Parti, en mars 1921, l’un de ses porte-parole, Alexandra Kollontaï, distribua une brochure qui demandait pour les syndicats la liberté d’initiative et d’organisation ainsi que l’élection par un « congrès de producteurs », d’un organe central d’administration de l’économie nationale. L’opuscule fut confisqué et interdit. Lénine fit adopter par la presque unanimité des congressistes une résolution assimilant les thèses de l’Opposition ouvrière aux déviations petites-bourgeoises et anarchistes : « Le « syndicalisme », le « semi-anarchisme » des oppositionnels était, à ses yeux, un « danger direct » pour le monopole du pouvoir exercé par le Parti au nom du prolétariat.
    La lutte se poursuivit au sein de la direction de la centrale syndicale. Pour avoir soutenu l’indépendance des syndicats par rapport au Parti, Tomsky et Riazanov furent exclus du présidium et envoyés en exil, tandis que le principal dirigeant de l’Opposition ouvrière, Chliapnikov, subissait le même sort, bientôt suivi par l’animateur d’un autre groupe oppositionnel. G. I. Miasnikov. Cet authentique ouvrier, justicier en 1917 du grand-duc Michel, qui comptait quinze années de présence dans le parti et, avant la Révolution, plus de sept ans de prison et soixante-quinze jours de grève de la faim, avait osé, en novembre 1921, imprimer dans une brochure que les travailleurs avaient perdu confiance dans les communistes, parce que le Parti n’avait plus de langage commun avec la base et qu’il tournait maintenant contre la classe ouvrière les moyens de répression mis en œuvre, de 1918 à 1920, contre les bourgeois.

    LE RÔLE DES ANARCHISTES

    Dans ce drame, où une révolution de type libertaire fut transmuée en son contraire, quel rôle jouèrent les anarchistes russes ? La Russie n’avait guère de traditions libertaires. C’était à l’étranger que Bakounine et Kropotkine étaient devenus anarchistes. Ni l’un ni l’autre ne militèrent jamais comme anarchistes en Russie. Quant à leurs œuvres, elles avaient paru, au moins jusqu’à la Révolution de 1917, à l’étranger, souvent même en langue étrangère. Seuls quelques extraits en avaient été introduits clandestinement, difficilement, en Russie, en quantités très restreintes. Toute l’éducation sociale, socialiste et révolutionnaire des Russes n’avait absolument rien d’anarchiste. Tout au contraire, assure Voline, « la jeunesse russe avancée lisait une littérature qui, invariablement, présentait le socialisme sous un jour étatiste ». L’idée gouvernementale habitait les esprits : la social-démocratie allemande les avait contaminés.
    Les anarchistes n’étaient « qu’une petite poignée d’hommes sans influence » ; tout au plus quelques milliers. Leur mouvement, toujours selon Voline, était « encore bien trop faible pour avoir une influence immédiate et concrète sur les événements ». En outre, ils étaient, pour la plupart, des intellectuels, de tendances individualistes, trop peu mêlés au mouvement ouvrier. Nestor Makhno, qui, avec Voline, fit exception et, dans son Ukraine natale, œuvra au cœur des masses, écrit, sévèrement, dans ses Mémoires, que l’anarchisme russe « se trouva en queue des événements et même parfois tout à fait en dehors d’eux ».
    Pourtant il semble y avoir quelque injustice dans ce jugement. Le rôle des anarchistes ne fut nullement négligeable entre la Révolution de Février et la Révolution d’Octobre. Trotsky en convient à plusieurs reprises au cours de son Histoire de la Révolution russe. « Hardis » et « actifs » malgré leur petit nombre, ils furent des adversaires de principe de l’assemblée constituante à un moment où les bolcheviks n’étaient pas encore antiparlementaires. Bien avant le parti de Lénine, ils inscrivirent sur leurs drapeaux le mot d’ordre : Tout le pouvoir aux soviets. Ce furent eux qui animèrent le mouvement de socialisation spontanée du logement, souvent contre le gré des bolcheviks. Ce fut en partie sous l’impulsion de militants anarcho-syndicalistes que les ouvriers s’emparèrent des usines, avant même Octobre.
