Controversy lingers over GDR
censorship of Soviet magazine

I was about to file a story about the recent
removal of the Soviet magazine Sputnik
from circulation here in the GDR, but a
direct response to Martin Robert’s recent
queries about democracy in the GDR (pub-
lished in the Canadian Tribune, Dec. 19,
1988 and reprinted below) now seems a
more appropriate forum for discussion.

Certainly the government’s decision to
suspend the distribution of Sputnik is both
questionable and controversial. It was
simply announced without comment, and
only after numerous protests throughout
the country did the official government
newspaper Neues Deutschland publish an
explanation, stating: “Sputnik was no
longer making a contribution to the consol-
idation of German-Soviet friendship, but
instead providing distorted depictions of
history.”

Even in light of recent statements about
the Soviet press by Vadim Medvedev, who
criticized the mass media for sensationalism
and careless treatment of facts, can such
censorship be understandable? In Sputnik,
No. 10/88, the writer Julian Semenov con-
tends: “... the German Communists
could not bring themselves to unite with the
Social Democrats in the battle against the
Nazis. Their unification would have pre-
cluded Hitler from gaining the majority of
votes in the election to the Reichstag, and
the subsequent history of Europe might well
have taken an entirely different course.”’

Another article from the same issue,
entitled “Would there have been Hitler
without Stalin?” say that immediately fol-
lowing the 1939 German-Soviet non-
aggression pact, the Communist parties of
the world put an end to anti-fascist propa-
ganda, “thus causing the situation to
worsen catastrophically.”

The articles virtually hold Communists
responsible for Hitler’s rise to power. These
ideas are also not new. But as was pointed
out by Neues Deutschland, “up to now,
such statements were made only .by
unscrupulous apologists of fascism in the
West”.

How, in good conscience, could the edi-
tors of Sputnik ignore documented proof
that after the pact was signed, the Commu-
nist Party of Germany issued an immediate
call for unity of action of all workers and for
an anti-fascist People’s Front against
Hitler? How can they deny that thousands
of Communists and Social Democrats were
at this time struggling together under illegal
conditions, those who were being tortured
in Gestapo dungeons, the thousands of pri-
soners in concentration camps?

That many of the GDR’s government
leaders, including Erich Honecker, are vete-
rans of this anti-fascist struggle, goes a long
way toward explaining their strong reac-
tion. Such slanders coming from friendly

KONCHALOVSRY

issue was

SPUTNIK MAGAZINE ...
pulled off shelves in GDR.

sources go beyond their limits of tolerance,
and their actions must be understood in this
context.

But it is also true that many Socialist
Unity Party (SED) members regret the deci-
sion to ban Sputnik, holding GDR citizens
as educated and capable of being exposed to
polemics about the role of Stalin in light of
new facts and analyses coming from the
Soviet Union.

The GDR’s experiences of building
socialism differ from those in the Soviet
Union. They did not experience personality
cult and mass reprisals, but the aim of both
societies is the same — to raise the standard
of living of their peoples and make socialism
more and more attractive in the peaceful
competition with capitalism.

Building socialism is in itself a revolu-
tionary process, and its success will ulti-
mately depend upon an increase in labour
productivity. How else can the new social
order supersede the old one?

As the report from the last SED central
committee meeting, which took place this
past December, states: ““The GDR is no
utopia. It must not be surrounded with an
aura of infallibility. However, this should
not prevent us from making all citizens
clearly aware of the fact that the successes
we have achieved in building an advanced
socialist society are the fruits of creative
work done by millions of people, and that
socialism is the only possible alternative to a
capitalist society.”

Rita Hoppe,
Tribune Correspondent, Berlin, GDR

GDR coverage
omits glasnost

The Tribune’s Berlin correspond-
ent, Rita Hoppe, has reduced glasnost
and perestroika to economics in her
story (“No perestroika revolution is in
the works for the GDR,” Tribune,
Oct. 31, 1988). The reader is to be
convinced that the German Demo-
cratic Republic has long been ahead
of changes in the USSR. Democracy
and its shortcomings in the GDR
receive all but passing mention.

But the subject of democracy can-
not be left out of the discussion quite
that easily. The 27th Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union
recognized that the ambitious eco-
nomic goals set at that congress could
only be achieved in a society with a
truly socialist democracy. Thus we are
seeing in the USSR a re-definition of
democracy and a determined attempt
to overcome the legacy of Stalinism
with all its crimes and erased pages of
history.

