Szlajfer denies he was secret police collaborator
Henryk Szlajfer, director of the America Department at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a reported top candidate to become Poland’s next ambassador to the United States, denies that he was a “TW” – a former secret collaborator with the Soviet-era political police. His denial ran in the Warsaw newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza on 8 May 2005.
In the piece, he assailed the April 30 report in my FourthWorldWar blog that the official microfilmed index from the Polish secret police contained his name as a collaborator and that his uncle and namesake was killed by Polish anti-communists as a member of the Polish Stalinist NKVD legion. Szlajfer issued a detailed rebuttal, which appears translated below. To clarify his line of argument, this blogger has inserted comments that appear between brackets [ ], with lengthier commentary added between brackets and in italics.
Here is a brief glossary of some of the terms Szlajfer uses in his piece. “SB” stands for “Sluzba Bezpieczentswa,” the Security Service that was the Polish KGB. “TW” means secret police collaborator. “Commandos” refers to a dissident Marxist faction led by Adam Michnik – founder and editor of Gazeta Wyborcza - that opposed the pro-Moscow regime from the left, and which I had labeled “Trotskyist.” A translation of Szlajfer’s essay follows:
“I Was Not a TW”
By Henryk Szlajfer, Gazeta Wyborcza, Sunday, 8 May 2005
“M. Waller from a little American institute has launched a double accusation against me. First, he has not excluded that I can be a Soviet agent (see the title of his blog “Poland’s Soviet ambasador [sic] to the USA?”) and, second, he reported that while I was an oppositionist with the commando group (1966-1968), I became a collaborator of the SB. He has also added that I never proclaimed that 'the accusations against . . . [me] are false.'
“M. Waller is wrong on each count.
“As far as the first question is concerned, pressed by the Polish journalist, M. Waller assured the Gazeta of May 4: 'I’m not saying that Szlajfer collaborated with the Soviets.' Beautiful. So was the title of the blog entry proposed then by aliens from space? If I were to take advantage of the method preferred by Waller, I could ask: ‘Is a Soviet "political technologist" operating in a Washington institute?’
“And now, let’s move to the second problem, which is much more serious. According to Waller, the SB materials prove that the accusation is true. A proof? And that is where the convoluted argument starts. The American reader of the blog is convinced that Waller is very well informed. After all, he writes that the materials “point out” and “verify.” However, as far as the Polish reader is concerned, who is well-tuned to the matters of lustration, Waller declares to him [the Gazeta reporter] that what he has actually seen was “a catalogue of microfilmed files.” In other words, he has seen an enlarged version of ‘Wildstein’s list.’ He is also concerned about the lack of “house cleaning,” which translates – a procedure to vet [procedury sprawdzania – procedures of checking]. Waller is mistaken. This sort of a procedure to vet are obligatory and they also concern the element of lustration (point 11 of the Questionnaire of Personal/Individual Security) from 1998-1999.”
[Blogger’s note: Szlajfer does not tell us if he personally underwent any vetting procedure. He does not explain that if he had already been vetted, why the results had not been published in an easily accessible form. He doesn’t even say if they were published at all, as is a common custom for exculpation from allegations of collaboration. He mentions a questionnaire (Ankieta Bezpieczenstwa Osobowego), which means that he had to fill something out. Was the statement voluntary? How was it verified? Why is everything such a big secret in Poland, where it’s still a crime to publish the identities of former communist collaborators?]
“And, in general, I could stop here. However, I will not. There is also the matter of, as Waller claims, my silence regarding the accusations.
“When in 1987 an underground Polish translation of P. Lendvai’s Antisemitism without Jews appeared (English edition in 1971), I read in it that I operated in the milieu of the ‘commandoes’ as a collaborator of the UB. My reaction was instantaneous. . . .”
[At this point, Szlajfer boasts how he objected in the leftist underground press and how someone else very unfavorably reviewed the book in an underground leftist periodical, Krytyka. All the titles he mentions, Tygodnik, Mazowsze and Krytyka, were controlled by his more-leftist-than-the-regime friends. Then Szlajfer compares this blogger to the Soviets, as follows.]