    Pendant les journées révolutionnaires qui mirent fin à la république bourgeoise de Kerensky, les anarchistes furent à la pointe du combat militaire, notamment au sein du régiment de Dvinsk qui, sous les ordres de vieux libertaires tels que Gratchoff et Fedotoff, délogea les « cadets » contre-révolutionnaires. Ce fut l’anarchiste Anatole Gelezniakoff, avec l’aide de son détachement, qui dispersa l’assemblée constituante : les bolcheviks ne firent que ratifier le fait accompli. De nombreux détachements de partisans, formés par des anarchistes ou conduits par eux (ceux de Mokrooussoff, de Tcherniak et autres), luttèrent sans trêve contre les armées blanches, de 1918 à 1920.
    Il n’y eut guère de ville importante qui ne comptât un groupe anarchiste ou anarcho-syndicaliste diffusant un matériel imprimé relativement considérable : journaux, magazines, tracts, brochures, livres. À Petrograd deux hebdomadaires, à Moscou un quotidien avaient un tirage de 25.000 exemplaires chacun. L’audience des anarchistes s’accrut au fur et à mesure que la Révolution s’approfondit, puis se détacha des masses.
    Le 6 avril 1918, le capitaine français Jacques Sadoul, en mission en Russie, écrivait dans un rapport : « Le parti anarchiste est le plus actif, le plus combatif des groupes de l’opposition et probablement le plus populaire (...). Les bolcheviks sont inquiets. » A la fin de 1918, affirme Voline, « cette influence devint telle que les bolcheviks, qui n’admettaient aucune critique, et encore moins une contradiction, s’inquiétèrent sérieusement ». Pour l’autorité bolchevique, rapporte Voline, « tolérer la propagande anarchiste équivalait (...) au suicide. Elle fit son possible pour empêcher d’abord, interdire ensuite, et supprimer finalement, par la force brutale toute manifestation des idées libertaires ».
    Le gouvernement bolchevique « commença par fermer brutalement les sièges des organisations libertaires, par interdire aux anarchistes toute propagande ou activité ». C’est ainsi que dans la nuit du 12 avril 1918, à Moscou, des détachements de gardes rouges, armés jusqu’aux dents, nettoyèrent, par surprise, vingt-cinq maisons occupées par les anarchistes. Ceux-ci, se croyant attaqués par des gardes blancs, ripostèrent à coups de feu. Puis, toujours selon Voline, le pouvoir passa rapidement « à des mesures plus violentes : la prison, la mise hors la loi, la mise à mort ». « Quatre ans durant, ce conflit tiendra en haleine le pouvoir bolchevique (...) jusqu’à l’écrasement définitif du courant libertaire manu militari (fin 1921). »
    La liquidation des anarchistes put être menée d’autant plus aisément qu’ils s’étaient divisés en deux fractions, l’une qui refusa d’être domestiquée, l’autre qui se laissa apprivoiser. Ces derniers invoquèrent la nécessité historique pour faire acte de loyalisme vis-à-vis du régime et approuver, au moins momentanément, ses actes dictatoriaux. Pour eux, il s’agissait, d’abord, de terminer victorieusement la guerre civile, d’écraser la contre-révolution.
    Tactique à courte vue, estimèrent les anarchistes intransigeants. Car, précisément, c’était l’impuissance bureaucratique de l’appareil gouvernemental, la déception et le mécontentement populaires qui alimentaient les mouvements contre-révolutionnaires. En outre, le pouvoir finissait par ne plus distinguer l’aile marchante de la Révolution libertaire, qui contestait ses moyens de domination, des entreprises criminelles de ses adversaires de droite. Accepter la dictature et la terreur, c’était, pour les anarchistes, qui allaient en être eux- mêmes les victimes, une politique de suicide. Enfin, le ralliement des anarchistes dits « soviétiques » facilita l’écrasement des autres, des irréductibles, qui furent traités de « faux » anarchistes, de rêveurs irresponsables n’ayant pas les pieds sur la terre, de stupides brouillons, de diviseurs, de fous furieux et, finalement, de bandits, de contre-révolutionnaires.
    Le plus brillant, donc le plus écouté, des anarchistes ralliés fut Victor-Serge. Employé du régime, il publia, en français, une brochure qui tentait de le défendre contre la critique anarchiste. Le livre qu’il écrivit plus tard, L’An I de la Révolution russe est pour une large part, une justification de la liquidation des soviets par le bolchevisme. Le parti — ou plutôt son élite dirigeante — y est présenté comme le cerveau de la classe ouvrière. C’est aux chefs dûment sélectionnés de l’avant-garde de découvrir ce que peut et doit faire le prolétariat. Sans eux les masses organisées dans les soviets ne seraient « qu’une poussière d’hommes aux aspirations confuses traversées de lueurs d’intelligence ».
