Dear Keith,
Thank you for your email. In
my book, I make no positive statement
about Hansen describing him merely as a "comrade and a subordinate"
of Trotsky. Of course, however, if it was true that he was guilty of having
worked for either the Americans or the Russians, then even this would be far
too kind.
I have read the text from
the book which you sent me, and I must
say that in general, I found the writing
style unconvincing. A whole number of different allegations are jumbled
together, arising from different sources and from testimony made in different
places and different times.
Reading it naturally, it
appeared to me that the writer thought that by throwing accusation upon
accusation, the general effect would be more condemnatory - but this is not how
I see things. I prefer it where accusations are specifically
made out, and (allegation by allegation) proved or disproved.
When I see accusations all
jumbled up together, none was proven but all asserted, my own reaction is to
become more sceptical of the author.
Further, it appears that the central purpose of the document was to defend the
integrity of Gerry Healy's reputation to history - again, that may or may not
be a legitimate aim, but it overshadows the text, causing the writer to join
together events in a common comprehensive
explanation of everything which I personally found deeply implausible.(Life is
not united in that simple fashion, the
entire world was not set in a common
conspiracy either against the revolutionary left in general or against Healy in particular.
Our enemies have enemies
themselves - the ruling class is a band of brothers that war amongst one
another). The two central allegations against Hansen in the extract you showed
me are (1) that he was personally lax in the arrangements of security for
Trotsky's protection, and (2) that he was in the pay of a state power - at
different points, it is suggested either the Russians or the Americans. I think
a third allegation is implied, that (3) Trotsky’s execution happened because of
these state links. (1) I find unconvincing: the main supportive evidence in the
text you showed me appears to be a quote from Cannon in which he says that
security was in general lax. But in the quote given, Cannon nowhere says that
Hansen was personally responsible for the breaches of security; and I can't see
any other evidence to back this charge up.2)
Hansen, it seems to be
suggested had contacts or was an agent for both the Americans and the
Russians.The evidence of the former is a letter from the American Consul in
Mexico City to an official in the State Department, dated September 25, 1940.
First, I will note that it is not a letter from Hansen himself. (This fact
alone is likely to create "transmission errors"). Second, it is not
clear from a single line taken out of correspondence, what the meaning was of
the approach. It appears to have been spent roughly a month after Trotsky's
death. Was Hansen asking for a safe passage (fearing for his own life and
knowing that the GPU had struck close to him in the past)? Was Hansen offering
to give evidence to the American authorities? Was he trying to find someone -
anyone - who would catch Trotsky's killer? What the response of the State
Department, did they bury the contact or did they follow it up? If they did
agree to open contacts, then how then did Hansen respond? From what you've told
me, I don't know.
To the person who wrote the
book, it seems self-evident that any connection, however fleeting, with a state
authority, should put the person involved beyond the revolutionary pale.
But I've lived in parts of the
world where insurrections are of recent memory or are real possibilities for
the near future. It is by no means true
that in these circumstances there is an iron-hard wall separating
revolutionaries from the activities of meddling states. There is some excellent
literature on how the Bolsheviks tried to deal with the problem of approaches
of assistance made to them by covert agents of Germany towards the end of WWI;
and although the common legend of German
gold is I believe a complete fabrication, there were other incidents, and not
even the Bolsheviks always got it right. I wouldn't condemn Hansen as a spy or
as a tool of spies without seeing much more. The same applies to the suggestion
in the text that Hansen must have been a spy because - this time, not for the
American but for the Russians - because Louis Budenz said that he was a spy.
Again, I would need to know
more before being persuaded; when did Budenz say this? Did he have any animus
against Hansen? Did he have any reason for knowing this - e.g. because he had
been a spy himself? Why, in short, should we believe him? What makes the
allegation particularly unlikely is the way the author joins it to the
suggestion that Hansen was also in the pay of the Americans; just thinking
about things naturally - it seems hard to believe that he was both.3) I also
find unconvincing. Let's rehearse the evidence again.
Because Hansen after
Trotsky's death had a contact with an American agent, and because Hansen years
later was named as a Soviet agent, and because+ Security may have been lax at
the time of Trotsky's death (Cannon has said so) ...Therefore, Hansen contributed maliciously to Trotsky's killing.
If the state put a person on trial as an accessory to murder and this was the
sum total of the evidence, you and I would be protesting loudly about a
miscarriage of justice.
But I am happy to continue
this correspondence, for the time being, if there is something that proves the
point you wish to make, then I will always think differently of Hansen in
future.
With kind regards
David Renton
