Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:04:44.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fantastic Truths, Compelling Lies: Radio Free Europe and the Response to the Slánský Trial in Czechoslovakia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2012

MELISSA FEINBERG
MELISSA FEINBERG*
Affiliation:
History Department, Rutgers University, 111 Van Dyck Hall, 16 Seminary Pl., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the coverage by Radio Free Europe (RFE) of the show trial of Rudolf Slánský in 1952 and contrasts this coverage with documents on the response to the trial within Czechoslovakia. RFE aggressively portrayed the trial as a pack of lies and condemned its anti-Semitism as not authentically Czechoslovak. The response within Czechoslovakia was more much nuanced. Most publicly accepted the trial as valid and acted in ways that underscored that acceptance. Within this acceptance, however, they varied from the trial script and brought their own meanings to the story. Those meanings were not always ones that either RFE or Czechoslovak leaders would have recognised as true.

Vérités fantasques, mensonges fascinants: radio free europe et les réactions au procès slánský en tchécoslovaquie

Cet article examine le reportage de Radio Free Europe sur le procès de Rudolf Slánský en 1952, et le compare avec des documents tchèques décrivant les réactions au procès à l'intérieur du pays. Selon le reportage agressif de RFE, le procès présenta un tissu de mensonges, caractérisé par un antisémitisme décidément non tchèque. Dans le pays même, l'article trouve des réactions plus nuancées. La majorité des tchèques se comportaient en conséquence de leur acceptation de la validité du procès. Leur consentement, toutefois aussi nuancé, faisait preuve de sentiments individuels et pouvait s'écarter du reportage officiel. L'authenticité de ces sentiments-là, ni les dirigeants tchèques ni RFE n'auraient su la discerner.

Unglaubhafte wahrheiten, überzeugende lügen: radio free europe und die reaktionen auf den slánský-prozess in der tschechoslowakei

Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Berichterstattung von Radio Free Europe (RFE) über den Schauprozess gegen Rudolf Slánský im Jahr 1952 und vergleicht sie mit Dokumenten zu den Reaktionen auf den Prozess in der Tschechoslowakei. RFE stellte den Prozess aggressiv als Lügengebäude dar und verurteilte den in ihm offenkundig zutage tretenden Antisemitismus als den Tschechoslowaken fremden Wesenszug. Die Reaktionen innerhalb der Tschechoslowakei waren allerdings weitaus differenzierter. Die meisten Menschen akzeptierten den Prozess in der Öffentlichkeit als gerechtfertigt und handelten auf eine Weise, die diese Haltung betonte. Im Rahmen dieser Akzeptanz wichen sie jedoch von der offiziellen Version des Prozesses ab und versahen die Geschichte mit eigenen Deutungen, die weder RFE noch die tschechoslowakische Führung in allen Fällen als wahr anerkannt hätten.

Type
Articles
Information
Contemporary European History , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 107 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the history of RFE, see Johnson, A. Ross, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Puddington, Arch, Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Michelson, Sig, America's Other Voice: The Story of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (New York: Praeger, 1983)Google Scholar; Cummings, Richard, Cold War Radio: The Dangerous History of American Broadcasting in Europe (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2009)Google Scholar and Johnson, A. Ross and Parta, Eugene, eds, Cold War Broadcasting: Impact on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Budapest: CEU Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 RFE fact book (undated, probably 1951), 1. Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford, CA (HIA), Arch Puddington Collection, box 2, folder 8. After the early years, RFE's reporting practices were changed to conform to Western professional standards.

3 Bureau of Applied Social Research, Listening to the Voice of America and Other Foreign Broadcasts in the Soviet Satellites (Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research: New York, 1954), 14. While the project was most concerned with listeners’ reactions to the Voice of America, many of the questions were about ‘foreign radio’ in general, and the research also aimed to compare the listener response to different stations, including RFE.

4 On the history of the trial, see Kaplan, Karel, Report on the Murder of the General Secretary, trans. Karel Kovanda (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Lukes, Igor, ‘The Rudolf Slánský Affair: New Evidence’, Slavic Review, 58, 1 (1999), 160–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Igor Lukes, ‘Rudolf Slánský: His Trials and Trial’, Cold War International History Project Working Paper No. 50 (2006); Pernes, Jiří and Foitzik, Jan, eds, Politické procesy v Československu po roce 1945 a ‘případ Slánský’ (Brno: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 2005)Google Scholar.