    Victor-Serge était trop lucide, certes, pour se faire la moindre illusion sur la nature véritable du pouvoir soviétique Mais ce pouvoir était encore tout auréolé du prestige de la première révolution prolétarienne victorieuse ; il était honni par la contre-révolution mondiale ; et c’était une des raisons — la plus honorable — pour lesquelles Serge — comme tant d’autres révolutionnaires — crut devoir mettre un bœuf sur sa langue. Au cours de l’été 1921, il confia, dans le privé, à l’anarchiste Gaston Leval, venu à Moscou, dans la délégation espagnole, pour le IIIe congrès de l’Internationale communiste : « Le Parti communiste n’exerce plus la dictature du prolétariat mais sur le prolétariat. » De retour en France, Leval publia dans Le Libertaire des articles, où, s’appuyant sur des faits précis, il mit en parallèle ce que Victor-Serge lui avait glissé à l’oreille et ses propos publics qualifiés de « mensonges conscients ». Dans Living my Life, Emma Goldman, la libertaire américaine qui le vit à l’œuvre à Moscou, n’est pas non plus tendre pour Victor-Serge.

    LA « MAKCHNOVTCHINA »

    Si la liquidation des anarchistes urbains, petits noyaux impuissants, devait être relativement aisée, il n’en fut pas de même dans le sud de l’Ukraine où le paysan Nestor Makhno avait constitué une forte organisation anarchiste rurale, à la fois économique et militaire. Fils de paysans pauvres ukrainiens, Makhno avait vingt ans en 1919. Tout jeune, il avait participé à la Révolution de 1905 et était devenu anarchiste. Condamné à mort par le tsarisme, sa peine avait été commuée et les huit années qu’il passa, presque toujours aux fers, à la prison de Boutirki, avaient été sa seule école. Avec l’aide d’un codétenu, Pierre Archinoff, il combla, au moins en partie, les lacunes de son instruction.
    L’organisation autonome des masses paysannes dont il prit l’initiative, au lendemain d’Octobre, couvrait une région peuplée de 7 millions d’habitants, formant une sorte de cercle de 280 kilomètres de hauteur sur 250 de large. A son extrémité sud elle touchait à la mer d’Azov, où elle atteignait le port de Berdiansk. Son centre était Gulyai-Polyé, un gros bourg de 20 à 30.000 habitants. Cette région était traditionnellement rebelle. Elle avait été, en 1905, le théâtre de troubles violents.
    Tout avait commencé avec l’établissement, en Ukraine, d’un régime de droite, imposé par les armées d’occupation allemande et autrichienne et qui s’était empressé de rendre à leurs anciens propriétaires les terres que les paysans révolutionnaires venaient de leur enlever. Les travailleurs du sol défendirent leurs toutes récentes conquêtes les armes à la main. Ils les défendirent aussi bien contre la réaction que contre l’intrusion intempestive, à la campagne, des commissaires bolcheviques, et leurs trop lourdes réquisitions. Cette gigantesque jacquerie fut animée par un justicier, une sorte de Robin des Bois anarchiste, surnommé par les paysans : « Père Makhno ». Son premier fait d’armes fut la prise de Gulyai-Polyé, à la mi-septembre 1918. Mais l’armistice du 11 novembre amena le retrait des forces d’occupation germano-autrichiennes, en même temps qu’il offrit à Makhno une occasion unique de constituer des réserves d’armes et de stocks.
    Pour la première fois dans l’histoire, les principes du communisme libertaire furent mis en application dans l’Ukraine libérée et, dans la mesure où les circonstances de la guerre civile le permirent, l’autogestion pratiquée. Les terres disputées aux anciens propriétaires fonciers furent cultivées en commun par les paysans, groupés en « communes » ou « soviets de travail libres ». Les principes de fraternité et l’égalité y étaient observés. Tous, hommes, femmes, enfants devaient travailler dans la mesure de leurs forces. Les camarades élus aux fonctions de gestion, à titre temporaire, reprenaient ensuite leur travail habituel aux côtés des autres membres de la commune.
    Chaque soviet n’était que l’exécuteur des volontés des paysans de la localité qui l’avait élu. Les unités de production étaient fédérées en districts et les districts en régions. Les soviets étaient intégrés dans un système économique d’ensemble, basé sur l’égalité sociale. Ils devaient être absolument indépendants de tout parti politique. Aucun politicien ne devait y dicter ses volontés sous le couvert du pouvoir soviétique. Leurs membres devaient être des travailleurs authentiques, au service exclusif des intérêts des masses laborieuses.