A play by Soviet playwright Mik-
hail Shatrov, entitled Dalsche ...
Dalsche ... Dalsche (Forward, For-
ward, Forward), dealing with pre-
cisely those issues, was the catalyst for
a heated, frank and compassionate
debate in the Soviet Union. But while
the official paper of the Socialist Unity
Party, Neues Deutschland, was quick
in printing an article condemning the
play, GDR citizens were unable to
form their own opinions — the Ger-
man-language edition of the Soviet
journal New Times, which contained
excerpts from the play, was removed
from newsstands. A similar fate was
reserved for another Soviet journal,
Sputnik, which dealt with Stalinism
on some of its pages.

Democracy in the spirit of glasnost
and Lenin?

Hopefully, one day soon we will be
treated to inquisitive reporting from
the GDR which goes beyond the
rehashing of official statements and
news releases.

Martin Robert,
Toronto

Keep ‘em coming...

This is the third issue in which we
have carried a full page of letters. It is
not the result of a change in editorial
policy — indeed we have always wel-
comed letters — but rather that we
have been fortunate in receiving regu-
lar correspondence from readers over
the past few weeks.

The one change which we did
institute — with the Dec. 19 issue —
is that letters will always be printed on
page 5 (in a 12 page edition) They
will appear there regularly as we
receive them. So keep *em coming.

Job losses show up Tory trade fraud

It is scarcely a month since the Mulroney
government passed its proposed “free”
trade deal with the U.S. into law. Already,
however, industrial workers across Canada
find their job security threatened as never
before in history. Canadian free enterprisers
are also being forced out of business in
fruit-growing, logging and fishing in B.C.,
in farming across the country, in saw milling,
transportation — to name but some of the
many basic industries and manufacturing

sectors of our economy which are being
jeopardized.

Is it not clear that the Mulroney govern-
ment grossly misrepresented what was
being carried out in the name of the Cana-
dian people in the negotiations carried on
by Mr. Reisman and his ‘associates in
Washington In the name of free trade deal-
ing? And is one not justified in calling this
treason to Canada and the Canadian
people?

Consequently, are the Canadian people
morally or legally obliged to respect the
Mulroney government’s collective parlia-
mentary enactment of this “deal” into legis-
lation? Can such law, based on fraud, be
considered legally or morally binding? Or,
are not Canada as a nation and the Cana-
dian people called upon rather to oppose
and obstruct every move made under such
law? I ask you.

Beatrice Ferneyhough, Vancouver

The election
and the NDP

There seems to be quite a difference in the
conclusions reached by Fred Wilson,
(“Debate opens on NDP,” Tribune, Dec.
19, 1988) and Kerry McCuaig, (“Giving
labour an independent voice,” Tribune,
Jan. 16, 1989) on the ill-fated NDP behav-
iour in the recent federal election.

Of course, it is important to decide via a
post mortem who was to blame, and
whether it was stupidity or treachery. But I
don’t think there is much to be gained by
following all the labyrinth-like presentation
of the facts of the case as presented by Fred
Wilson.

Better by far to take note of the solution
offered by Kerry McCuaig: “The devel-
opment of a broad social movement ... is
the key to turning a lost round into a won
match.”

Agreeing with this perspective, I would
add that the NDP has shown itself not to be
the watershed for a pro-Canada progressive
movement but, possibly, only a part of it.
Whether the NDP should even be the major
standard bearer of the left in Canada’s par-
liaments is, I think, another question that
needs looking into.

With every good wish to our paper for
1989.

Bill Campbell,
Kamloops

Prevention key
for oil spills

Only a small part of the oil that smears
the West Coast of Vancouver Island has
been cleaned up satisfactorily and this after
such a valiant effort by so many dedicated
volunteers. Only time will tell the extent of
the damage. Despite public outrage about
“too little too late” and “if only we had
done this or that” there is still little than be
done once the oil is spilled anywhere within
hundreds of kilometres of this coast particu-
larly during the winter months.

So much for the cure. An oil spill espe-
cially in the winter here is nothing short of a
catastrophe so what about prevention? So
far neither the media nor the government
has picked up on that one. This may not be
100 per cent effective but it does point the
way.

As long as oil is shipped up and down the
west coast a spill is inevitable. The outer
coast is a rocky and in winter, stormy
place. The rest of the year it is not that bad.
Shipping oil along the west coast in winter
should be declared for what it is, an act of
piracy and towing oil by barge at any time
of the year should cease forthwith.

Meanwhile a review of the submissions
made to the recent oil ports inquiry would
be in order.

Fred Pearson,
Comox

Pacific Tribune, January 30, 1989 5