On healthy scepticism and obsessive looking for conspiracies
Once upon a time, one Czesław Miłosz wrote about Józef Mackiewicz:
We cannot treat seriously everything written by Mackiewicz, the anti-Communist. Some of his essays are obsessive and bordering on paranoia, following a well known pattern of sniffing for agents everywhere, even in the Vatican. When embarking on a compilation of his political writings one would do well to remember that he paid with fantasies and even insanity for constancy of his views.
Every part of the above is incorrect but we wouldn’t expect anything else from an apologist of “polish people’s republic”. I do not intend to dignify it with a polemic, it’s enough to say that Miłosz paid with that kind of gibberish for lack of any views whatsoever so what’s there to discuss? What interests me here is the accusation – often repeated – that Mackiewicz “looked for conspiracies”. In reality, Mackiewicz observed, compared, questioned and tried to formulate answers. Is this not a duty of every intellectual? Perhaps not of intellectuals like Miłosz – they prefer to sniff where the wind is blowing from and take up the most convenient position – but real intellectuals, those who see understanding of the world around us as a noble obligation. In line with this calling, Mackiewicz observed; he watched, for instance, how free human beings freely acted in the interests of the greatest enemy of freedom. He compared, for example, the glorification of bolshevik criminals in the free world with the infamy of the Nazis. He posed the question: how could that be? Then he formulated a hypothesis: could it be a plague?
A good example of his method is his long lasting enquiry into the strange case of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Mackiewicz was initially of the opinion that Solzhenitsyn wrote in response to party’s request. As time passed he became even more critical, stating that a book such as One Day in Life of Ivan Denisovich implies a fundamental falsehood, since if one is allowed to speak about labour camps they must belong to the past; so, intentionally or not, Solzhenitsyn served the purpose of communist propaganda. Increasing indulgence shown by the authorities to Solzhenitsyn seemed in direct proportion to the radicalisation of his antisoviet rethoric. The First Circle left Mackiewicz with a “powerful holistic image of horrifying, perfidious, grim, deceitful and hopeless sovietism…” so he admitted to some puzzlement. He quoted many hypotheses, among others the famous theory of Nikolai Ulianov that Solzhenitsyn did not exist at all, but he rejected them all. The GULag Archipelago complicated matters further since it was a “well aimed blow in the teeth of bolshevism, sovietism, communism, socialism in every form.” Why would Moscow be so strangely lenient? After getting the Nobel Prize for Literature Solzhenitsyn was “punished” with banishment and his pronouncements in the West attracted attention to an element less obvious in his books.
One of the most widely known authors in the world, not a pro-soviet writer, on the contrary, author of ‘The GULag Archipelago’ exclaims: do not touch the Soviet Union, do not try to destroy the Soviet system, whether by internal counterrevolution or external military force. Give them Peace. And wait until a ‘moral revolution’ triggers an ‘ethical rebirth’. I say this not from a propaganda tribune but from behind the barb wires of GULag!
Mackiewicz hypothesised that Solzhenitsyn became unintentionally an important tool of soviet provocation:
…more convincing the anticommunist stance of the preacher, the more effective the propaganda value of the final call: ‘do not, under any circumstances, fight communism’.
In an instant he was accused of obsession and insanity. It’s worth stressing though, that he only pointed out how an authentic anticommunist, like Solzhenitsyn, could be harnessed to the chariot of soviet provocation. Mackiewicz did not expect to find conspiracy, he merely tried to find answers to important questions, but when he arrived at a conclusion that he was dealing with a conspiracy he did not hesitate to name it. He acted in a similar manner when in 1943 he was invited to see the exhumation of graves in Katyń. He spoke to criminologists before he travelled to Katyń and thus was able to ask the inconvenient question regarding the origin of ammunition used in executions. The ammunition was German, which Goebbels’s propaganda machine tried to hide. I’m only interested here in Mackiewicz’s attitude, which could be summarised in the principle that healthy scepticism can only bring us closer to the truth.
Obviously, I am getting to the plane crash near Smolensk.
I am not surprised at the number of conspiracy theories, I’m not shocked with accusations that soviets “committed another mass murder on Poles”; I just cannot see any proof for these suspicions. Would soviets be capable of such a crime? Without a doubt. They have the knowhow and the political will to undertake that kind of operation. Putin’s men were ready to blow up their own citizens to strengthen his grip on power, why should they waver before killing 96 foreign citizens? However, the ability to complete an action does not prove that the action was completed. History knows examples of accidents less probable than a plane crash-landing in fog.
I admit that I have not studied the extensive literature attempting to prove the exact opposite but it all seems to me to be just that, i.e. literature, fiction. Having said that, there are still many unanswered questions regarding the causes of the crash and the sequence of events, as well as events immediately after the crash. In most civilised states, the hosts would be vitally interested in quick dispelling of any suspicions but soviets are not a state at all and surely not civilised, so they seem to be doing all within their powers to blow up the suspicions. It is possible that some conclusive evidence of the involvement of soviet special forces in the crash is going to come to light in the future but, bearing in mind the total soviet monopoly on any information regarding this case, I would be inclined to scepticism with regards to such news because soviets are past masters of manipulation – which makes it even more important to inquire about the causes of their odd behaviour.
Let’s examine their modus operandi. How did the soviet propaganda machine react to the accusation of Katyń murders? They denied it for half a century, they muddied the waters, they threw counteraccusations (Józef Mackiewicz was an expert of this long lasting propaganda war). How did Putin react to the accusations that he arranged the bomb attacks and especially the abortive attack in Riazan in September 1999? Those asking inconvenient questions were silenced, witnesses disappeared, journalists and politicians died in unexplained circumstances and the records of “Riazan training exercises” were made secret for the next 75 years.
