George Handlery about the week that was. Discount retrospective morality. More lies to protect illegality by those who get a cut. Good and bad history and future policy. Soviet glory and the present. CNN International and its surprising surprise. Inconvenient new facts about Hiroshima.

1. The lack of sympathy shown for the victims of totalitarian despotisms is shocking. This is especially so in cases when the moralists du jour like to depict themselves as engaged humanists. Well, they might be that, at least in instances that at first glance appear to be “easy cases” since the culprit has no bite. What might genuine sympathy mean in this context? First, two negatives stand out. Neither pity nor the need to extend compensatory privileges is asked for. The convincing help or after-the-fact homage that is missed by the writer would be a principled stand against worldviews that serve as the state religion of powerful and, if provoked, retaliating countries. In the interest of the surviving and the living remember that, ideologies that fit a pattern have murdered and will, by the logic of their creed, continue to kill in the future.

2. Health concerns? On its Ukranian border, Slovakia has installed an instrument that is, in the manner of air port scanners, capable to check the cargo of entire rail road cars the instant that drive bye. The Ukranians complained about health hazards. The Slovaks suggested that with mutual participation, checks of the system be carried out. They were to prove Bratislava’s contention of the harmlessness of the emitted rays. Kiev refused. Therefore, the Slovaks proposed to supply their own engineers to take the cargo through the controls during the short the inspection. No wonder! By their calculation it would take 347 eight hour shifts of steady exposure to reach the level at which health concerns arise. Unconvinced, Kiev had threatened by blocking traffic. Meanwhile the smugglers, who are enjoying protection from “above”, are working on alternative solutions to conduct their business.

3. It is often the case that, intentionally or not, we live in a continuation of the past we have invented. Accordingly, in countries that have the misfortune of having too much history and in addition also bad history, past events play in the present a symbolic role. Old but unresolved issues with contemporary implications of the factual and emotional sort still haunt, like the ghosts of Scottish castles, the present.

The September 1st anniversary of the outbreak of the world war has revived pendent problems. Here the Hitler-Stalin Pact, more forgivingly known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and its aftermath stand out. A few days prior to the attack on Poland – which had a security treaty with England and France – Berlin and Moscow concluded an unexpected alliance. It was a re-run of Napoleon’s and the Tsar’s agreement in Tilsit. There, in 1807, the Ruler of the West and the and the Sovereign of the East, divided Europe. Russia’s participation – but especially the secret clauses of the deal – made Poland indefensible. Indeed, Moscow declared war on Warsaw once Germany’s victory was secured. By virtue of the eastern deal, the Western Powers’ options were thought to have become senseless. Berlin expected their acquiescence to the facts created by the Führer and the Vozdh (Leader/Führer).

Ignoring the evidence, the Soviet Union denied the secret articles of what was officially only a non-aggression pact. She reacted to their affirmation abroad as vigorously as China claws now at politicians that receive the Dalai Lama. That made the Kremlin’s creative version of events a component of Soviet foreign policy. Recalling the truth was connected to a price-to-pay which cowed many into silence. Then and now, the pressure applied to cover up the evidence left on the crime scene revealed little about what had really happened. On the other hand, the denial of the record supported by a superpower’s might, has revealed much about her present nature and future policy.

The current system’s relationship to its predecessor’s record divulges more about the dreams of successors than about the actual events. In the matter of acknowledging responsibility, Yeltzin proved to be more upright by admitting to wrong doing than the current, more imperial stand, of Putin. PM Putin attended the memorial celebration in Danzig. Tough minded, but also more sober, the Putin-state’s committee to combat the “falsification” of history “to harm Russia” has politicized history. It is therefore of political and not merely of historical significance what happened recently at the venue where not only Solidarnosc but also the war began. What the ex-KGB-man did not bring over his lips was the admission of guilt, the crucial retroactive acceptance of responsibility for the KGB’s massacre known as “Katyn”. (To decapitate Poland and to deprive her of a recovery, captive, officers and “intelligentsia” /the thinking and the educated/ were slaughtered in the Soviet occupied zone.)

The Kremlin’s continuing inability to redirect its ambitions is suggested by Putin in Danzig. While palliatively the Pact was tagged as immoral, the PM laid the ultimate responsibility upon the Western powers and Poland itself. Due to this rendition, Stalin’s reputation and that of the system that he bequeathed to his successors, remained intact. Russia’s problem with the truth is that its fake version protects her Soviet episode’s reputation as a victor in mankind’s greatest war. Her achievements since then do not measure up to the potential the writer admires. For that failure, illusions about the faked past are to give solace.

There is supporting evidence for the allegation that past triumphs are to compensate for recent reverses. Several, intentionally unmentioned small countries in Central, Southern an Eastern Europe are firmly positioned in the same trap. These are the entities that were declared to be “victors”. They now display comparable reluctance to confront their hideous record and therefore they deny their victims the satisfaction of an apology. The clearly defeated countries, Germany, Japan and others have it easier than the official victors. By facing the crimes committed in their name, the past could be written off and new ways of seeking their collective fortune could be implemented. The writer has always had esteem for the Swedes and the Swiss. Both were defeated at Poltava (1709) and Marignano (1516). Instead of making a renewed try to play the tempting role of major powers, both recognized their limitations and the availability of alternative opportunities. As a result both Sweden and Switzerland wrote success stories – “with other means.”

On the history-propaganda front the war has not yet ended. Those watching the continued battle with disinterest should be reminded that that the handling of the past reveals a state of mind. Therefore official history tends to foreshadow how the future will be confronted. The wished-for image reveals the strived-for reality.

4. CNN International (not available in America) has presented a clip about the commemorative event held in Danzig. Putin and Merkel, representing Poland’s enemies of yesterday, were present. Merkel went all out to apologize and declared Germany responsible for what was officially “the Polish campaign”. Putin was equivocal. He called the Pact a “bad thing” and even used the term “immoral,” and acknowledged that the alliance was a mistake. A treaty with Hitler could not give lasting security. He might have added that those trusting Stalin were also likely to wind up with a dagger sticking out of their back. Surprisingly, CNN expressed some astonishment that the Poles are still wary of Russia.

5. Being at the subject of anniversaries, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August ’45) come to mind. The argument about whether it was right to use nukes to shorten the war still rages. Many of those who debate the issue do so from today’s perspective and regurgitate current interests. Here history is an expression of the moment’s political agenda. Take the impression that existed at the time regarding Japan’s means and her preparedness to fight, as in Okinawa, in Hitler’s manner, till the fall of the last bunker. Today Nippon’s weaknesses are known and so the use of the bomb is depicted as unnecessary. New facts regarding the situation as it appeared to be then will hardly influence those who need ammunition. However, some readers will be interested to be told what new peeks in Soviet archives reveal. Stalin had special reasons to be reluctant to continue the war after VE-Day in the Far East. (The USSR and Japan had a valid security treaty.) The Leader feared the confrontation of his depleted forces with the Kwantung Army. The point: From the outside and at the time, Japan’s potential appeared to be much greater than was her was actual ability. As so often, decisions were made on the basis of the subjective truth which did not correspond to subsequently revealed facts.