On 17 July 2016, 80 years had passed since the Spanish Civil War broke out when nationalist generals led by Francisco Franco rebelled against the young Spanish Republic. On this occasion, AB, the Public Book Club, republished the book El Campesino by Valentín González and Julián Gorkin. It is accessible online and also in print. González, El campesino, a general in the Spanish Republican Army, was often featured on the front pages of the Icelandic communist party organ Thjodviljinn, appearing as well as one of the characters in Ernest Hemingway’s famous novel on the Spanish Civil War, For Whom the Bell Tolls. After the nationalist victory in early 1939, El campesino fled to the Soviet Union. First warmly welcomed, he soon got into trouble because of his outspokenness and independence. Sent to slave camps, parts of the Gulag network stretching over the whole of the Soviet Union, he was able to escape to Iran as a result of a series of extraordinary circumstances, including a major earthquake in Ashgabat in Turkmenistan. In Paris he bore witness in a trial about the existence of Soviet slave camps and wrote his book about the Spanish Civil War and the Gulag with the assistance of Julián Gorkin, a Trotskyite persecuted by the communists during the Civil War.

The book was first published in 1952 by Studlaberg in a translation by Hersteinn Palsson. RNH Academic Director Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson contributes an introduction and notes to the new edition, discussing the historiography of the Spanish Civil War. He points out that at least four Icelanders were volunteers in the Civil War (all on the Republican side), whereas only one Icelander is known to have perished in the Soviet Gulag, the young daughter of economist Benjamin Eiriksson who was imprisoned with her mother. The republication of the book forms a part of the RNH project with AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe of the Victims”.

Professor Gissurarson’s interpretation of some events in the Spanish Civil War were publicly challenged by two Icelanders, former television reporter Omar Ragnarsson and art historian Adalsteinn Ingolfsson. Prof. Gissurarson replied both to Ragnarsson and Ingolfsson.

The summer school of the Association of free high school students in Reykjavik 8–10 July 2016 was very successful. About 30 people attended the school which was supported by RNH as a part of the project “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism” conducted with AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. The school began with a reception at the home of Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, RNH academic director, Friday 8 July, but it took place Saturday and Sunday at the Hitt husid in Posthusstraeti.

Saturday 9 July Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson spoke about the “Philosophy of Freedom”. He distinguished between eight different approaches to freedom, the centrist position of J. S. Mill and J. M. Keynes, the Austrian School: Mises and Hayek, the Chicago School: Friedman, Becker and Stigler, the property rights school: Demsetz and Coase, the strong theory of human rights espoused by Robert Nozick and the notion of the creative individual versus the parasite found in the novels of Ayn Rand. Professor Ragnar Arnason spoke about the “Economics of Freedom”. He stressed that he was speaking about negative freedom in Isaiah Berlin’s sense: the absence of constraints. Freedom was being able to do what one wanted to do. It could be demonstrated, Professor Arnason said, that in the free market the opportunities to do what one wanted to do were many more than elsewhere.

Jadranka Kaludjerovic speaks about the Austrians.

Federico Fernandez from the Austrian Economics Institute in Vienna spoke about the bankruptcy of socialism in Venezuela. He pointed out that some decades ago the country was one of the, if not the, richest country in Latin America, literally swimming in oil. But Hugo Chávez had taken power, nationalising companies and reducing freedom, with the consequence that the country was now one of the poorest on the continent. Shops were empty, schools were deteriorating, and many went hungry. This could not be blamed on lower oil prices because the price of a barrel had been around $10 when Chávez took over, but it was now around $40–50. Jadrana Kaludjerovic from Montenegro spoke about the Austrian economists whose arguments for the free market had been intellectually very powerful. Ludwig von Mies had refuted centralised economic planning. Friedrich A. Hayek had pointed out that the distribution of knowledge made the distribution of power necessary. And Joseph Schumpeter had coined the term “creative destruction” about the process under capitalism by which the less efficient was replaced by the more efficient.

Gissurarson delivering his paper in Viljandi.

RNH’s Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, read a paper 29 June 2016 to a conference on “Totalitarianism, Deportation and Emigration”, held in the Estonian village Viljandi by the Platform of European Memory and Conscience.

Professor Gissurarson’s paper was about two Germans in Iceland before the 2nd World War, the Jewess Henny Goldstein Ottosson and the Nazi Bruno Kress, whose lives were intertwined in some unexpected ways. Before the War their paths did not cross much in Iceland, even if sources claim that Kress had, like other German Nazis, been unfriendly to the Jewish refugees in the country. But there was another connection. The SS operated a “research institute”, Ahnenerbe or Ancestral Heritage, which gave Kress a grant to study Icelandic. Another topic in which Ahnenerbe took interest was the physiology of Jews: Henny Goldstein’s brother was picked up by Ahnenerbe “experts” at Auschwitz and brought to the Natzweiler prison camp where he was measured and then murdered. (After the War, the Ahnenerbe Director was hanged.) Her first husband, Robert Goldstein, and her sister-in-law and nephew were all murdered in Auschwitz. After the War the paths of Henny Goldstein and Bruno Kress crossed again, unexpectedly, in Iceland. Now Kress had become a communist, residing in East Germany, and in the spring of 1958 he was invited to the 60th birthday party of Icelandic communist leader Brynjolfur Bjarnason. There, to her great surprise, Henny Goldstein recognised the man who had been a zealous Nazi in Iceland before the War and complained about it. The incident was hushed down however. Kress was given an honorary doctorate from the University of Iceland on its 75th anniversary in 1986.

