ROSZKOWSKI WOJCIECH WOJCIECH ROSZKOWSKI COMMUNIST CRIMES COMMUNIST A Legal and Historical Study COMMUNIST CRIMES Roszkowski.indd 1 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE COMMISSION FOR THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMES AGAINST THE POLISH NATION Wojciech Roszkowski COMMUNIST CRIMES A LEGAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY Roszkowski.indd 2 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE COMMISSION FOR THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMES AGAINST THE POLISH NATION Wojciech Roszkowski COMMUNIST CRIMES A LEGAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY Roszkowski.indd 3 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM Reviewers Katarzyna Banasik Patryk Pleskot Graphic design and cover Sylwia Szafrańska Editors Brien Barnett Piotr Chojnacki Proofreading Piotr Chojnacki Index Łukasz Rybak Typesetting Krzysztof Siwiec ISBN 978-83-8098-929-0 © Copyright by Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, 2016 Visit our websites: www.ipn.gov.pl www.ipn.poczytaj.pl Roszkowski.indd 4 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM Contents Chapter One Legal and Political Background ...........................7 Chapter Two Ideological Roots . 33 Chapter Three Early Communist Aggressions ...........................65 Chapter Four The Communist Revolution Goes Worldwide..............109 Chapter Five From Theory to Practice ...............................149 Chapter Six Communism against Religion . 199 Chapter Seven Communism against Nationality ........................251 Chapter Eight Western Perspectives . .275 List of Abbreviations ..................................307 Personal Index of Names...............................309 Roszkowski.indd 5 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM Roszkowski.indd 6 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM Chapter One Legal and Political Background Basic Point of Reference Any consideration of what is a crime and what is not should start with considering the sources of law. Until fairly recently, the Euro-Atlantic civiliza- tion formally opposed the way life had been treated in other civilizations. Now things have changed and there is a never-ending debate on whether there is anything like the law of nature or we are condemned to the positive law created by humans. Very often, critics of the law of nature refer to some “uni- versal human moral rules”, as if not understanding that they call the law of nature by another name. This only goes to show that we all need some moral foundation on which positive law would be elaborated. Those who question the Decalogue are usually at a loss when asked about “different” moral prin- ciples. “Eastern” values usually fail when confronted with brutal reality. This is not a book on the philosophy of law but one thing must be stated as a methodological assumption of this work: there was a time and place when nations made an attempt to specify a certain code of behavior that should be a pattern in national and international life. This was the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UNDHR). Work on the document started in 1946 when Canadian legal scholar John Peters Hum- phrey was appointed the declaration’s principal drafter. The document was elaborated in the UN Commission on Human Rights chaired by former US First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, with the participation of delegates from Aus- tralia, Belgium, Belorussian SSR, Chile, Republic of China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, USSR, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. 7 Roszkowski.indd 7 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM On 10 December 1948, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” was adopted by the UN General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against and eight abstentions from the USSR, Belorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, Yugo- slavia, Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia and Saudi Arabia. While the South African abstention was due to the prohibition of Apartheid, and the Saudi Arabian abstention to the right of changing religion and equal marriage rights, the Soviet Union and its satellites formally opposed the freedom of leaving one’s country. In fact, the whole declaration was against their common practice. From the point of view of this work, it is important to note that the UNDHR was initially accepted by such countries as China, Cuba and Ethiopia1. Since the UNDHR was adopted by the United Nations legal body, all UN members, even those that abstained from the vote, have been obliged to respect its stipulations. Although in the decades that followed the passing of the UNDHR there were many discussions concerning the interpretation of the document and the allegedly necessary amendments to make things simpler, this text will be the point of reference in our considerations. In the UNDHR’s “Preamble”, we read: “Whereas recognition of the inhe- rent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world; Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barba- rous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspi- ration of the common people; Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law (…) Therefore the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to 1 Cf. e.g., Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declara- tion of Human Rights (Random House, 2002); Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999). 8 Roszkowski.indd 8 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”2. The subsequent articles of the UNDHR specify the right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), forbid slavery (Article 4) and subjection to torture or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5), mention the right to recognition as a person before the law (Article 6) and equality before and protection by the law (Article 7), forbid arbitrary arrest, detention or exile (Article 9) and formulate basic principles of legal proce- dure: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense; No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed” (Article 11). Further on, the UNDHR forbade interference with anybody’s privacy, fam- ily, home and correspondence, as well as attacks on his honor and reputation (Article 12), stressed the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and the right to leave and return from and to his country (Article 13). Since later on objections were raised as to the term “his” and questions were asked whether women were humans, it must be added that “his” in this case means “his and/or hers”. The UNDHR stipulated everyone’s right to a nationality, forbade the deprivation of nationality and affirmed the right of a person to change nationality (Article 15). Article 16 of the UNDHR formulated the right of men and women to marry and to found a family with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. Article 17 secured the right to own property and association and forbade deprivation of property. Article 18 referred to the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as well the right to change religion or belief. Article 19 stressed 2 Quote according to: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (6 IV 2014). 9 Roszkowski.indd 9 6/28/18 10:35:42 AM the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to seek and receive impartial information. In Article 20, the right to freedom of peaceful assem- bly and association was formulated. Article 21 stated that “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. Articles 22-24 included provisions regarding social security and the rights to choose employment, to equal pay for equal work, to just remuneration for work, to form trade unions, and to rest and leisure. In Article 26, the right of free elementary education was formulated and the parent’s right to choose education for their children. Interestingly, Article 29 mentioned the citizens’ duties to the community “in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible”3. As we shall see, in their everyday practice, the communist countries vio- late most of these articles4. Communist Crimes The mission of the Estonian Unitas Foundation includes the following statement: “The 20th century witnessed communism as a source of historical injustice for millions across the world. The most horrid communist crimes that severely violated human rights occurred more than half a century ago, yet research of these oppressive incidents is still in its infancy”5. This conclu- sion is a sad confirmation of the reality of today. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to forward research and debate on this issue.