5 On Czech or Czechoslovak anti-Semitism, see Frankl, Michal, ‘Emancipace od zidů?’ Český anti-Semitismus na konci 19. století (Prague: Paseka, 2007)Google Scholar; Miller, Michael, ‘The Rise and Fall of Archbishop Kohn: Czechs, Germans, and Jews in Turn-of-the-century Moravia’, Slavic Review, 65, 3 (2006), 446–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kieval, Hillel, The Making of Czech Jewry: National Conflicts and Jewish Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Čapková, Kateřina, Češi, Němci, Židé? Národní identita Zidů v Čechách, 1918–1938 (Prague: Paseka, 2005), esp. 108–22Google Scholar; Soukupová, Blanka, ‘Český antisemitismus v dvacátých letech 20. století: Antisemitismus jako složka české identity?’, in Soukupová, Blanka and Zahradníková, Marie, eds, Židovská minorita v Československu v dvacátých letech (Prague: Židovské museum v Praze, 2003), 36–50Google Scholar; Med, Jaroslav, ‘Antisemitismus v české kultuře druhé republiky’, Soudobé Dějiny, 15, 1 (2008), 9–21Google Scholar.

6 Proces s vedením protistátního spikleneckého centra v čele Rudolfem Slánským (Prague: Ministerstvo Spravedlnosti, 1953), 2.

7 Proces s vedením protistátního spikleneckého centra, 44–5.

8 Ibid, 67.

9 On the social functions of the East European show trials, see Feinberg, Melissa, ‘Die Durchsetzung einer neuen Welt: Politische Prozesse in Osteuropa, 1948–1954’, in Greiner, Bernd, Müller, Christian Th. and Walter, Dierk, eds, Angst im Kalten Krieg (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2009), 190–219Google Scholar.

10 ‘Ohlas procesu s protistátním spikleneckým centrem Slánský a spol’ (22 Nov. 1952), Archiv bezpečnostních složek, Prague (ABS), fond Velitelství státní bezpečnosti (VSB), archival unit (aj) 310–114–6; ‘Průzkum veřejného mínění k probíhajícímu procesu’, (20–24 Nov. 1952), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–111–3.

11 It is not possible to ascertain how many Czechoslovaks listened to RFE during the trial. The research done in 1951–2 by the Bureau of Applied Social Research indicates that RFE was popular in Czechoslovakia at this time. It is reasonable to assume a fairly large listening audience. Bureau of Applied Social Research, Listening to the Voice of America, 47.

12 Daily broadcast schedules for Czechoslovak desk, 20 Nov. 1952–2 Dec. 1952, HIA, Radio Free Europe Corporate Records Collection (RFE-CR), microfiche box 5.

13 This was not the first show trial in Eastern Europe; earlier trials in Hungary and Bulgaria, as well as trials of opposition figures in Czechoslovakia itself, told RFE staff what to expect before the trial even began.

14 Script of ‘Footnote #2’, 22 Nov. 1952, HIA, Radio Free Europe Broadcast Collection (RFE-BC), Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 143a; Script of ‘Local Commentary’ from 20 Nov. 1952, HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 34a.

15 Script of ‘Night Commentary’, 21 Nov. 1952, HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 41a.

16 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 24 Nov. 1952 (by Vaněk), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 34a.

17 Script of ‘Night Commentary’, 21 Nov. 1952.

18 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 27 Nov. 1952 (by Mudrý), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 34a.

19 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 24 Nov. 1952 (by Vaněk), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 34a; Script of ‘Calling All Communists’, 28 Nov. 1952, HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 10a (quote on p. 2).

20 See Czechoslovak policy guidance No. 3 (27 Feb. 1951), HIA, RFE-CR, microfiche box 2.

21 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 28 Nov. 1952; also script from ‘Local Commentary’, 21 Nov. and 22 Nov. 1952, HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 34a.

22 ‘Special Guidance–Czechoslovak Trials’ (22 Nov. 1952), HIA, RFE-CR, microfiche box 2, 2.

23 Script of ‘Special Commentary’, 25 Nov. 1952, HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 143a.

24 Script of ‘Other Side of the Coin’, 27 Nov. 1952 (by Hrubý), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 45a.

25 Script of special programme, 26 Nov. 1952 (by Vaněk), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 143a.

26 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 1 Dec. 1952 (by Petr Hrubý), HIA, RFE-BC, microfilm reel 34a. This point was also covered in ‘Special Guidance–Czechoslovak Trials’, 2.

27 Script of special programme, 26 Nov. 1952.

28 Kieval, Hillel, Languages of Community: The Jewish Experience in the Czech Lands (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 198Google Scholar.