“The conclusion? Waller simply failed to do his homework. To dot an ‘i’ in the ‘commando’ milieu, which was described by Waller in outright classical Soviet-speak ('Trotskyite “dissident” faction'), there was no TW. This is not only wishful thinking. Quoting the findings of Professor Andrzej Friszke, a member of the Collegium of the Institute of National Remembrance, Professor Andrzej Paczkowski proclaimed on the pages of Gazeta on January 17, 2005: ‘At the KOR center [the Committee to Defend Workers] there were no TW [secret collaborators]. They were at the edges [of KOR]. The ‘commando’ milieu was similarly hermetic. There were no TW there either.”
[Blogger’s comment: Friszke is considered an apologist for numerous Marxist and leftist “dissidents” and collaborators with the regime, and has shown no identification with countrymen who opposed ALL the communists instead of just the ruling party. He is reportedly the only one who is permitted access to KOR and “commando” secret police files, and as such, virtually monopolized the topic in post-Soviet Poland. Paczkowski was his boss and sponsor. Paczkowski himself was accused of being a TW, but he was cleared. It is uncertain how solid the case was against him but it looks like the secret police targeted him for recruitment and he maneuvered long enough for them to let him off the hook. Non-leftist historians have not been able to research the KOR and commando files.]
“Let me return to the article [which Szlajfer wrote in his own defense for the underground leftist Krytyka in 1987]. I consider it necessary to recall it so that there would be no impression created that I have been silent about this painful matter and that I remain silent.
“That article was an attempt to come to terms not only with ideological illusions of a 20-year old. It was first of all an answer to the question: ‘what happened to me after I crossed the threshold of prison?’ And something bad happened, when there was lack of previous jail experience, pride, psychological exhaustion, isolation cells and ‘tiger’ tactics [sudden interrogations by the SB], and a very skilled game by the SB which wielded, among other things, case files and falsified secret letters from fellow prisoners – all that finally led to confession. Here is no place for lengthy quotes. Let me just give you one: ‘I saw how people received my attitude during the interrogation and in court. They did not care – and they were correct not to – that there was neither contrition nor a plea for a lesser sentence nor admission of guilt. It only mattered that when I stood before the court I did not say: “I withdraw all my confessions, and that’s it.” All that mattered was that in the hands of the prosecutor and the SB the differences became tools of manipulation.’ This is what happened nearly 40 years ago. However, the most important border was not crossed [i.e., he did not become a TW]. Therefore I was able to write about my attitude in an underground newspaper which grew out of, among other things, the rebellion of the ‘commandos.’”
In the piece, he assailed the April 30 report in my FourthWorldWar blog that the official microfilmed index from the Polish secret police contained his name as a collaborator and that his uncle and namesake was killed by Polish anti-communists as a member of the Polish Stalinist NKVD legion. Szlajfer issued a detailed rebuttal, which appears translated below. To clarify his line of argument, this blogger has inserted comments that appear between brackets [ ], with lengthier commentary added between brackets and in italics.
Here is a brief glossary of some of the terms Szlajfer uses in his piece. “SB” stands for “Sluzba Bezpieczentswa,” the Security Service that was the Polish KGB. “TW” means secret police collaborator. “Commandos” refers to a dissident Marxist faction led by Adam Michnik – founder and editor of Gazeta Wyborcza - that opposed the pro-Moscow regime from the left, and which I had labeled “Trotskyist.” A translation of Szlajfer’s essay follows:
“I Was Not a TW”
By Henryk Szlajfer, Gazeta Wyborcza, Sunday, 8 May 2005
“M. Waller from a little American institute has launched a double accusation against me. First, he has not excluded that I can be a Soviet agent (see the title of his blog “Poland’s Soviet ambasador [sic] to the USA?”) and, second, he reported that while I was an oppositionist with the commando group (1966-1968), I became a collaborator of the SB. He has also added that I never proclaimed that 'the accusations against . . . [me] are false.'
“M. Waller is wrong on each count.
“As far as the first question is concerned, pressed by the Polish journalist, M. Waller assured the Gazeta of May 4: 'I’m not saying that Szlajfer collaborated with the Soviets.' Beautiful. So was the title of the blog entry proposed then by aliens from space? If I were to take advantage of the method preferred by Waller, I could ask: ‘Is a Soviet "political technologist" operating in a Washington institute?’