A lively discussion followed the paper, with some in the audience expressing surprise at the fact that the University of Iceland had given an old Nazi an honorary doctorate. Other speakers at the conference included Vytautas Landsbergis, former President of Lithuania, and Urmas Reinsalu, the Estonian Minister of Justice. Professor Gissurarson’s contribution to the conference formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe of the Victims”. At the conference, the annual Prize of the Platform was awarded to Leopoldo López, the leader of the opposition in Venezuela and now a political prisoner. López’ father received the award on his behalf. Here López speaks in Oslo, before his imprisonment:

Slides of Gissurarson Paper Viljandi 29 June 2016

Cartoon by Halldor Petursson of the three different incarnations of the radical left movement in Iceland.

RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor of Politics at the University of Iceland, read a paper at a conference organised by the Icelandic Association of Political Scientists 16 June 2016. The paper was on why the Icelandic Left was smaller and more radical than in the Scandinavian countries. (By the Left Professor Gissurarson meant the combined electoral support support of social democrats and communists: In Iceland, they traditionally constituted about one-third of the voters, but about one-half in Sweden, Denmark and Norway.) A plausible explanation why the Left was small in Iceland was, Professor Gissurarson contended, that in the formative years of party politics Iceland was not as industrialised and urbanised as the Scandinavian countries, while the still vivid legacy from the independence struggle also hampered the Icelandic Left.

But why was the Icelandic Left so radical? Why did communists or left socialists in the early 1940s surpass the social democrats in the race for votes? An answer often given is that their leaders, Brynjolfur Bjarnason and Einar Olgeirsson, were astute politicians. But Professor Gissurarson commented that it was by no means evident that they were any abler than the social democratic leaders, Jon Baldvinsson, Haraldur Gudmundsson, and Stefan Johann Stefansson.

Professor Gissurarson suggested that probably the Socialist Unity Party in Iceland, formed in 1938  and dominated by communists, was more akin to the Finnish People’s Democratic League, formed in 1944 and also dominated by communists, than to the Scandinavian communist parties, for three reasons. First, Finland and Iceland had in early 20th century been much poorer than the three Scandinavian countries. Second, they had both been new states, Finland declaring her independence in 1917 and Iceland becoming a sovereign state in 1918. Third, civil society, with its invisible institutions, customs and traditions, had been less developed there than in the three Scandinavian countries, and therefore the ground had been more fertile to the seeds of revolution. Both the Icelandic Socialist Unity Party and the Finnish People’s Democratic League had electoral support of around 15–20% in the 1940s and 1950s.

Professor Gissurarson also pointed out that the Icelandic left socialists had enjoyed significant financial support from Moscow and that Icelandic voters, living in a very peaceful country, had been, and still are, somewhat naive, not taking the revolutionary rhetoric of the communists seriously. It was however clear, he said, that the Icelandic communist party of 1930–1938, and the Socialist Unity Party of 1938–1968 were both controlled by hardcore stalinists. Their supporters often resorted to street violence to further their aims, and the leaders had a close relationship with Moscow. On this, Professor Gissurarson referred to his book on the Icelandic communist movement. The People’s Alliance, an electoral alliance in 1956–1968 in which the Socialist Unity Party participated, and a political party after that, was more ambivalent about world communism. It did not have any official ties with Soviet communists, while it cultivated some other communist parties: For example, the last act of the party was to accept an invitation to send a delegation in 1998 to the Cuban communist party.

Professor Gissurarson’s lecture formed a part of the joint project by RNH and AECR on “Europe of the Victims”, where the goal is not to forget the words and deeds, or misdeeds, of communists and other 20th century totalitarians. Professor Gissurarson is the editor of a series of historical works on the struggle in Iceland against totalitarian communism. The books already published include articles on communism (Greinar um kommunisma) by Bertrand Russell, memoirs of Stalin’s prison camps (Konur i thraelakistum Stalins) by Elinor Lipper and Aino Kuusinen, and Out of the Night (Ur alogum) by Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs).

RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave a talk at a Reykjavik luncheon meeting of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs 16 June 2016. It formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism”. Here are the main points of the talk:

Determinants of Iceland’s Foreign Policy: 1) tiny nation which cannot defend herself; 2) far from being self-sufficient, need for markets; 3) location in mid-North Atlantic Ocean, immediate neighbours Norway, Great Britain, Canada, the US, 4) culturally part of the West and the North

874 First settler from Western Norway, most settlers from Norway

930 Foundation of Commonwealth, the rule of law without government

1000 Discovery of America, oral tradition confirmed by archeological findings

1022 First treaty with Norwegian king, mutual rights

1262 Covenant reluctantly made with Norwegian king: dependency or tributary state

1355–1374 Ruled by the King of Sweden, not Norway (shows tenuous links with Norway)

1380 Ruled by the King of Denmark, as Norway and Denmark enter a personal union

1412 First recorded English fishing vessel; becomes an important part of English fisheries

Henry VIII refused three offers to buy Iceland

1518 Danish king offered Iceland to Henry VIII as collateral for 50,000 gold florins loan (=$6.5 million). Two more offers, in 1524 and 1535

1490–1602 Consolidation of royal prerogatives in Iceland; foreigners excluded, monopoly trade

1627 Uselessness of Danish “shelter” exposed: Muslim raids without any defence

1645 Danish king offered Iceland to Hamburg merchants for 500,000 thalers (=$6.4 million).

1785 Danish officials seriously discuss evacuating the Icelanders to other parts of the realm, as a result of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and the “Mist Famine”

1785–1813 Several suggestions by British individuals that the UK seize Iceland; little interest

1814 Iceland not included when Sweden gets Norway as compensation for Finland. Why? Probably decision by the UK: Wanted Iceland controlled by a weak power, but had no interest in ruling her directly, tacit protection in the following century by British Navy

Jon Sigurdsson, leader of Iceland’s independence struggle

1848 Jon Sigurdsson calls for self-rule and sovereignty, using three arguments: 1) Iceland always sovereign; 2) Distinct culture and language; 3) Local knowledge

1855 Freedom of trade

1868 US government plans to purchase Iceland from Denmark, like Louisiana from France and Alaska from Russia; proponents William H. Seward and Robert J. Walker; laughed out of Congress

1876 last year when export of agricultural products exceeds that of marine products in value

1914–1918 UK government practically takes over Iceland, British consul controls foreign trade; direct trade negotiations between the UK and Iceland (still a Danish dependency); uselessness of Danish “shelter” demonstrated yet again

1918 Denmark grants Iceland sovereignty, independent kingdoms in personal union

1940 UK occupies Iceland

Iceland 1967: US Ambassador Karl Rolvaag, Icelandic Prime Minister Bjarni Benediktsson (who signed the North Atlantic treaty in 1949 and the Defence Treaty with the US in 1951) and astronaut Neil Armstrong, training for his journey.

1941 US and Iceland conclude a defence agreement, Monroe line drawn east of Iceland, Churchill visits

1949 Iceland joins NATO, strategically important in Cold War

1951 Defence Treaty with US, still in force

1952–76, four extensions of fisheries limits, Cod Wars with the UK, tacit support by the US

2006 US unilaterally abandons military base in Iceland

2008 Iceland left out in the cold, no help from US which however helps Switzerland and Sweden (never allies); severe blow from UK government, closing British banks owned by Icelanders while assisting all other British banks; putting an Icelandic bank and, briefly, also Central Bank and Finance Ministry on list of terrorist organisations; contributes to total collapse

2009 Disillusioned with old friends and allies, majority of Parliament decides to apply for EU membership; but “negotiations” stall: Iceland’s fisheries well-run, CFP disaster

2006–16 Iceland alone, expendable, unwanted, unprotected (except by US and NATO declarations), as in 1518–1868

Two future options, North Atlantic or European; not mutually exclusive. Terms:

1) continued access to European market, but also trade with US, Canada, China, Russia, etc.

2) continued independent currency, but deal with the UK or US on convertibility and lender-of-last-resort facilities (permanent currency swap deals)

3) rejuvenated military cooperation with US, adding UK and Norway to the equation

Prof. Gissurarson gives his talk in Rio de Janeiro.

In April 2016, RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave three papers at regional conferences of the Brazilian Students for Liberty, Estudantes pela liberdade: 16 April in Rio de Janeiro, 23 April in Belo Horizonte and 30 April in the university city of Santa Maria in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. In all three papers he discussed the controversial ideas of French economist Thomas Piketty who suggests expropriatory taxes on high-income groups and people of property in order to make income distribution more equal. Gissurarson pointed out the strange fact that Piketty worried about people becoming rich, whereas philosophers such as John Rawls had worried about people remaining poor: Unlike affluence, poverty was a real problem. Globalisation, or the extension of international trade, had had two consequences: a group in possession of special, non-reproducible abilities (Piketty’s famous 1%) could now sell these abilities in a much larger market; and hundreds of millions of people in China and India had migrated out of poverty. Therefore, somewhat paradoxically, income distribution in the West had perhaps become somewhat less equal in the past decades, whereas in the world as a whole it had become more equal. Gissurarson also asked what was indeed wrong with unequal income distribution, if it was the result of free choice. If Milton Friedman visited Iceland and charged each person attending his lecture there $100, and if 500 people showed up, then income distribution would become less equal: Friedman would be $50,000 richer and 500 persons would each be $100 poorer. Everybody would however be more satisfied. Where was the injustice to be found?

Estudantes pela liberdade has become a very influential association in Brazilian universities and is in the forefront of the campaign against the endemic corruption in the country. Gissurarson’s lectures formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland, and the Future of Capitalism”.

Gissurarson Slides in Rio de Janeiro 16 April 2016