Christopher Andrew - The Sword and the Shield

The reality, however, was somewhat different. The strikers succeeded in creating inter-factory strike committees to coordinate the protest and dissident intellectuals played an important part in advising them. The final judgment of the KGB mission in Warsaw was in stark contrast to the efforts by the Interior Ministry to defend its performance. The SB, it reported, “did not recognize the extent of the danger in time or the hidden discontent of the working class.” And when the strike movement began, both the SB and the police were unable to control it:

The blame lay chiefly with the leadership of the Interior Ministry, and in particular with Minister Kowalczyk and his deputy Stachura… When the strikes intensified in the coastal region, Kowalczyk simply lost his head… In the opinion of the KGB mission, it is time to replace Kowalczyk and Stachura with other officers. 37

On August 24 Aristov sent Moscow the alarming news that the deputy prime minister, Mieczysław Jagielski, was negotiating with Wałęsa and the strike leaders. 38Next day, the Soviet Politburo set up a commission headed by Suslov, its chief ideologist, to monitor the Polish crisis and propose remedies. 39On August 27, at the Pope’s instigation, the Polish bishops approved a document that explicitly claimed “the right to independence both of organizations representing the workers and of organizations of self-government.” Confident of the Pope’s backing, Wałęsa was now convinced that the government had little choice but to give in. 40

The Polish government privately agreed. On August 27 the leading members of the Polish Politburo met Aristov to try to persuade him that the partial disintegration of the PUWP and the hostility to it of much of the Polish people had created “a new situation:”

We must take a step back in order not to fall into the abyss, and agree on the creation of self-governing trade unions. We have no other political means of normalizing the situation, and it is impossible to use force. By staging a [tactical] retreat, we can regroup Party forces and prepare for offensive action.

The Poles went through the motions of seeking “the opinion of Comrade Brezhnev,” recognizing that trade unions free from Party control were “not simply a Polish issue but an issue which affects the interests of the entire Socialist community.” 41In reality, however, all alternatives to the legalization of Solidarity had already been ruled out. The Gdańsk Agreement of August 31, which accepted “the formation of free trade unions as a genuine representation of the working class,” made a series of unprecedented political concessions, ranging from the right to strike to an agreement to broadcast Mass every Sunday over the state radio. Wałęsa signed the agreement in front of the television cameras with an outsize, garishly colored pen, which he drew with a flourish from his top pocket. Produced as a souvenir of the papal visit, it had on it a portrait of John Paul II. 42

In the view of both the KGB and the Soviet Politburo, the Gdańsk Agreement represented the greatest potential threat to the “Socialist Commonwealth” (the official designation of the Soviet Bloc) since the Prague Spring of 1968. On September 3, 1980 the Politburo agreed a series of “theses for discussion with representatives of the Polish leadership”—a euphemism for demands that the Poles recover the ground lost to Solidarity:

The [Gdańsk] agreement, in essence, signifies the legalization of the anti-Socialist opposition… The problem now is how to prepare a counter-attack and reclaim the positions that have been lost among the working class and the people… It is necessary to give overriding significance to the consolidation of the leading role of the Party in society. 1

The principal scapegoat for the success of Solidarity was Edward Gierek, the Polish first secretary, bitterly criticized by the Soviet ambassador, Aristov, among others, for the loss of Party control. 2The strikers at the Lenin shipyard had greeted Gierek’s television appearances with derisive catcalls. Ordinary Poles summed up their feelings in one of the political jokes with which they privately mocked their Communist leaders:

QUESTION: What is the difference between Gierek and Gomułka [who had been forced to resign as first secretary in 1970]?

ANSWER: None, only Gierek doesn’t realize it yet! 3

On September 5 Gierek was succeeded by Stanisław Kania, the tough, heavily built and heavy-drinking Party secretary responsible for national security. The KGB in Warsaw reported a satirical comment on the changeover doing the rounds in Poland—“Better Kania than Vanya!” (better, in other words, to put up with an unpopular Polish Communist than have to face a Soviet invasion). 4It also reported that on September 6 Admiral L. Janczyszyn, the commander-in-chief of the Polish navy, had warned two Soviet admirals that military intervention would end not in “normalization,” as in Prague in 1968, but in catastrophe. “If outside troops are brought into Poland,” he told them, “there would be a river of blood. You must understand that you’re dealing with Poles—not Czechs!” 5

On September 18 Pavlov, the head of the KGB mission in Warsaw, complained to the Centre that the Kania regime was already repeating the mistakes of its predecessors—looking for compromise with the opposition rather than taking a firm stand against them. The Party rank and file remained demoralized. 6“The counter-revolution in Poland is in full flood!” Brezhnev dramatically announced to the Politburo on October 29:

Wałęsa is traveling from one end of the country to another, to town after town, and they honor him with tributes everywhere. Polish leaders keep their mouths shut and so does the press. Not even television is standing up to these anti-Socialist elements… Perhaps it really is necessary to introduce martial law.

Brezhnev’s assessment was, predictably, strongly supported by Andropov. It was also backed by Mikhail Gorbachev, who had joined the Politburo in the previous year. “We should speak openly and firmly with our Polish friends,” he declared. “Up to now they haven’t taken the necessary steps. They’re in a sort of defensive position, and they can’t hold it for long—they might end up being overthrown themselves.” 7

The Politburo was concerned not merely by the situation in Poland itself but also by the contagious effect of Solidarity’s success in some parts of the Soviet Union. The PROGRESS operation reports submitted to Andropov in October included one from the illegal SOBOLEV, who has been sent on a mission to Rubtsovsk in the Altay Kray region of Russia, far from the Polish border. His report made depressing reading:

The situation in the town of Rubtsovsk is unstable. The population has many grounds to be dissatisfied with the situation in the town, antisocial elements are visibly engaged in provocative action, and there could be uncontrolled disorders… Believers [practicing Christians] are also ready to speak up, and the population approves the strikes in Poland.

…The basic cause of dissatisfaction is food supplies, especially the lack of meat in the shops, poor living conditions and disgraceful public services. The top people are supplied through special channels, and for this there are special stores of foodstuffs and consumer goods. Theft is rampant, and the biggest thieves are officials of the Party city committee and the Soviet executive committee. There is drunkenness everywhere, and many people suffer from alcoholism.

The Polish events have a negative influence and effect on the local population, suggesting that it is possible to improve living and economic conditions on the Polish model. 8