    Lorsque les partisans makhnovistes pénétraient dans une localité, ils apposaient des affiches où l’on pouvait lire : « La liberté des paysans et des ouvriers appartient à eux-mêmes et ne saurait souffrir aucune restriction. C’est aux paysans et aux ouvriers eux-mêmes d’agir, de s’organiser, de s’entendre entre eux dans tous les domaines de leur vie, comme ils le conçoivent eux-mêmes et comme ils le veulent (...). Les makhnovistes ne peuvent que les aider, leur donnant tel ou tel avis ou conseil (...). Mais ils ne peuvent ni ne veulent en aucun cas les gouverner. »
    Quand, plus tard, à l’automne de 1920, les hommes de Makhno furent amenés à conclure, d’égal à égal, un accord éphémère avec le pouvoir bolchevique, ils insistèrent pour l’adoption de l’additif suivant : « Dans la région où opérera l’armée makhnoviste, la population ouvrière et paysanne créera ses institutions libres pour l’autoadministration économique et politique ; ces institutions seront autonomes et liées fédérativement — par pactes — avec les organes gouvernementaux des Républiques soviétiques. » Abasourdis, les négociateurs bolcheviques disjoignirent cet additif de l’accord, afin d’en référer à Moscou, où, bien entendu, il fut jugé « absolument inadmissible ».
    Une des faiblesses relatives du mouvement makhnoviste était l’insuffisance d’intellectuels libertaires dans son sein. Mais, au moins par intermittence, il fut aidé, du dehors. Tout d’abord, de Kharkov et de Koursk, par les anarchistes qui, à la fin de 1918, avaient fusionné en un cartel dit Nabat (le Tocsin), animé par Voline. En avril 1919, ils tinrent un congrès où ils se prononcèrent « catégoriquement et définitivement contre toute participation aux soviets, devenus des organismes purement politiques, organisés sur une base autoritaire, centraliste, étatique ». Ce manifeste fut considéré par le gouvernement bolchevique comme une déclaration de guerre et le Nabat dut cesser toute activité. Par la suite, en juillet, Voline réussit à rejoindre le quartier général de Makhno où, de concert avec Pierre Archinoff, il prit en charge la section culturelle et éducative du mouvement. Il présida un de ses congrès, celui tenu en octobre, à Alexandrovsk. Des Thèses générales précisant la doctrine des « soviets libres » y furent adoptées.
    Les congrès groupaient à la fois des délégués des paysans et des délégués des partisans. En effet, l’organisation civile était le prolongement d’une armée insurrectionnelle paysanne, pratiquant la tactique de la guérilla. Elle était remarquablement mobile, capable de parcourir jusqu’à cent kilomètres par jour, non seulement du fait de sa cavalerie, mais grâce aussi à son infanterie qui se déplaçait dans de légères voitures hippomobiles, à ressorts. Cette armée était organisée sur les bases, spécifiquement libertaires du volontariat, du principe électif, en vigueur pour tous les grades, et de la discipline librement consentie : les règles de cette dernière, élaborées par des commissions de partisans, mis validées par des assemblées générales, étaient rigoureusement observées par tous.
    Les corps francs de Makhno donnèrent du fil à retordre aux armées « blanches » interventionnistes. Quant aux unités de gardes-rouges des bolcheviks, elles étaient assez peu efficaces. Elles se battaient seulement le long des voies ferrées sans jamais s’éloigner de leurs trains blindés, se repliant au premier échec, s’abstenant souvent de rembarquer leurs propres combattants. Aussi inspiraient-elles peu de confiance aux paysans qui, isolés dans leurs villages et privés d’armes, eussent été à la merci des contre-révolutionnaires.
    « L’honneur d’avoir anéanti, en automne de l’année 1919, la contre-révolution de Denikine revient principalement aux insurgés anarchistes », écrit Archinoff, le mémorialiste de la makhnovtchina.
    Mais Makhno refusa toujours de placer son armée sous le commandement suprême de Trotsky, chef de l’Armée Rouge, après la fusion dans cette dernière des unités de gardes-rouges. Aussi le grand révolutionnaire crut-il devoir s’acharner contre le mouvement insurrectionnel. Le 4 juin 1919, il rédigea un ordre, par lequel il interdit le prochain congrès des makhnovistes, accusés de se dresser contre le pouvoir des Soviets en Ukraine, stigmatisa toute participation au congrès comme un acte de « haute trahison » et prescrivit l’arrestation de ses délégués. Inaugurant une procédure qu’imiteront, dix-huit ans plus tard, les staliniens espagnols contre les brigades anarchistes, il refusa des armes aux partisans de Makhno, se dérobant au devoir de leur porter assistance, pour ensuite les accuser de trahir et de se laisser battre par les troupes blanches.
