Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle: The Lives of Ivan and Lesley Schermbrucker (Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements) 3030839206, 9783030839208

Citation preview

Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle The Lives of Ivan and Lesley Schermbrucker Alan Kirkaldy

Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements

Series Editors Stefan Berger, Institute for Social Movements, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany Holger Nehring, Contemporary European History, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Around the world, social movements have become legitimate, yet contested, actors in local, national and global politics and civil society, yet we still know relatively little about their longer histories and the trajectories of their development. This series seeks to promote innovative historical research on the history of social movements in the modern period since around 1750. We bring together conceptually-informed studies that analyse labour movements, new social movements and other forms of protest from early modernity to the present. We conceive of ‘social movements’ in the broadest possible sense, encompassing social formations that lie between formal organisations and mere protest events. We also offer a home for studies that systematically explore the political, social, economic and cultural conditions in which social movements can emerge. We are especially interested in transnational and global perspectives on the history of social movements, and in studies that engage critically and creatively with political, social and sociological theories in order to make historically grounded arguments about social movements. This new series seeks to offer innovative historical work on social movements, while also helping to historicise the concept of ‘social movement’. It hopes to revitalise the conversation between historians and historical sociologists in analysing what Charles Tilly has called the ‘dynamics of contention’. Editorial Board John Chalcraft (London School of Economics, UK) Andreas Eckert (Humboldt-University, Germany) Susan Eckstein (Boston University, USA) Felicia Kornbluh (University of Vermont, USA) Jie-Hyun Lim (Research Institute for Comparative History, Hanyang University Seoul, South Korea) Marcel van der Linden (International Institute of Social History, The Netherlands) Rochona Majumdar (University of Chicago, USA) Sean Raymond Scalmer (University of Melbourne, Australia) Alexander Sedlmaier (Bangor University, UK)

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/14580

Alan Kirkaldy

Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle The Lives of Ivan and Lesley Schermbrucker

Alan Kirkaldy History Department Rhodes University Makhanda (Grahamstown) Eastern Cape, South Africa

ISSN 2634-6559 ISSN 2634-6567 (electronic) Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements ISBN 978-3-030-83920-8 ISBN 978-3-030-83921-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: Ivan and Lesley reading his banning and house arrest orders after his release from prison, 12 April 1970. Lesley had the dress specially made for the occasion. (Schermbrucker family) This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editors’ Preface

Around the world, social movements have become legitimate, yet contested, actors in local, national and global politics and civil society, yet we still know relatively little about their longer histories and the trajectories of their development. Our series reacts to what can be described as a recent boom in the history of social movements. We can observe a development from the crisis of labour history in the 1980s to the boom in research on social movements in the 2000s. The rise of historical interests in the development of civil society and the role of strong civil societies as well as non-governmental organisations in stabilising democratically constituted polities has strengthened the interest in social movements as a constituent element of civil societies. In different parts of the world, social movements continue to have a strong influence on contemporary politics. In Latin America, trade unions, labour parties and various left-of-centre civil society organisations have succeeded in supporting left-of-centre governments. In Europe, peace movements, ecological movements and alliances intent on campaigning against poverty and racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation have been able to set important political agendas for decades. In other parts of the world, including Africa, India and South East Asia, social movements have played a significant role in various forms of community building and community politics. The contemporary political relevance of social movements has undoubtedly contributed to a growing historical interest in the topic. v

vi

SERIES EDITORS’ PREFACE

Contemporary historians are not only beginning to historicise these relatively recent political developments; they are also trying to relate them to a longer history of social movements, including traditional labour organisations, such as working-class parties and trade unions. In the longue durée, we recognise that social movements are by no means a recent phenomenon and are not even an exclusively modern phenomenon, although we realise that the onset of modernity emanating from Europe and North America across the wider world from the eighteenth century onwards marks an important departure point for the development of civil societies and social movements. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the dominance of national history over all other forms of history writing led to a thorough nationalisation of the historical sciences. Hence social movements have been examined traditionally within the framework of the nation state. Only during the last two decades have historians begun to question the validity of such methodological nationalism and to explore the development of social movements in comparative, connective and transnational perspective taking into account processes of transfer, reception and adaptation. While our book series does not preclude work that is still being carried out within national frameworks (for, clearly, there is a place for such studies, given the historical importance of the nation state in history), it hopes to encourage comparative and transnational histories on social movements. At the same time as historians have begun to research the history of those movements, a range of social theorists, from Jürgen Habermas to Pierre Bourdieu and from Slavoj Žižek to Alain Badiou as well as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to Miguel Abensour, to name but a few, have attempted to provide philosophical-cum-theoretical frameworks in which to place and contextualise the development of social movements. History has arguably been the most empirical of all the social and human sciences, but it will be necessary for historians to explore further to what extent these social theories can be helpful in guiding and framing the empirical work of the historian in making sense of the historical development of social movements. Hence the current series is also hoping to make a contribution to the ongoing dialogue between social theory and the history of social movements. This series seeks to promote innovative historical research on the history of social movements in the modern period since around 1750. We bring together conceptually informed studies that analyse labour movements, new social movements and other forms of protest from early