29 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 22 Nov. 1952 (by Vaněk), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 34a.

30 For example, Med, ‘Antisemitismus v české kultuře’; Soukupová, ‘Antisemitismus v dvacátých letech’; and Sedlak, Petr, ‘Židé a židovská otázka v českých zemích, 1945–1948’, Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské university, 52 (January 2005), 133–48Google Scholar.

31 Frankl, ‘Emancipace od zidů?’ and Frankl, , ‘“Sonderweg” of Czech Antisemitism? Nationalism, National Conflict, and Antisemitism in Czech Society in the Late Nineteenth Century’, Bohemia: Jahrbuch des Collegium Carolinum, 46, 1 (2005), 120–32Google Scholar.

32 Gebhart, Jan and Kuklík, Jan, Druhá republika 1938–1939: Svár demokracie a totality v politickém, společenském a kulturním životě (Prague: Paseka, 2004)Google Scholar; Petr Bednařík, ‘Antisemitismus v denících Venkov a Večer v období druhé republiky’, in Jana Svobodová, Helena Krejčová a, eds, Postavení a osudy židovského obyvalestva v Čechách a na Moravě v letech 1939–1945 (Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 1998), 118–44Google Scholar.

33 On the Protectorate, for example, see Med, ‘Antisemitismus v české kultuře’, or Bryant, Chad, Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), esp. 149–50Google Scholar. Some Czechs and Slovaks were tried after the war for anti-Semitic offences. On this see, Borák, Mečislav, ed., Retribuce v ČSR a národní podoby antisemitismu (Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR: 2002)Google Scholar.

34 Script of ‘Local Commentary’, 22 Nov. 1952.

35 Ibid.

36 Proces s vedením protistátního spikleneckého centra, 110.

37 Ibid, 114.

38 Red hair was commonly identified with Jews in Eastern Europe. See Oişteanu, Andrei, Inventing the Jew: Antisemitic Stereotypes in Romanian and Other Central-East European Cultures, trans. Mirela Adăscăliţei (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009), 59–66Google Scholar.

39 Script of ‘Night Commentary’, 24 Nov. 1952 (by Vitěslav Fram), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 41a.

40 Script of ‘Night Commentary’, 2 Dec. 1952 (by Jiří Kovtun), HIA, RFE-BC, Czechoslovak service microfilm reel 41a.

41 See his excellent discussion of this issue in ‘“A Polyphony of Voices”: Czech Popular Opinion and the Slánský Affair’, Slavic Review, 67, 4 (2008), 841–3. McDermott and I use many of the same sources.

42 If they had attempted to provide statistical data, it would of course have been suspect, since the StB did not utilise instruments such as opinion polling, relying instead on the reports of individual informants.

43 Policy guidance for Czechoslovakia, 6 March 1951, HIA, RFE-CR, microfiche box 2.

44 My comments here are based on the regional reports from ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–7.

45 Report from Liberec region, ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–7.

46 Karel Kaplan reports that anti-Semitic remarks became more common at KSČ meetings around this time. Kaplan, Report on the Murder, 135–7.

47 Report from Liberec region, ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–7.

48 This did not mean that they necessarily liked Slánský, who was generally an unpopular figure. But, however they felt about him, they did not believe he could be a traitor.

49 ‘Referat 2021’, ABS, VSB, 310–114–6; ‘Ohlas procesu se Slánským’ (24 Nov. 1952), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–6; ‘Dílčí zprávy veřejného mínění k procesu s protistántím centrem’ (From Prague regional StB office to VStB, 24 Nov. 1952), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–6.

50 ‘Předmět: veřejné mínění k procesu – zpráva’ (26 Nov. 1952, from Prague region StB office to Ministry of National Security and StB main administration), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–6.

51 ‘Předmět: veřejné mínění k procesu – zpráva’, (29 Nov. 1952, from Prague region StB office to Ministry of National Security and StB main administration), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–6.

52 ‘Ohlas probíhajícího procesu se Slánským a spol’, (25 Nov. 1952), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–111–3.

53 Information Bulletin 63 (28 Nov. 1952), National Archive, Prague (NA), fond 1261/0/2 (ÚV–KSČ–014), svazek (sv.) 14/12/7–9, aj. 64; Information Bulletin 60 (26 Nov. 1952), NA, fond 1261/0/2 (ÚV–KSČ–014), sv. 14/12/7–9, aj. 61. The information bulletins do not give sources but seem to combine information from StB reports and reports from KSČ regional offices/officials.

