logo
The CIA Book Club by Charlie English review – chapter and verse as a weapon of war

The CIA Book Club by Charlie English review – chapter and verse as a weapon of war

The Guardian03-03-2025
In March 1984 Polish customs officers noticed a suspicious truck. It had arrived on an overnight ferry from Copenhagen, docking at the Baltic port of Świnoujście. The truck's interior was smaller than its exterior. Workmen broke through a walled-off inside panel. To their surprise, they found a cache of books – 800 of them – and illicit printing presses. And forbidden walkie-talkies. 'Oh shit! Reactionary propaganda!' the officer exclaimed.
The shipment was to be delivered to the Polish opposition movement Solidarity. The country's communist leader, Gen Wojciech Jaruzelski, had banned Solidarity three years earlier. The forbidden books included critiques of the socialist system and pamphlets on human rights. Other works smuggled behind the iron curtain included Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, philosophical texts by Albert Camus and Hannah Arendt, and copies of the Manchester Guardian Weekly.
The organisation that funded this highbrow delivery service was none other than the CIA. For 35 years it sent books, magazines and video cassettes to the Warsaw Pact nations of eastern Europe, as well as to the USSR. The methods used were ingenious. They included travellers hiding material in their luggage, as well as balloons, yachts and a baby's nappy, taken on a flight to Warsaw and containing Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.
As Charlie English argues, in his entertaining and vivid new work, The CIA Book Club, this programme was a success. It played a part in defeating Polish communism and in hastening the demise of similar regimes in Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. And it was cheap. It cost $2-4m annually. During the same cold war period the CIA was splurging $700m on supporting Mujahideen fighters in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
For Poland's dissidents the printing presses sent by the west were the equivalent of guns or tanks. As one put it, literature nourished the soul and gave Poles a sense of a bigger human context. Books encouraged dissent. The editor Adam Michnik – who played a leading role in Solidarity's struggle and spent much of the 1980s in jail – said that after reading a book 'your spine would be straightening up'. He observed: 'You knew then you could tell the state 'No'.'
The Polish democracy activists helped by the CIA were not stooges. They selected which titles to distribute, many of them written by people who had lived in the eastern bloc. A key person was Mirosław Chojecki, whom English dubs Solidarity's minister for smuggling. Chojecki was a talented publisher who had numerous run-ins with the secret police. They arrested him more than 40 times, but failed to stop his underground operation.
When strikes broke out in 1980 at the Lenin shipyard in Gdańsk, the authorities cut the phones. Chojecki brought out a special newsletter, Bulletin, in support of the workers. The country's communist rulers blinked, with Solidarity recognised. Fifteen months later, though, and under pressure from Moscow, Jaruzelski imposed martial law. Solidarity officials were rounded up. Chojecki was out of the country and, for the next decade, produced dissident literature from Paris.
English writes thrillingly about the activists inside Poland, and their efforts to defy the clampdown. Women played a crucial role. In 1982 the journalist Helena Łuczywo launched the Mazovia Weekly, a vital source of information in dark times. She and her colleagues slept in safe-houses, carried fake IDs, and used contacts to source banned offset presses. The Polish security services were deeply chauvinist. They assumed – wrongly – that the reporters they were hunting were men.
For the next few years Solidarity's cause looked hopeless. At the same time, Chojecki's distribution network flourished. By the mid-1980s books were being sent into Poland on routes stretching from Stockholm to Turin. Illicit print sites sprung up in lofts and kitchen cellars, under a trap door concealed by a fridge. The regime had triumphs too. Spies infiltrated Solidarity and intercepted international deliveries, calling them 'provocations'.
CIA records from this giddy period remain classified. Senior US politicians were privately supportive, including president Jimmy Carter and his Polish-American national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. The clandestine book programme had a codename, QRHELPFUL. Its results were impressive. George Minden, the CIA officer in charge, estimated that almost 10 million items were smuggled east, with 316,020 books dispatched in the programme's final year.
English has interviewed the surviving dissidents, whose cat-and mouse struggle led in 1989 to the regime's collapse. I would have liked to read more on the books themselves and reaction from underground readers. Who, for example, decided to include Virginia Woolf's advice on writing? What did communist-era Poles make of Agatha Christie? This is a gripping account of an intriguing and little-known cold war moment. In contrast to our own fascist-tinged times, liberal ideas won.
Luke Harding's Invasion: Russia's Bloody War and Ukraine's Fight for Survival, shortlisted for the Orwell prize, is published by Guardian Faber
The CIA Book Club: The Best-Kept Secret of the Cold War by Charlie English is published by Harper Collins (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Keir Starmer to join European leaders for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington
Keir Starmer to join European leaders for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington

The Independent

time28 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Keir Starmer to join European leaders for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington

Sir Keir Starmer will join Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders for a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, Downing Street has said. The Prime Minister and a host of European leaders will travel to Washington DC in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian leader, whose last visit to the Oval Office ended in a tumultuous spat with Mr Trump. The US president is said to be mulling over Russia's demands to bring an end to the war, which include a land grab of two occupied Ukrainian regions: Donetsk and Luhansk. Several media outlets have reported Mr Trump is planning to urge his Ukrainian counterpart to agree to the conditions as part of a peace deal to end the war. The meeting follows the US president's summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, where little in the way of progress appeared to be made. However in the summit's aftermath, Mr Trump appeared to adopt a change of tone in his language about brokering a peace, moving away from insisting that a ceasefire is needed before a long-term agreement to end the war is made. This appeared to echo Mr Putin's refusal to lay down arms ahead of a sustained peace. Other leaders making the journey to Washington with Sir Keir include France's Emmanuel Macron, Germany's Friedrich Merz, Finland's Alexander Stubb, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Nato chief Mark Rutte. The leaders are likely travelling to the White House with the aim of avoiding a repeat performance of February's public bust-up between Mr Zelensky and the American president, after which Mr Trump temporarily suspended aid to Ukraine. Downing Street insisted Sir Keir and other allies stand ready to support the next phase of talks to end the war. On Saturday Sir Keir commended Mr Trump for bringing the conflict 'closer than ever' to an end. The Prime Minister, along with France and Germany's leaders, will host a call of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. The coalition force aims to police a future peace deal by putting troops on the ground in Ukraine to deter Russian aggression. European leaders on Saturday suggested Mr Trump had indicated he is now willing to provide American air support for the alliance, a 'security guarantee' said to be vital to its operation.

Starmer to join European leaders for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington
Starmer to join European leaders for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Starmer to join European leaders for Trump-Zelensky meeting in Washington

Sir Keir Starmer will join President Zelensky and European leaders for a meeting with US president Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, Downing Street has said. The Prime Minister and a host of European leaders will travel to Washington DC in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian leader, whose last visit to the Oval Office ended in a tumultuous spat with Mr Trump. The US president is said to be mulling over Russia's demands to bring an end to the war, which include a land grab of two occupied Ukrainian regions: Donetsk and Luhansk. Several media outlets have reported Mr Trump is planning to urge his Ukrainian counterpart to agree to the conditions as part of a peace deal to end the war.

Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself

The National

time9 hours ago

  • The National

Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself

Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or ­Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's ­sudden ­enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more ­difficult for Scotland when, despite ­voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU ­country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU ­country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather ­infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states ­nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his ­fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts ­alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. ­Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from ­Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the ­widespread ­enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought ­themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to ­annex them. But they managed to ­maintain their ­culture and their ambitions and so ­Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia ­followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their ­independence movements was a ­giant ­linkage of hands across all three ­countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their ­anthem word perfectly despite decades of ­suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing ­Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate ­something ­similar. According to the current First ­Minister, his plan is the only one which would ­confer international legitimacy on ­declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge '­democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the ­options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish ­government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing ­furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based ­Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple ­majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively ­everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she ­declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to ­overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish ­character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't ­until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and ­enthusiastic ­majority. If we needed further proof that ­Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline ­politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers ­extracting ­maximum coverage for their much-­anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it ­reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long ­preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with ­feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the ­majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store