    Cependant les deux armées se retrouvèrent d’accord, par deux fois, lorsque la gravité du péril interventionniste exigea leur action commune, ce qui se produisit, d’abord, en mars 1919 contre Denikine, puis au cours de l’été et de l’automne 1920, quand menacèrent les forces blanches de Wrangel que, finalement, Makhno détruisit. Mais, aussitôt le danger extrême conjuré, l’Armée Rouge reprenait les opérations militaires contre les partisans de Makhno, qui lui rendaient coup pour coup.
    A la fin de novembre 1920, le pouvoir n’hésita pas à organiser un guet-apens. Les officiers de l’armée makhnoviste de Crimée furent invités par les bolcheviks à participer à un conseil militaire. Ils y furent aussitôt arrêtés par la police politique, la Tchéka, et fusillés, leurs partisans désarmés. En même temps une offensive en règle était lancée contre Gulyai-Polyé. La lutte — une lutte de plus en plus inégale — entre libertaires et « autoritaires » dura encore neuf mois. Mais, à la fin, mis hors de combat par des forces très supérieures en nombre et mieux équipées, Makhno dut abandonner la partie. Il réussit à se réfugier en Roumanie en août 1921, puis à gagner Paris, où il mourut plus tard, malade et indigent. Ainsi se terminait l’épopée de la makhnovtchina, prototype, selon Pierre Archinoff, d’un mouvement indépendant des masses laborieuses et, de ce fait, source d’inspiration future pour les travailleurs du monde.

    CRONSTADT

    Les aspirations des paysans révolutionnaires makhnovistes étaient assez semblables à celles qui poussèrent conjointement à la révolte, en février-mars 1921, les ouvriers de Petrograd et les matelots de la forteresse de Cronstadt. Les travailleurs urbains souffraient, à la fois, de conditions matérielles devenues intolérables du fait de la pénurie de vivres, de combustibles, de moyens de transport et d’un régime de plus en plus dictatorial et totalitaire, qui écrasait la moindre manifestation de mécontentement. A fin février, des grèves éclatèrent à Petrograd, Moscou et dans quelques autres centres industriels. Les travailleurs, marchant d’une entreprise à l’autre, fermant les usines, attirant dans leurs cortèges de nouveaux contingents d’ouvriers, réclamaient pain et liberté. Le pouvoir répondit par une fusillade, les travailleurs de Petrograd par un meeting de protestation, qui rassembla 10.000 ouvriers.
    Cronstadt était une base navale insulaire, à trente kilomètres de Petrograd, dans le golfe de Finlande, gelé en hiver. Elle était peuplée de matelots et de plusieurs milliers d’ouvriers occupés dans les arsenaux de la marine militaire. Les marins de Cronstadt avaient joué un rôle d’avant-garde dans les péripéties révolutionnaires de 1917. Ils avaient été, selon les termes de Trotsky « l’orgueil et la gloire de la Révolution russe ». Les habitants civils de Cronstadt formaient une commune libre, relativement indépendante du pouvoir. Au centre de la forteresse une immense place publique jouait le rôle d’un forum populaire pouvant contenir 30.000 personnes.
    Certes, les matelots n’avaient plus, en 1921, les mêmes effectifs ni la même composition révolutionnaire qu’en 1917 ; ils étaient, bien plus que leurs prédécesseurs, issus de la paysannerie ; mais ils avaient conservé l’esprit militant et, du fait de leurs performances antérieures, le droit de participer activement aux réunions ouvrières de Petrograd. Aussi envoyèrent-ils aux travailleurs en grève de l’ancienne capitale des émissaires, qui furent refoulés par les forces de l’ordre. Au cours de deux meetings de masses tenus sur le forum, ils reprirent à leur compte les revendications des grévistes. A la seconde réunion, le 1er mars, ils étaient 16.000 présents, marins, travailleurs et soldats, et nonobstant la présence du chef de l’État, le président de l’exécutif central, Kalinine, ils adoptèrent une résolution demandant la convocation, en dehors des partis politiques, dans les dix jours suivants, d’une conférence des ouvriers, soldats rouges et marins de Petrograd, de Cronstadt et de la province de Petrograd. En même temps ils exigeaient l’abolition des « officiers politiques », aucun parti politique ne devant avoir de privilèges, ainsi que la suppression des détachements communistes de choc dans l’armée et de la « garde communiste » dans les usines.