SERIES EDITORS’ PREFACE

vii

modernity to the present. With this series, we seek to revive, within the context of historiographical developments since the 1970s, a conversation between historians on the one hand and sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists on the other. Unlike most of the concepts and theories developed by social scientists, we do not see social movements as directly linked, a priori, to processes of social and cultural change and therefore do not adhere to a view that distinguishes between old (labour) and new (middle-class) social movements. Instead, we want to establish the concept of “social movement” as a heuristic device that allows historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to investigate social and political protests in novel settings. Our aim is to historicise notions of social and political activism in order to highlight different notions of political and social protest on both left and right. Hence, we conceive of “social movements” in the broadest possible sense, encompassing social formations that lie between formal organisations and mere protest events. But we also include processes of social and cultural change more generally in our understanding of social movements: this goes back to nineteenth-century understandings of “social movement” as processes of social and cultural change more generally. We also offer a home for studies that systematically explore the political, social, economic and cultural conditions in which social movements can emerge. We are especially interested in transnational and global perspectives on the history of social movements, and in studies that engage critically and creatively with political, social and sociological theories in order to make historically grounded arguments about social movements. In short, this series seeks to offer innovative historical work on social movements, while also helping to historicise the concept of “social movement”. It also hopes to revitalise the conversation between historians and historical sociologists in analysing what Charles Tilly has called the “dynamics of contention”. Alan Kirkaldy’s double biography of the lives of South African Communists Ivan and Lesley Schermbrucker is particularly fascinating because it focusses on “ordinary” Communists. They did not belong to the inner circle of the CPSA leadership nor were they particularly distinguished as intellectuals. Yet close attention to their lifeworlds allows the author to explore a range of themes that are essential in providing a fuller understanding of what motivated people to opt for Communism and stick with that choice for their entire lives. It has been possible to tell this fascinating tale because of the survival of an extensive family archive that

viii

SERIES EDITORS’ PREFACE

the author has used to the fullest extent, and because of fascinating oral history material. Regarding conflicts between the transnational orientation of Communism and a commitment to African nationalism, the lives of the Schermbruckers show how, presumably, many South African Communists lacked international experience, as it was difficult for them to travel to communist countries or indeed abroad at all. The commitment to a national liberation struggle might at least partly be explained by such parochialism of South African Communism. Stalinist ideology and practices pervaded every aspect of party life and led to a stifling atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. It still is remarkable to see how people within Communism lived their lives within the shadow of Angst rather than leave the movement behind which meant everything to them. The Schermbruckers also only dared to venture out into the open with any criticism of Communism, however slight, very late in the day. Ivan Schermbrucker was, above all, a party fund collector, for the Guardian newspaper, and, as proprietor of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, he provided much-needed funds for the Communist Party and its underground armed struggle against apartheid. His wife Lesley only moved to the fore after Ivan had been imprisoned. Then she became an important organiser and part activist filling the place that Ivan had left behind. They both had solid working-class backgrounds; neither went to university. Yet they shared in the privileges that many white South Africans had in this deeply divided country: they owned a house with pool and tennis court and their children attended private schools. The Schermbruckers threw themselves into the fight against apartheid and for revolution with a passion that showed their commitment to the ideals of solidarity that crossed ethnic identities and racial divides. Unusual among white South African Communists, the Schermbruckers spoke black African languages, isiZulu and isiXhosa which gave them a special bond to black South African comrades. Without taking part in the armed struggle, they supported it whole-heartedly. Ivan eventually went to prison for his beliefs and his actions paying a heavy price for his political ideals. Despite the fact that Lesley took his place, and also suffered imprisonment, in terms of gender divides the Schermbruckers in many ways mirrored the classical role models for men and women that had been set by bourgeois nineteenth-century western society.

SERIES EDITORS’ PREFACE

ix

Kirkaldy makes excellent use of his oral and written family testimony and his often extensive quotations are entirely justified as they lend the narrative of his book a denseness and an authentic texture rarely matched in the historiography on Communism. After finishing this engaging story, readers will wish for more Communist histories like this that tell you little of note about ideology and about policy debates among central committee members, but much about what made Communists tick in South Africa and how their everyday lifeworlds conditioned the very terms of their often life-long struggle for what they believed to be an emancipatory agenda for all humankind. Bochum, Germany Stirling, UK

Stefan Berger Holger Nehring

Acknowledgements

In writing, I was assisted by the provision of a Rhodes University research grant. The university also paid for me to attend a number of conferences. Paul Maylam, Andrew Stevens and Jako Bezuidenhout read the final draft, offering editorial suggestions. Palgrave Macmillan’s editing team of Lucy Kidwell, Stefan Berger, Holger Nehring and Molly Beck commented on various versions of the text. Uma Vinesh and Joseph Johnson were the project coordinator at the publication stage. Zobariya Jidda and her team oversaw the final production of the work with great dedication and distinction. I heartily thank them for their efforts. The two anonymous peer reviewers also offered some extremely useful insights which were incorporated into the final text. I would like to thank them very much for the trouble that they took. The Schermbrucker family kindly gave permission for the use of the photographs which appear in the text. The Constitution Hill Archive granted permission for the publication of the images of the Fort and its’ isolation cells. Thank you to Paul Trewhela for permission to use a photograph of the drawings he made of Jill and Peter. Lizé Kriel and Carla Crafford from the University of Pretoria School of the Arts enthusiastically photographed and scanned the originals, a mammoth task for which I am immensely grateful. Gavin East, director of the South African Jewish Museum confirmed Jill’s identification of the tennis-playing Comrades.