And how did the soviets react to the Smolensk crash? In my opinion they are doing everything they can to rouse as much conspiracy speculation as possible. But why? An article by one Georgi Gordin has recently been circulating in the blogosphere. This is how he interprets the case:
It is well known that the “investigation” into the disaster is directed by the same people who organised the crash and had sent the special forces to “clean up” the area of survivors. “Results of investigation” conducted by people whose main task was to cover up evidence, is predictable. When killers are in charge of investigation the perpetrators are likely to remain undetected. [1]
What we have here is a classic method of soviet agit-prop: the thesis, which one would normally need to prove, is actually used as the minor premise; we thus have “people who organised the crash” and “cleaned up the area of survivors”, as proof that the investigation is spurious. I do not need to add that “Gordin” is a pseudonym, so we have no more than an anonymous statement. “Gordin” looks very much like a rerun of the “masked witness” who was paraded before the US Congress Committee investigating the Katyń Forest Massacre so we must be sceptical as to such “revelations”.
We have on one hand well founded doubts whether the crash was really an accident, on the other, no reliable information from the soviets. We can easily imagine that such information vacuum can only be filled with speculation so it is legitimate to suspect that this speculation is what the soviets wanted. But why? Why would they add fuel to the fire that was likely to burn anyway? How can they possibly benefit? Conspiracy theories would have cropped up even if the investigation was conducted in most open manner, even if the content of the black box was published immediately etc. The public reaction in Poland was the easiest to predict: universal mourning and elevation of Lech Kaczyński to the level of a national hero and a martyr, regardless of the fact that he took part in the Magdalenka talks in 1988-89 (i.e. secret talks with communists, which laid the foundations for the false revolutions in Eastern Europe). My first reaction to the catastrophe was that it will further muddy the waters – already hopelessly muddied – of the alleged sovereignty of contemporary Poland and this seems to have happened. Even the excellent Jadwiga Chmielowska, who until recently had no qualms about calling today’s “polish people’s republic no 2” by its proper name, decided that yours truly must be a mole… Well, I’m in The Underground – what else is left for me to do? But in my eyes attack on the current “polish people’s republic” cannot amount to an attack on Poland because that would be a contradiction in terms. The “state” of which Lech Kaczyński was a president, is no more than a continuation of the earlier soviet creation, so if it is true that the soviets murdered all passengers of the presidential plane, than we must ask: to what purpose? Perhaps we could find an answer in “Gordin’s” essay?
Lech Kaczynski was relatively safe, as long as Putin did not pick a “Polish Yanukovych” – the moronic “friend of Russia”, Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk. From that moment on, the chekist leadership could think of only one thing: how to clear the way for its puppet or someone similar from the same group of “friends of Russia.” […]
And none of the self-satisfied middle-class will remember the true face of Putin when, in a fit of unconcealed rage, he promised to “hang by the balls,” the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. He said this in the presence of Western leaders. No one will remember Putin’s sincere regret that he failed to poison Viktor Yushchenko, president of Ukraine – a country which, according to Putin’s public statement, “does not exist.”
Let’s leave aside the thesis that Kaczyński’s murder would somehow clear the way for Tusk, as this is indeed too absurd: Kaczyński was not a favourite to win the forthcoming presidential election, and now his brother is. “Gordin” is attempting to smuggle a different hypothesis here, namely, that the 1989-91 revolutions – together with the later pink, orange or chartreuse revolutions – were authentic events; that as a result of all those colourful revolutionary movements emerged a free Georgia and a free Ukraine, which are both hostile to Putin’s “Russia”. In reality, these are creatures of the same nature as the “polish people’s republic no 2”, with limited sovereignty replicating the template of the famous “układ” [2] created in Magdalenka in 1989. It is true to say that Lech Kaczyński was a critic of the “układ” but he also happened to be its … signatory, which perhaps explains why he did so little to destroy it. When Putin speaks publicly about Saakashvili or Yushchenko, he is well aware of the impact his words will have: they will strengthen the impression of their independence. This is the same old formula as used by soviets many times before; the same method was used by Khrushchev to build the myth of Gomułka’s independence and again by Brezhnev with Ceausescu.
In the contemporary version of the soviet union, which for some inexplicable reason everyone wishes to call “Russia”, we have a creature ready to assassinate 96 passengers of a plane but, by the same token, equally ready to take advantage of an accident. I have no idea whether this was an accident or a cold blooded murder, so I keep an open mind. More important to my way of thinking is the analysis of potential benefits soviets could reap from this situation regardless of whether they perpetrated the act or not. It is my duty to point out that elevation of a signatory of the infamous “układ” to the role of a national saint cannot possibly damage the soviet cause, just as anticommunist statements of Solzhenitsyn could not harm them that much.
Nothing other than healthy scepticism tells me that I ought not to believe in the “collapse of communism” malarkey, tells me to be cautious with regards to “former” apparatchiks parading as anticommunists. Scepticism is a rational stance, it is an essential frame of mind for anyone who wishes to verify any hypothesis. A thinking man must be sceptical whenever confronted with any hypothesis. Thanks to our sceptical approach we can state that there are enough clues suggesting that Storm in Moscow was an intricately planned and clumsily executed kgb operation aimed at fanning the flames of conflict in the Caucasus and the elevation of a kgb officer to the role of “Russian president”. The same scepticism, which informs my cautiousness towards alleged anticommunism of people such as Yushchenko, tells me to be wary of the Smolensk catastrophe.
________
- http://www.obnie.info/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=976:smolensk-gieorgij-gordin&catid=128:analizy-po-wypadku&Itemid=77 I could not find “Gordin’s” text in proper English translation only in googledegook, as it were.
- The Polish word “układ” is very difficult to translate. It is usually translated as “arrangement” but this does not render the multilayered and slightly sinister meaning of the original.