    C’était bel et bien le monopole du parti dirigeant qui était visé. Un monopole que les rebelles de Cronstadt n’hésitaient pas à qualifier d’« usurpation ». Feuilletons, pour le résumer, le journal officiel de cette nouvelle Commune, les Izvestia de Cronstadt. Laissons parler les matelots en colère. Le Parti communiste, après s’être arrogé le pouvoir, n’avait, selon eux, qu’un souci : le conserver par n’importe quel moyen. Il s’était détaché des masses. Il s’était révélé impuissant à tirer le pays d un état de débâcle générale. Il avait perdu la confiance des ouvriers. Il était devenu bureaucratique. Les soviets, dépouillés de leur pouvoir, étaient falsifiés, accaparés et manipulés, les syndicats étatisés. Une machine policière omnipotente pesait sur le peuple, dictant sa loi par des fusillades et la pratique de la terreur. Sur le plan économique régnait, au lieu et place du socialisme annoncé, basé sur le travail libre, un dur capitalisme d’État. Les ouvriers étaient de simples salariés de ce trust national, des exploités, tout comme naguère. Les sacrilèges de Cronstadt allaient jusqu’à contester l’infaillibilité des chefs suprêmes de la Révolution. Ils se gaussaient, avec irrévérence, de Trotsky, et même, de Lénine. Au-delà de leurs revendications immédiates : restauration des libertés, élections libres à tous les organes de la démocratie soviétique, ils visaient un objectif d’une portée plus lointaine et d’un contenu nettement anarchiste : une « troisième Révolution. »
    Les rebelles, en effet, entendaient demeurer sur le terrain révolutionnaire. Ils s’engageaient à veiller sur les conquêtes de la révolution sociale. Ils affirmaient n’avoir rien de commun avec ceux qui auraient voulu « rétablir le knout du tsarisme », et, s’ils ne cachaient pas leur intention de renverser le pouvoir des « communistes », ce n’était pas pour que « les ouvriers et les paysans redeviennent esclaves ». Ils ne coupaient pas non plus tous les ponts entre eux et le régime, avec lequel ils espéraient encore « pouvoir trouver un langage commun ». Enfin, s’ils réclamaient la liberté d’expression, ce n’était pas pour n’importe qui, mais seulement pour des partisans sincères de la Révolution : anarchistes et « socialistes de gauche » (formule qui excluait les social-démocrates ou mencheviks).
    Mais l’audace de Cronstadt allait beaucoup plus loin que ne le pouvaient supporter un Lénine, un Trotsky. Les chefs bolcheviks avaient identifié, une fois pour toutes, la Révolution avec le Parti communiste et tout ce qui allait à l’encontre de ce mythe ne pouvait être, à leurs yeux, que « contre-révolutionnaire ». Ils virent toute l’orthodoxie marxiste-léniniste s’effilocher. Cronstadt leur parut d’autant plus effrayant qu’ils gouvernaient au nom du prolétariat et que, soudain, leur pouvoir était contesté par un mouvement qu’ils savaient authentiquement prolétarien. Au surplus, Lénine s’en tenait à la notion quelque peu simpliste qu’une restauration tsariste était la seule alternative à la dictature de son Parti. Les hommes d’État du Kremlin de 1921 raisonnèrent comme, plus tard, ceux de l’automne 1956 : Cronstadt fut la préfiguration de Budapest.
    Trotsky, l’homme « à la poigne de fer », accepta de prendre personnellement la responsabilité de la répression. « Si vous persistez, on vous canardera comme des perdreaux », fit-il savoir, par la voie des ondes, aux « mutins ». Les matelots furent traités de « blanc-gardistes », de complices des puissances occidentales interventionnistes et de la « Bourse de Paris ». Leur soumission serait obtenue par la force des armes. Ce fut sans succès que les anarchistes Emma Goldman et Alexandre Berkman, qui avaient trouvé asile dans la patrie des travailleurs, après avoir été déportés des États-Unis, firent valoir, dans une lettre pathétique adressée à Zinoviev, que l’usage de la force ferait « un tort incalculable à la Révolution sociale » et adjurèrent les « camarades bolcheviks » de régler le conflit par une négociation fraternelle. Quant aux ouvriers de Petrograd terrorisés, soumis à la loi martiale, ils ne purent se porter au secours de Cronstadt.
