Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Rousseau's counsel to the Poles

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:46am - 33 Comments

“POLAND is a large state surrounded by even more considerable states which, by reason of their despotism and military discipline, have great offensive power. Herself weakened by anarchy, she is, in spite of Polish valour, exposed to all their insults. She has no strongholds to stop their incursions…

“In the present state of affairs, I can see only one way to give her the stability she lacks: it is to infuse, so to speak, the spirit of the Confederation throughout the nation; it is to establish the Republic so firmly in the hearts of the Poles that she will maintain her existence there in spite of all the efforts of her oppressors…. You may not prevent them from swallowing you up; see to it at least that they will not be able to digest you.”

— Considerations on the Government of Poland and on its Proposed Reformation, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1772

Twenty years ago tomorrow, the Polish people broke Moscow’s teeth for good. I’ll be writing more about that great moment later today.

Tags: Poland, Rousseau, w samo poludnie

More by Paul Wells

parched husk

Broke Moscow's teeth for good? Jesus, Wells. If you want to say, broke Jaruzelski's teeth for good or something, fine. By June '89 when the semi-free elections took place, Gorbachev had long since articulated his policy of relinquishing control over the satellites, and was in any case preoccupied with domestic reforms.

Jaruzelski did phone Gorbachev about what to do, after the election, but was told curtly that the results must stand. This idea that the Poles somehow defied Moscow in running their elections is understandably how the Poles would like to imagine their own history, but is not borne out by historical fact.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jarrid jarrid

It ended in 1989 in Moscow, but it started in September 1980 in the Gdansk Shipyard, in Poland, not Moscow.

The events in Poland precipitated and gave momentum to the fall of the entire Communist bloc; the Yalta arrangement
collapsed soon after the events in Poland.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jarrid jarrid

It ended in 1989 in Moscow, but it started in September 1980 in the Gdansk Shipyard, in Poland, not Moscow.

The events in Poland precipitated and gave momentum to the fall of the entire Communist bloc.

The Yalta arrangement collapsed soon after the events in Poland.

parched husk

Why not in Budapest in 1956 or Prague in 1968? After all, why not in Moscow itself in 1985 when Gorbachev was elected General Secretary?

Why were the Polish events so important, to the exclusion of the others?

http://intensedebate.com/people/jarrid jarrid

Budapest 1956 was the beginning of the end? I don't think so.

Prague 1968? I've heard of the Prague spring, but not summer, fall, winter.

Poland was the beginning of the end communism's grip on Europe and I don't know of any reputable commentators who say otherwise.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

You're suggesting that if the USSR hadn't gone bankrupt, Solidarity would have ended up overthrowing Communism? How exactly would the workers have stood up to Soviet armoured divisions? "Soul power"?
Lord Kitchener's Own

Do you think the Soviet Union could have used armoured divisions to crush Poland in the 1980's? I mean, politically, of course. Clearly they were militarily capable of doing so, but do you really think they would have? I think an argument could be made that beating Solidarity with tanks might have even led to a more rapid decline of Soviet communism than actually losing to Solidarity did.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

Why would Russian soldiers have refused to fire on despised foreigners classed as anti-Russian? Would the Red Army officers have refused to shoot 1000 workers as an example?

I guess what I find hard to grasp is this idea that "soul power" is enough to stop foreign armies that care nothing about public opinion. It certainly wasn't enough in the 1940's, or in 1956, or in 1968, or in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
Lord Kitchener's Own

No, you could be right, and I didn't mean to suggest Russian soldiers would disobey orders, I'm just less sure the orders would have been given. I guess to the historical analogies I would just say that the 40s 50s and 60s aren't the 80s, and as for the 80s, Afghanistan ain't Poland.