“And now, let’s move to the second problem, which is much more serious. According to Waller, the SB materials prove that the accusation is true. A proof? And that is where the convoluted argument starts. The American reader of the blog is convinced that Waller is very well informed. After all, he writes that the materials “point out” and “verify.” However, as far as the Polish reader is concerned, who is well-tuned to the matters of lustration, Waller declares to him [the Gazeta reporter] that what he has actually seen was “a catalogue of microfilmed files.” In other words, he has seen an enlarged version of ‘Wildstein’s list.’ He is also concerned about the lack of “house cleaning,” which translates – a procedure to vet [procedury sprawdzania – procedures of checking]. Waller is mistaken. This sort of a procedure to vet are obligatory and they also concern the element of lustration (point 11 of the Questionnaire of Personal/Individual Security) from 1998-1999.”
[Blogger’s note: Szlajfer does not tell us if he personally underwent any vetting procedure. He does not explain that if he had already been vetted, why the results had not been published in an easily accessible form. He doesn’t even say if they were published at all, as is a common custom for exculpation from allegations of collaboration. He mentions a questionnaire (Ankieta Bezpieczenstwa Osobowego), which means that he had to fill something out. Was the statement voluntary? How was it verified? Why is everything such a big secret in Poland, where it’s still a crime to publish the identities of former communist collaborators?]
“And, in general, I could stop here. However, I will not. There is also the matter of, as Waller claims, my silence regarding the accusations.
“When in 1987 an underground Polish translation of P. Lendvai’s Antisemitism without Jews appeared (English edition in 1971), I read in it that I operated in the milieu of the ‘commandoes’ as a collaborator of the UB. My reaction was instantaneous. . . .”
[At this point, Szlajfer boasts how he objected in the leftist underground press and how someone else very unfavorably reviewed the book in an underground leftist periodical, Krytyka. All the titles he mentions, Tygodnik, Mazowsze and Krytyka, were controlled by his more-leftist-than-the-regime friends. Then Szlajfer compares this blogger to the Soviets, as follows.]
“The conclusion? Waller simply failed to do his homework. To dot an ‘i’ in the ‘commando’ milieu, which was described by Waller in outright classical Soviet-speak ('Trotskyite “dissident” faction'), there was no TW. This is not only wishful thinking. Quoting the findings of Professor Andrzej Friszke, a member of the Collegium of the Institute of National Remembrance, Professor Andrzej Paczkowski proclaimed on the pages of Gazeta on January 17, 2005: ‘At the KOR center [the Committee to Defend Workers] there were no TW [secret collaborators]. They were at the edges [of KOR]. The ‘commando’ milieu was similarly hermetic. There were no TW there either.”
[Blogger’s comment: Friszke is considered an apologist for numerous Marxist and leftist “dissidents” and collaborators with the regime, and has shown no identification with countrymen who opposed ALL the communists instead of just the ruling party. He is reportedly the only one who is permitted access to KOR and “commando” secret police files, and as such, virtually monopolized the topic in post-Soviet Poland. Paczkowski was his boss and sponsor. Paczkowski himself was accused of being a TW, but he was cleared. It is uncertain how solid the case was against him but it looks like the secret police targeted him for recruitment and he maneuvered long enough for them to let him off the hook. Non-leftist historians have not been able to research the KOR and commando files.]
“Let me return to the article [which Szlajfer wrote in his own defense for the underground leftist Krytyka in 1987]. I consider it necessary to recall it so that there would be no impression created that I have been silent about this painful matter and that I remain silent.
“That article was an attempt to come to terms not only with ideological illusions of a 20-year old. It was first of all an answer to the question: ‘what happened to me after I crossed the threshold of prison?’ And something bad happened, when there was lack of previous jail experience, pride, psychological exhaustion, isolation cells and ‘tiger’ tactics [sudden interrogations by the SB], and a very skilled game by the SB which wielded, among other things, case files and falsified secret letters from fellow prisoners – all that finally led to confession. Here is no place for lengthy quotes. Let me just give you one: ‘I saw how people received my attitude during the interrogation and in court. They did not care – and they were correct not to – that there was neither contrition nor a plea for a lesser sentence nor admission of guilt. It only mattered that when I stood before the court I did not say: “I withdraw all my confessions, and that’s it.” All that mattered was that in the hands of the prosecutor and the SB the differences became tools of manipulation.’ This is what happened nearly 40 years ago. However, the most important border was not crossed [i.e., he did not become a TW]. Therefore I was able to write about my attitude in an underground newspaper which grew out of, among other things, the rebellion of the ‘commandos.’”
<< Home