    Un ancien officier tsariste, le futur maréchal Toukhatchevsky, fut chargé de commander un corps expéditionnaire composé de troupes qu’il avait fallu trier sur le volet, car nombre de soldats rouges répugnaient à tirer sur leurs frères de classes. Le 7 mars commença le bombardement de la forteresse. Sous le titre : « Que le monde sache ! » les assiégés lancèrent un appel ultime : « Le sang des innocents retombera sur la tête des communistes, fous furieux enivrés par le pouvoir. Vive le pouvoir des Soviets ! » Se déplaçant sur la glace du golfe de Finlande, les assiégeants réduisirent, le 18 mars, la « rébellion », dans une orgie de massacres.
    Les anarchistes n’avaient guère joué de rôle dans l’affaire. Cependant le comité révolutionnaire de Cronstadt avait invité à le rejoindre deux libertaires : Yartchouk (animateur du soviet de Cronstadt en 1917) et Voline ; en vain, car ils étaient, à ce moment, détenus par les bolcheviks. Comme l’observe Ida Mett, historienne de La Révolte de Cronstadt, l’influence anarchiste ne s’y exercera « que dans la mesure où l’anarchisme propageait lui aussi l’idée de la démocratie ouvrière ». Mais, s’ils n’intervinrent pas directement dans l’événement, les anarchistes s’en réclamèrent : « Cronstadt, écrivit plus tard Voline, fut la première tentative populaire entièrement indépendante pour se libérer de tout joug et réaliser la Révolution sociale : tentative faite directement, (...) par les masses laborieuses elles-mêmes, sans « bergers politiques », sans « chefs » ni « tuteurs ». Et Alexandre Berkman : « Cronstadt fit voler en éclats le mythe de l’État prolétarien ; il apporta la preuve qu’il y avait incompatibilité entre la dictature du Parti communiste et la Révolution. »

    L’ANARCHISME MORT ET VIVANT

    Bien que les anarchistes n’aient pas joué un rôle direct dans le soulèvement de Cronstadt, le régime profita de cet écrasement pour en finir avec une idéologie qui continuait à les effrayer. Quelques semaines plus tôt, le 8 février, le vieux Kropotkine était mort sur le sol russe, et sa dépouille avait été l’objet de funérailles imposantes. Elle fut suivie par un immense convoi d’environ cent mille personnes. Mêlés aux drapeaux rouges, les drapeaux noirs des groupes anarchistes flottaient au-dessus de la foule et l’on pouvait y lire en lettres de feu : « Où il y a autorité il n’y a pas de liberté. » Ce fut, racontent les biographes du disparu, « la dernière grande manifestation contre la tyrannie bolchevique et bien des gens y prenaient part autant pour réclamer la liberté que pour rendre hommage au grand anarchiste ».
    Après Cronstadt, des centaines d’anarchistes furent arrêtés. Quelques mois plus tard, une libertaire, Fanny Baron, et huit de ses camarades, devaient être fusillés dans les caves de la prison de la Tchéka, à Moscou.
    L’anarchisme militant avait reçu le coup de grâce. Mais, hors de Russie, les anarchistes qui avaient vécu la Révolution russe entreprirent le vaste travail de critique et de révision doctrinales qui revigora et rendit plus concrète la pensée libertaire. Dès le début de septembre 1920, le congrès du cartel anarchiste d’Ukraine, dit Nabat, avait rejeté catégoriquement l’expression « dictature du prolétariat » qu’il voyait conduire fatalement à la dictature sur la masse d’une fraction du prolétariat, celle retranchée dans le Parti, des fonctionnaires et d’une poignée de chefs. Peu avant de disparaître, dans un Message aux travailleurs d’Occident, Kropotkine avait dénoncé avec angoisse la montée d’une « formidable bureaucratie » : « Pour moi, cette tentative d’édifier une république communiste sur des bases étatistes fortement centralisées, sous la loi de fer de la dictature d’un parti, s’est achevée en un fiasco formidable. La Russie nous enseigne comment ne doit pas s’imposer le communisme. »
    Dans son numéro des 7-14 janvier 1921, le journal français Le Libertaire faisait publier un appel pathétique des anarcho-syndicalistes russes au prolétariat mondial : « Camarades, mettez fin à la domination de votre bourgeoisie tout comme nous l’avons fait ici. Mais ne répétez pas nos erreurs : ne laissez pas le communisme d’État s’établir dans vos pays ! »