I just can't see the leadership of the Soviet Union saying "let's invade and crush Poland, 'cause that's a good idea!".
http://intensedebate.com/people/jarrid jarrid

There was more than one cause. But the Poles' courage inspired the world and gave a moral high ground to those who opposed communism. Seeing being run over by tanks showed communism true oppresive nature. It made communism less fashionable you might say. (It didn't stop Pierre Trudeau from defending martial law in Poland mind you.)

And you're right, there was more than one cause. The Polish Pope, Ronald Reagan's gutsy help to solidarity via the CIA, Reagan't arms build-up which helped bankrupt the U.S.S.R., the 1979 NATO decision to deploy 572 Pershing II missiles in Europe aimed at the U.S.S.R. and the east bloc countries etc.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jarrid jarrid

There was more than one cause. But the Poles' courage inspired the world and gave a moral high ground to those who opposed communism. Seeing people being run over by tanks showed Soviet communism's true oppresive nature. It made communism less fashionable you might say. (It didn't stop Pierre Trudeau from defending martial law in Poland mind you.)

And you're right, there was more than one cause. The Polish Pope, Ronald Reagan's gutsy help to solidarity via the CIA, Reagan't arms build-up which helped bankrupt the U.S.S.R., the 1979 NATO decision to deploy 572 Pershing II missiles in Europe aimed at the U.S.S.R. and the east bloc countries etc.
Mulletaur

For once, I agree with Jarrid. Of course there is never any one single factor which determines the course of history. However, by the time Solidarity came on the scene, it would have been very difficult (although not impossible) politically for Moscow to have put down a trade union movement by force. With Ronald Reagan in Washington and Margaret Thatcher in London, there was significant reason for the Soviets to believe that the Western reaction to this might be disproportionate and possibly military in nature. Even dictatorships need internal support to survive – soldiers tend not to like firing on their own kind, particularly if they are as patriotic (and courageous) as the Poles. The Hungarians fought very hard but could not stand up to the overwhelming force organized by Moscow. The Czechs and Slovaks didn't really fight. But you can be sure that the Poles would have fought like the lions they are. The Russians left the problem to the Polish communists to solve. When the economic and political problems of the Soviet Union became so acute that the Soviet leadership could no longer hold Eastern Europe by force (the 'Sinatra Doctrine') the conditions for regime change in Poland had already been well established by the courage of Solidarity and of Poles in general.
parched husk

The Czechs didn't fight? What was 1968 then?
Mulletaur

At Dubček's request, the Czechs and Slovaks did not violently resist. The Hungarians did. For example, the Hungarian revolutionaries killed every member of the feared and hated ÁVH (secret political police) they could get their hands on. Quite right, too.
parched husk

It's a typically American (not to say right-wing) point of view that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was somehow brought on from without, by Reagan mostly, and to a lesser extent, Thatcher and JPII. Aside from being an interpretation that's crassly insensitive to the particularities of each of the member states (why would the Catholic pontiff have any influence in protestant Czech Republic or orthodox Romania), your explanation completely ignores the most important factor – the Soviet Union itself.

Starting in 1985 with Gorbachev, the Soviet Union became determined to rid itself of its more onerous military encumbrances. Naturally, the United States prefers to look at Gorbachev's concessions on arms limitations as a victory for Reagan, but for Gorbachev, whose priorities were above all domestic, securing a more stable international environment was a victory in itself.

But Gorbachev really was the key. By signalling that he would not intervene to preserve them, he undermined the only legitimacy that the rulers of the satellite states had. Without the promise of military intervention from Moscow, they collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions.
Gevulde Koek

Czechs practice Roman Catholicism, not Protestantism.

Just for future reference.

Mike514

If my memory serves well, I don't think 1956 Budapest is a fair comparison, simply because the Soviets returned to crush the rebellion shortly after.

To suggest that '56 Hungary precipitated the fall of the Soviet empire would be wrong in my view, since the rebellion might have actually backfired. It most likely sent the message that rebellions will not be tolerated by the Soviets, rather than signaling the downfall of the Soviets.

