11.02.1999

False picture

Former secretary of the GDR’s Esperanto Association Detlev Blanke argues that Stan Keable’s ‘Hurricane of persecutions’ (Weekly Worker January 21) misrepresents a complex question

The article by Stan Keable (whose father, Bill, I knew well and greatly respected) was unfortunately a one-sided black presentation of the Esperanto movement in the countries of the so-called “bureaucratic socialist regimes”. I will not pass judgement here about those systems themselves; history has given its unfortunately true verdict). I am precisely informed about the Esperanto movement in those countries, unlike the author, who evidently has only a very superficial knowledge, but presents his opinion very self-confidently.

If the first part of his article had limited itself to the characterisation of some traits of the Esperanto movement in the Soviet Union, I would not protest. But he writes about the situation “in the USSR and eastern Europe”, about the “movement in the Soviet bloc states”, but mentions only examples from the Soviet Union itself.

I only partly understand the enthusiastic reaction of Boris Kolker (once in Russia, now in the USA) in Weekly Worker February 4. He quite correctly accepts the analysis of Keable in relation to the Soviet situation (a situation which always angered my colleagues from the other associations as well as myself). But Kolker, perhaps unlike Keable, knows very well that the Soviet situation was absolutely not identical with that in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland or Yugoslavia, where the movement was relatively strong, of quite high quality and many-sided: it was something of a mass movement, with Esperanto officially taught in some schools and universities, a varied scientific application, serious scientific research, active book production, cultural activity, many international events and incomparably impressive world congresses - eg, 1987 in Warsaw, with 6,000 participants from 70 countries.

In spite of obvious limitations, different in each country, due to the political systems (eg, relating to travel), the movement in those states, naturally with many differences, in certain respects had a level about which one could only dream in the western states (Romania is a separate chapter; in Albania Esperanto was in fact non-existent). In the countries mentioned (besides the Soviet Union, of course) I did not know any “salaried officials ... imposed from above to keep Esperanto in check”. Does Keable know any?

The various “secretaries responsible” for Esperanto in the Soviet Union I will not defend. Not only the Soviet Esperantists truly hated them. Keable unfortunately seems not to know that a “secretary” of an Esperanto organisation in the Soviet Union was something totally different from in the other socialist countries.

Also it is untrue that the movement in the other eastern countries (again excepting the Soviet Union) was tolerated only as “a wing of the official peace movement”. If that were so, it would not explain the unique development in those countries. Speaking only about the German Democratic Republic, where I as secretary actively influenced the position of Esperanto, the link with the official peace movement was only one aspect. Other reasons to support Esperanto (in order of importance) were:

a) The potential to deepen relations with Esperantists in the world, especially with those of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries (we published correspondence requests from more than 30 countries in our journal Der Esperantist, freely subscrib-able through the state post).

b) To utilise Esperanto as a means of information about the GDR.

c) To teach and apply Esperanto as an educational resource for spare-time occupation, assisting general cultural, language and other education.

d) To examine Esperanto as a model of international communication worthy of scientific exploration.

The GDR Esperanto Association was part of the Culture League, in which it had pretty good conditions. Of course, we too had to fight against stupidity, being ignored and being slowed down. But those who put on the brakes did not sit in my office, nor in the leadership of the Esperanto Association. We gained respect and progressed Esperanto.

Besides, after German ‘unification’ the Culture League was rated “not close to the state regime” (in principle a somewhat strange judgement, pointing to the liberal character of that GDR organisation, which still exists and is now even one of the biggest cultural organisations in Germany as a whole).

When Keable writes that today “the official communist Esperantist movement has blown away”, he does not understand that in those countries the movement was simply not that “communist”, but in the first place pluralist, containing members from the most varied ‘classes’ and social strata, and having party members along with priests and non-party people in the various leaderships. Of course, the movement was not anti-regime, not only because that would have killed it from the very beginning, but also because sincere one-time worker Esperantists, communists, true anti-fascists (having suffered in concentration camps, prisons and so on) had leading positions and were generally respected.

Among them was one of the first influential leaders of the Esperanto movement in the GDR, Rudi Graetz, who was highly respected in ‘non-communist circles’ - not only in the GDR, but also internationally. Likewise in Bulgaria, Nikola Aleksiev, today an honorary member of UEA (World Esperanto Association). I will not accept an attack on the honesty of such people by simplistic and twisted articles.

Yes, the Communist Esperantist Collective (KEK) in GDR and other countries was not regarded as necessary. Under the contemporary historical conditions we did not see sense in the aspiration of KEK - namely to revive the ‘International of Proletarian Esperantists’, which Bill Keable helped to create in 1932. At least in the GDR this was not a decision on the part of state officials. The leadership of the GDREA was, in its own right, none too tolerant of the simplistic level and agitational style of KEK and its journal Internaciisto, which in its time was even more sloganising and boring than the daily party reading matter. Even so, the actual people in KEK - who were honest communists, fought in the Spanish Civil War and so on - were truly worthy of respect. For the sake of solidarity with them, our office of the GDREA, among other things, even distributed the journal to our subscribers in the GDR. But we did not take steps to form a KEK section. Today I still keep up some contact with IKEK out of respect for the various people active in it. But still today the content of Internaciisto is not very attractive, repels intellectuals and unfortunately often displays the sloganising style of the past.

The role of the World Esperant-ist Peace Movement (MEM) Keable similarly presents in a totally one-sided manner, again judged according to the Soviet circumstances. Yes, certainly much was stupid and boring. And some resolutions were, perhaps, “mind-numbing” (I know dozens like that from Internaciisto). But that is not the complete MEM. If Keable had a little contact with the activists of MEM, if he had read the various editions of Paco, he would not judge so superficially. MEM was not only extremely important in regaining official status for the Esperanto movement in the European socialist countries. Working in MEM and for MEM were also very honest and wise people who were not as “mind-numbing” as Keable’s article implies.

To the “communist Esperantists” around IKEK who wish to “learn the lessons of failure of the ‘official’ communist movement”, I sincerely wish success and appropriate methods. The first step nevertheless must be to understand and precisely analyse the previous situation, and not once again to paint black and white. Such simplistic reflection (or ignoring) of reality was one of the reasons for the gigantic fiasco of that social experiment which was called (incorrectly, as we know today) the “construction of socialism”. Judging by the article of Keable, I only hope that in future he will prepare himself better to “learn lessons”.