    Sur cette lancée, l’anarchiste allemand Rudolf Rocker rédigea, dès 1920, et publia, en 1921, La Banqueroute du Communisme d’État, la première analyse politique qui ait été faite de la dégénérescence de la Révolution russe. A ses yeux, ce n’était pas la volonté d’une classe qui trouvait son expression dans la fameuse « dictature du prolétariat », mais la dictature d’un parti prétendant parler au nom d’une classe et s’appuyant sur la force des baïonnettes. « Sous la dictature du prolétariat s’est développée en Russie une nouvelle classe, la commissarocratie, dont l’oppression est ressentie par les larges masses tout autant que jadis celle des tenants de l’ancien régime. » En subordonnant systématiquement tous les éléments de la vie sociale à la toute-puissance d’un gouvernement doté de toutes les prérogatives, « on ne pouvait qu’aboutir à cette hiérarchie de fonctionnaires qui fut fatale à l’évolution de la Révolution russe. » Les bolcheviks n’ont pas seulement emprunté l’appareil de l’État à l’ancienne société, ils lui ont donné une toute-puissance que ne s’arroge aucun autre gouvernement. »
    En juin 1922, le groupe des anarchistes russes exilés en Allemagne, sous la plume de A. Gorielik, A. Komoff et Voline, publia à Berlin un petit livre révélateur : Répression de l’anarchisme en Russie soviétique. Une traduction française, due à Voline, en parut au début de 1923. On y trouvait, classé alphabétiquement, un martyrologe de l’anarchisme russe. Alexandre Berkman, en 1921 et 1922, Emma Goldman, en 1922 et 1923, publièrent coup sur coup plusieurs brochures sur les drames auxquels ils avaient assisté en Russie. A leur tour, les rescapés du makhnovisme réfugiés en Occident, Pierre Archinoff et Nestor Makhno lui-même, produisirent leurs témoignages. Beaucoup plus tard, au cours de la deuxième guerre mondiale, furent rédigés, avec la maturité d’esprit que conférait le recul des années, les deux grands ouvrages libertaires classiques sur la Révolution russe, celui de G.P. Maximoff, celui de Voline.
    Pour Maximoff, dont le témoignage a paru en langue anglaise, les leçons du passé apportent la certitude d’un avenir meilleur. La nouvelle classe dominante de l’U.R.S.S. ne peut et ne doit vivre éternellement. Le socialisme libertaire lui succédera. Les conditions objectives poussent à cette évolution : « Est-il concevable (.. ) que les travailleurs veuillent le retour des capitalistes dans les entreprises ? Jamais ! Car c’est précisément contre l’exploitation par l’État et ses bureaucrates qu’ils se rebellent. » Ce que les travailleurs veulent, c’est remplacer cette gestion autoritaire de la production par leurs propres conseils d’usine, c’est unir les conseils en une vaste fédération nationale. Ce qu’ils veulent, c’est l’autogestion ouvrière. De même les paysans ont compris qu’il ne saurait être question de revenir à l’économie individuelle. La seule solution, c’est l’agriculture collective, la collaboration des collectivités rurales avec les conseils d’usine et les syndicats : en un mot, l’expansion du programme de la Révolution d’Octobre dans la liberté.
    Toute tentative inspirée de l’exemple russe, affirme hautement Voline, ne pourrait aboutir qu’à un « capitalisme d’État basé sur une odieuse exploitation des masses », le « pire des capitalismes et qui n’a absolument aucun rapport avec la marche de l’humanité vers la société socialiste ». Elle ne pourrait que promouvoir « la dictature d’un parti qui aboutit fatalement à la Répression de toute liberté de parole, de presse, d’organisation et d’action, même pour les courants révolutionnaires, sauf pour le parti au pouvoir », qu’à une « inquisition sociale » qui étouffe « le souffle même de la Révolution ». Et Voline de soutenir que Staline « n’est pas tombé de la lune ». Staline et le stalinisme ne sont, à ses yeux, que la conséquence logique du système autoritaire fondé et établi de 1918 à 1921. « Telle est la leçon mondiale de la formidable et décisive expérience bolchevique : leçon qui fournit un puissant appui à la thèse libertaire et qui sera bientôt, à la lumière des événements, comprise par tous ceux qui peinent, souffrent, pensent et luttent. »

    Extrait de "L’anarchisme" de Daniel Guérin,1965.
    http://inventin.lautre.net/livres.html#Guerin