Of course, I don't have all the facts on hand, and my Hungarian history might be wrong, but we visited Hungary two years ago and it's a widely discussed topic. Hungary certainly has a fascinating history.

Mulletaur

You could say that it was the beginning of the end in moral terms. There was a huge amount of admiration for the Soviet Union after the Second World War – many European cities have a street called 'Stalingrad' for a very good reason. But what the Soviets did to the Hungarians really took the shine off for the true believers, both inside and outside the Soviet Union. Moral legitimacy was lost.
Mike514

Good point. Definitely food for thought, Mulletaur.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I will remind my grandmother of the 20th anniversary of a free Poland. She turns 90 next week, and she still remembers how to speak Polish from her childhood.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Just finished reading John O'Sullivan's The President, The Pope and the Prime Minister. Excellent book and, as a bonus, it was about two of my favourite pols.

Anyways, I think Poland can be singled out for attention because the anti-communists were galvanized like no other country under Moscow's jackboot. Catholics and anti-communists were entwined and their faith led them to believe their cause was just and worth dying over.

Mulletaur

"Catholics and anti-communists were entwined …"

This is true. Both Polish nationalism and Polish resistance to Communism were expressed through church attendance and Catholic religious devotion. However, since Poland became a liberal democracy, church attendance and the number of Poles who consider themselves active Catholics has declined dramatically. Curious, non ?

William

Actually, I think you can be even more specific about Poland`s influence in the fall of Communism. It is no accident that Gdansk was the home of Solidarity. It was a window to the freedom of the western world through the port and shipyards that brought people from around the world.

The fact that the young people of Gdansk were mostly highly educated, had tasted the freedom we took for granted when they went to work summers in Germany and Sweden, were poor but were driven to find a better life then their parents, and had an intense dislike for the communist Soviets were all factors in making Gdansk the starting point in the end of Communism.

parched husk

The end of Communist rule in Poland, perhaps. Not sure why you think what happened in Gdansk had resonance in, say, Bulgaria. I'd be grateful if you could clarify that for me.

William

Momentum, that`s all—-Moscow`s influence was as much in Bulgaria as Gdansk and when their influence was weakened in Gdansk it was weakened everywhere. It`s the rule of the bully: one guy stands up to the bully everybody feels more courage. Once the Soviets saw there would be severe consequences if they sent the tanks into Gdansk they lost their desire to fight.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

"their faith led them to believe their cause was just and worth dying over [sic]."

Because non-Catholics never understand that dying for a cause can be noble. Jan Palach? Never heard of him. By which I mean you've obviously never heard of him. Jesus, could the Poles please manage to avoid being ra-ra Polish nationalists for a single minute? You would think there might be some solidarity between Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Balts, et al., but apparently amour propre knows no bounds.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I have not noticed a particular lack of solidarity in that part of the world. But if a Canadian pope, a Canadian mass movement of nearly 10 million people, a Nobel literature prize handed out to a Canadian poet, and finally Canadian elections routing an authoritarian regime of 40 years' standing, wouldn't you of all people be interested in commemorating that? Or would that be a crime of amour propre against our regional solidarity with the Mexicans, Americans, Andeans, et al.?

parched husk

I think Mitchell was responding more to the ubiquitous Polish claims how it was the *Polish* pope, the *Polish* dockworkers, etc etc, who "brought down Communism", instead of advancing more modest claims about how they managed to replace a *domestic* authoritarian regime with a democratic one.

In that sense the Czech achievement was no less impressive, but they lack the tendency to chest-thumpingly repeat it incessantly.

Orson Bean

I hear you about the Czechs. My family took in a Czech family in 1968 when the nasty stuff happened there, and I'd forgotten about that until a few years ago (post fall of the wall) when I visited Prague. Right in the middle of Wenceslas Square there's a very modest memorial to some guy who set himself on fire during the Prague Spring in 1968 as a protest against the Soviet crackdown. I'd consider that a fairly serious committment to the cause . . .