54 On the resolutions and letters, see Information Bulletin 70 (12 Dec. 1952), NA, fond 1261/0/2 (ÚV–KSČ–014), sv. 14/12/7–9, aj. 71; McDermott, ‘A Polyphony’, 855.

55 Many such denunciations were reported in the Information Bulletins, 23 Dec. 1952 and 31 Dec. 1952, NA, fond 1261/0/2 (ÚV–KSČ–014), sv. 14/12/7–9, aj. 81 and aj. 84. For reports from KSČ meetings, see, ‘Ohlas procesu s protistátním centrem na závodech Pražského kraje ku dni 26. listopadu 1952’ (27 Nov. 1952), NA, fond 1261/2/1 (KSČ–ÚV–05/1) sv. 370, aj, 2327.

56 Slánská, Josefa, Report on My Husband, trans. Pargeter, Edith (London: Hutchinson, 1969)Google Scholar; Kovály, Heda, Under A Cruel Star: A Life in Prague 1941–1968 (New York: Holmes and Meyer, 1997)Google Scholar; Šlingová, Marian, The Truth Will Prevail (London: Merlin, 1968)Google Scholar; London, Artur, On Trial (London: McDonald and Co., 1970)Google Scholar.

57 ‘Předmět: veřejné mínění k procesu – zpráva’ (26 Nov.1952).

58 ‘Ohlas procesu s protistátním centrem na závodech Pražského kraje ku dni 26. listopadu 1952’ (dated 27 Nov. 1952).

59 ‘Ohlas procesu s protistátním centrem na závodech Pražského kraje ku dni 26. listopadu 1952’ (dated 29 Nov. 1952), NA, fond 1261/2/1 (KSČ–ÚV–05/1) sv. 370, aj, 2327.

60 ‘Předmět: veřejné mínění k procesu – zpráva’ (26 Nov. 1952); Information Bulletin 60.

61 See, for example, the folders of regional StB telexes on the response to the trial. ABS, fond VSB, aj. 310–114–8 (Ústí nad Labem), aj. 310–114–9 (Plzeň), aj. 310–114–10 (Karlovy Vary), aj. 310–114–11 (České Budějovice), etc.

62 McDermott, “A Polyphony”, 850–5.

63 Svobodová, Jana, Zdroje a projevy antisemitismu v českých zemích 1948–1992 (Prague: Ústave pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 1994), 31–47Google Scholar.

64 For literature on this subject, see notes 5, 31–33 above.

65 ‘Ohlas procesu s protistátním spikleneckým centrem Slánský a spol.’ (dated 22 Nov. 1952), ABS, VSB, aj. 310–314–6.

66 ‘Předmět: veřejné mínění k procesu a rozsudkům – zpráva’ (29 Nov. 1952).

67 Ibid.

68 ‘Průzkum veřejného mínění k probíhajícímu procesu’, ABS, VSB, aj. 310–111–3.

69 ‘Zpráva o ohlasech k procesu bandy Slánský a spol’, NA, fond 1261/2/1 (KSČ–ÚV–05/1) sv. 370, aj, 2327. This same report is also cited in McDermott, ‘A Polyphony’, 850.

70 ‘Ohlas procesu s protistátním spikleneckým centrem’, ABS, VSB, aj. 310–314–6.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid. Also Report from regional StB office Prague to Ministry of National Security, 24 Nov. 1952, ‘Dílčí zprávy veřejného mínění k procesu s protistántím centrem’, ABS, VSB, aj. 310–114–6.

73 Hillel Kieval makes a similar argument about how ritual murder charges in the 1890s seemed plausible, despite the lack of objective evidence. Kieval, Languages of Community, 188–9.

74 Kevin McDermott also finds little evidence of popular reaction against anti-Semitism, especially from anti-communist circles. See McDermott, ‘A Polyphony’, 855.

75 ‘Zpráva o ohlasech k procesu bandy Slánský a spol’, NA, fond 1261/2/1 (KSČ-ÚV-05/1) sv. 370, aj. 2327.

76 Information Bulletin 63, 1.

77 Information Bulletin 70, 18. NA, fond 1261/0/2 (ÚV–KSČ–014), sv. 14/12/7–9, aj, 71.

78 ‘Spořitelny a založny v Praze II Václavské nám. 42.– Zjištění jak komunisté a všichni pracující reagují na process s bandou Slánského’, NA, fond 1261/2/1 (KSČ–ÚV–05/1) sv. 370, aj, 2327.