Voice of the Silenced Peoples in the Global Cold War: The Assembly of Captive European Nations, 1954–1972

Abstract

One of the essential elements of American Cold War policy was the involvement of thousands of Central and Eastern European refugees staying in the so-called free world to fight communism, which resulted in the creation of numerous émigré organizations and initiatives under the patronage of the United States. The first period of this policy, from the establishment of the Free Europe Committee (FEC) in 1949 to 1954, was superbly described by Anna Mazurkiewicz in her book Political Exiles from Central and Eastern Europe in American Cold War Policy, 1948–1954 (Uchodźcy Polityczni z Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w Amerykańskiej Polityce Zimnowojennej, 1948–1954). Now we have a book that complements and continues this research.When Josif Wissarinowicz Stalin died in March 1953, it meant changes both in Soviet policy and in the policy of Western countries, especially the US. For the next few years, the émigrés saw it as excellent news that brought hope that far-reaching changes could be made in the Soviet bloc. This was the context in which the Assembly of Captive European Nations (ACEN) was established in 1954. ACEN was an attempt to combine and multiply the efforts of various émigrés that found themselves in the US and serve as a reference to earlier ideas for the federalization of Central and Eastern Europe. Voice of the Silenced Peoples in the Global Cold War provides a synthesis of the history of this organization; it is an excellent scientific study based on extensive archival research. And although 1972 marks its end, it tells about the most important period of ACEN's operation, when the organization enjoyed the financial and organizational support of the US government. This book fills a gap that existed in research on Central European émigrés during the Cold War.The process of collecting materials itself took thirteen years and was far from easy. Although ACEN materials are primarily in Minneapolis and Wrocław, drawing a larger picture also required visits to many other archives scattered around the world. The Free Europe Committee materials on which the author relied are deposited at the Hoover Institution Archives in California and at the Open Society Archives in Budapest, whereas the State Department materials are stored in National Archives and Records Administration at College Park. The battle for the CIA materials was not over even when the book went to press.The very phrase “captive nations” has its own story. It was translated into Polish as ujarzmione narody (and the assembly's formal title was Zgromadzenie Europejskich Narodów Ujarzmionych, the Assembly of Captive European Nations), but it was also popular to use narody uciśnione, which in English could be both “captive” and “oppressed.” The terms “enslaved” and “enslavement” were also used frequently. Nevertheless, the creation of an organization that used only the term “captive” in its name meant that it symbolized the fate of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe controlled by the Soviet Union. It is of no coincidence that in 1953 both the Polish and English versions of Czesław Miłosz's book Zniewolny umysł, translated as Captive Mind, were published. The author proposes her understanding of the word, supported by documents produced by ACEN and the American administration agencies of four successive US presidents, from Eisenhower to Nixon. This reflects the main perspective of the book: the relationship between the policy of emigration and US Cold War policy. The émigrés treated ACEN as a chance to build a framework for future local cooperation. Although it was an undertaking involving mainly refugee elites, the book excellently shows the fields of influence of the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the US Congress, and the FEC. The author also shows how ACEN was used in American politics in Asia or Latin America. There is a separate chapter on interactions with communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. All of this is supplemented with detailed lists of ACEN activists and main documents.ACEN as such did not produce its own political thought. The programmatic statements of its leaders were more propagandistic in character, as was the whole purpose of the organization itself. Nevertheless, its creation resulted directly from the political conclusions that accompanied both the meetings between Central European emigrants and the US foreign policy doctrine under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. The emigrants wanted to act together, and in a joint representative body, they saw an opportunity not only to effectively counteract communism but also influence US policy toward Central and Eastern Europe. ACEN was also treated as a preview of the institution of the future Central European federation, which could arise after the liberation of captive nations from Soviet domination. This was the nature of comparing ACEN to a small UN or a Central European parliament in exile. And among the various emigration initiatives that arose in this respect, this one survived the longest.ACEN was established in 1954 to jointly represent nine Central European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania). The national composition of ACEN itself was consistent with the postulates of federalists, even if the nations of the then Yugoslavia or Greece remained outside this formula. ACEN undoubtedly included representatives of the nations and countries dominated by the Soviet Union who had imposed on them a model of state communism.The question of particular significance asked by the author was what the “impact areas” of ACEN were. Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask about the functions of this political project from the point of view of different reference systems, that is, individual émigrés and the American state. In addition to the symbolic, representative, informational, and organizational functions of ACEN, an important network-building function was the development of both transnational migration networks as well as global networks to combat the spread of communism. All these were important from the point of view of the émigrés who created frameworks to obtain financing and carry out activities important not only for themselves but also for the masses of emigrants scattered around the world. In this way, it was possible to test how the organization mobilized itself at UN sessions or other events, thus manifesting its strength. Moreover, the nations represented confirmed their legitimating power while delegitimizing systems in the countries of the Eastern bloc.The functions of legitimation and mobilization, although desirable from the point of view of émigrés, aroused both enthusiasm and anxiety on the American side. For Americans, ACEN was to serve another purpose. Certainly, the symbolic function was important, but in a different sense than it was for emigrants—it was supposed to be a symbol of the freedom of the Western world and care for this freedom by the American society. However, ACEN was first and foremost an instrument of the psychological warfare then waged against the Soviet Union. ACEN was also supposed to be a way to channel the activity of the emigrants themselves so as to avoid the possible consequences of their dissatisfaction. Therefore, when ACEN ceased to fulfill its functions effectively or its problems outweighed its benefits, the American interest in supporting the organization in particular fields of activity slowly diminished, and over time it decided to withdraw funding completely. For example, a dispute between individual emigrants over the treatment of West Germany led to the withdrawal of American support for activities at the forum of the Council of Europe.Changes in the doctrine of American foreign policy also played a role. The doctrine of the so-called détente in the early 1970s resulted in the withdrawal of the US government from many projects financed by the FEC, read: CIA. For ACEN, it meant a total loss of American support in 1972, which is the book's turning point. After that date, although the organization had never formally been dissolved, until the beginning of the 1990s, ACEN operated as an association of private persons which tried, with the little means that they had, to publicize its existence and the existence of Central and Eastern Europe.Mazurkiewicz estimates that in the period she was interested in, no more than 600 people were said to be involved in the work of ACEN. This is an order of magnitude corresponding to the average size of the emigration party of that period. However, two features of the association should be noted. First, it was a transnational project that had the features of a representative body. Therefore, on the surface, it could be considered a democratic body if it were not for the procedural deficit characteristic of all such bodies in exile. Its composition was not the result of democratic procedures—such as elections—but it was the result of nominations agreed to with the American side. So, it was a symbolic representation. Second, it was a body that represented the émigré elite. One feature of most political emigration projects is that one person often serves several functions. In this case, Mikołajczyk, the head of the Polish People's Party in exile, represented both the Polish National Democratic Committee and the International Peasant Union, and this allowed him to participate in the work of ACEN, even when the Polish National Democratic Committee actually ceased to exist. It was similar with Karol Popiel, head of the Polish Christian Labor Party in exile, as the leader of the Christian Democratic Union of Central Europe.The author skillfully describes the various areas of ACEN's operation in relation to American society (concealed due to the financing of this activity by the CIA) and the ethnic diasporas. Captive Nations Day, proclaimed for the first time in 1959, developed in form and numbers, giving a space of expression to nations other than those constituting ACEN, but nations equally subjugated by the Soviet Union, and even incorporated into the Soviet state as the republics. Other important activity included reminding the United Nations or the Council of Europe about the existence of “captive nations,” especially in the light of such events as the 1956 revolts in Poland and Hungary.Along with changes in American foreign policy priorities, ACEN's activity expanded to the region of Latin America and Asia, where entire delegations traveled, trying to immunize these regions of the world against the charms of communism. From the late 1950s, this was a priority of US policy, and ACEN was one of the many organizations that worked in to support it (e.g., the Asia Foundation, which financed Jerzy Lerski's trip in the 1950s, the Christian Democratic Union of Central Europe [CDUCE], which built contacts with Christian Democrats in Latin America). From the point of view of US policy, the objective of immigrants, including those associated with ACEN, was to stop the spread of communism in these parts of the world. Mazurkiewicz's description of how this campaign looked in practice is brilliant and thorough.To date, no other book meticulously and professionally combines knowledge about an organization like ACEN with details about the operations of the national committees within it (e.g., detailed data on the financing of ACEN's activities, committees, and leaders). And this is shown against the background of political assumptions, American players responsible for contacts with emigrants, and an overview of budgetary and organizational matters. Anyone who deals with the history of Central European emigration and American politics of that period must reach for this immeasurable resource of often heretofore unknown information.As if that were not enough, the author herself, like her book, provokes further questions such as exactly how particular groups of emigrants (e.g., Czechs, Hungarians, or Romanians) functioned in light of their own records and documents. One chapter is devoted to ACEN's relationship to these countries, though the author consciously limited this perspective. It can be assumed that when new archives emerge, they will shed new light on the issues described by the author. It would have been worthwhile to reference the materials of Zofia and Stefan Korbońskis kept in the Archives of Modern Records in Warsaw—this is probably the most serious shortcoming when it comes to the archives used in this book.4The possibility to create new leads and ask new research questions undoubtedly constitutes the true value of this book. The year 1972 closes a certain stage of ACEN's operation, but the organization itself survived until the 1990s. Anna Mazurkiewicz's book is a must-read for anyone who deals with the history of the Cold War, especially emigration from Central and Eastern Europe of that period, and American policy toward émigrés.