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

I would be the very last to deny the Poles their full share of glory, which is considerable; they showed great individual and collective courage not only in 1980 but in 1989, in both cases forming the vanguard. Few people are more pro-Poland than I, and I applaud the plan to celebrate 1989 even while we lament and commemorate the Poles' heroism in 1939.

(It is also natural for other nations to be a bit jealous of the Poles: "a Canadian pope, a Canadian mass movement of nearly 10 million people, a Nobel literature prize handed out to a Canadian poet, and finally Canadian elections routing an authoritarian regime of 40 years' standing . . ." Sir, you tempt me to wish for a foreign invasion.)

As parched husk says, maybe there's generally some confusion as between international Communism and national Communism? The Poles may not have overthrown international Communism single-handed, but they did indeed resist the domestic regime successfully from 1980 onward and triumphed over it in 1989. The struggle against international Communism was, naturally, an international one in which the Poles were leaders but not alone.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack_Mitchell

Rereading my first, bilious comment, I'm struck by another thought. At a young age, I was inspired by the thought of nations working together internationally; of citizens working together domestically; of some grand idea — like intellectual freedom — which would inspire people with death-defying courage and not only lead to change but to a mutual recognition among most people that they are better off as comrades than as enemies.

Since first being inspired by that idea, I've of course learned that such things are very rare. Irrational self-interest is the main factor in most human activity, especially in political activity; and in our time there is no shortage of rent-a-utilitarians eager to laud our selfishness. Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not self-interest is covertly at play, from time to time a moment comes in which people feel themselves to be acting for a higher purpose than their own advantage, and not under compulsion (as with military valour) but spontaneously — with civic valour.

These precious moments, in which the utilitarians are, if not disproved, then at least embarrassed, are rare enough domestically, but exceedingly rare internationally. Literally the only time the ancient Greek city states acted together was in the Persian invasion of 480-479, and even then half of them were on the Persian side! In our time we can point to WWII as a time of international effort to defeat fascism; but also the Spanish Civil War, in which the International Brigades were prominent (and which goes to show that the redemptive value of common effort does not require eventual victory).

To me, the courage of the dissidents in the Soviet empire — whether one man or band in Prague or ten scientists in Siberia or ten million workers in Poland — is one of the great chapters in international solidarity, one of the longest and most impressive sagas of civic valour in the face of anti-civic totalitarianism. Let us tell each chapter in that saga at the appropriate moment, remembering the great deeds with the small, for each complements the other. The bravery of 1980 and the triumph of 1989 both belong in the list of great deeds, but if we forget that they were national events in an international saga of resistance then, ironically, we deprive them of their international significance.

Mulletaur

" … from time to time a moment comes in which people feel themselves to be acting for a higher purpose than their own advantage, and not under compulsion (as with military valour) but spontaneously — with civic valour."

Those moments in history when people finally lose their fear and rebel against a totalitarian and seemingly overwhelming force fascinate me. When the Hungarians stormed the ÁVH headquarters, when the citizens of East Berlin forced the border completely open and stormed the Stasi headquarters, when Chinese students gathered on Tiananmen Square in defiance of authority. 'Civic valour' is just the phrase for it, Jack, and there's not nearly enough of it these days.
keith c

We're missing some of the nuance of Wells' post. He uses a 18th century ie. pre-communist Rousseau quote and says the Poles broke MOSCOW's teeth. How much of 1989 was hate of communists and how much was hate of Russians? How much of it was a victory for the Polish nation specifically, rather than a victory for freedom? Could this be why anticommunists "were galvanized like no other country"? Some of the other ex-communist states' 1989-91 revolutions sometimes looked more like opportunism amongst the ruling class than bottom up movements. And none of them had the bitter centuries of having a centuries-old powerful state being sliced and diced to nothing in german-Russian treaties.