xi

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank Hugh Lewin’s estate for permission to reproduce the full text of his poem “Touch”. Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders, but if any copyright infringements have inadvertently been made, the publishers would be grateful for information that would enable any omission errors to be corrected in subsequent impressions.

Contents

1

Introduction and Author’s Note

2

The Socio-Political Context, Finding Communism and Ivan and Lesley’s Early Years The CPSA/SACP, the ANC, Transnationalism and African Nationalism Women in the Struggle A Sense of Rootedness: The Colonel The Rural Economy: Transkei and Zululand Traders Foundations of an Activist Ideology: Ivan’s Childhood and Youth Radicalising Influences The Party’s Paper: Work, the Move to the Guardian and Funding the Party Lesley’s Family and Youth Developing a Political Ideology and Establishing a Working Career Stalinism

3

Partners in Activism—Ivan and Lesley Life Partners and Struggle Partners Security Legislation, Repression and Financing the Guardian Growing in the Struggle

1 11 12 26 37 40 43 47 52 53 59 61 97 97 106 109

xiii

xiv

4

CONTENTS

Tightening Repression: Increasing Involvement, Surveillance and Detention Security Legislation in the 1960S in Context On the Central Committee Funding the Revolution and Supporting Its Captured Cadres The State Cracks Down—Becoming a Target, Detention and Torture Women Filling the Gap Stayers vs Leavers in the Struggle Situation of the Left at This Time

5

The Trial of Bram Fischer and 13 Others Awaiting Trial The Accused The Trial Begins Ivan’s Defence and Cross-Examination Judgement and Sentence Reflections on Activism—Pre-incarceration Letters

6

Women Picking up the Spear: Lesley’s Increasing Involvement, Arrest and Trial Increasing Involvement, Further Arrests and Detentions, Clandestine Meetings, Party Funds and Hiding Bram Fischer Lesley’s Arrest and Detention and Bram Fischer’s Preliminary Hearing Those Who Gave State Evidence Tightening the Net Further—Lelsey and Violet’s Trial Caught in the Crossfire—The Children

7

Prison Life “Politicals” and “Non-Politicals” Ivan A More Nationalist Focus The Routine of Prison Life Lesley The Fort Barberton Changing Ideology

139 139 145 147 150 157 159 164 189 190 191 192 202 220 224 257

257 262 266 268 270 283 283 285 289 294 298 298 302 308

CONTENTS

8

Aftermath Lesley’s Release Ivan’s Release Disillusionment with Exiles and Cementing a More Nationalist Ideology Helping Those Left Behind in Prison Other Activities and Making a Living in Defiance of Restrictive Measures Declining Health and Death

xv

321 321 325 326 328 334 336

References

347

Index

375

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3

Fig. 2.4

Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7 Fig. 2.8

Fig. 2.9 Fig. 2.10 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Ivan’s Father (Schermbrucker family) Ivan and his Mother (Schermbrucker family) Agnes and Ivan at Ngqeleni after the death of their mother, just before their return to Ncembu (Schermbrucker family) Brann on Horseback. A keen rider, he joined the equestrian section of the police (Schermbrucker family) Umtata High School Cricket Team: 1939 (Schermbrucker family) Ivan in the army possibly prior to being deployed in North Africa (Schermbrucker family) Lesley as a small child (Schermbrucker family) The Williams family at Kwa Magwaza, 1935. (Back) Maurice, Lesley’s father, Enid. (Middle) Catherine, Lesley’s mother, Stella, Lesley. (Front) Joan. Muriel was not yet born (Schermbrucker family) Worker on the Williams’ farm dressed in a sugar sack (Schermbrucker family) Lesley shortly after her arrival in Johannesburg (Schermbrucker family) Pass protests in Johannesburg in the second half of the 1940s photographed by Ivan (Schermbrucker family) Lesley and Ivan’s wedding (Schermbrucker family)

39 44

45

46 48 50 54

55 60 62

98 101

xvii

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6

Fig. 3.7 Fig. 6.1

Fig. 7.1

Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4

Fig. 8.1

Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3

Ivan and Lesley at Margate c.1955 (Schermbrucker family) Jill and Peter on the same holiday (Schermbrucker family) Harold Wolpe and Ivan fishing at Plettenburg Bay in 1961 or 1962 (Schermbrucker family) Tennis Playing Comrades. (Standing, left to right) Harold Wolpe, Ivan, Ben Turok, Wilf East, Julius Baker, Ben Arenstein. (Kneeling) Joe Slovo, Rusty Bernstein. With the exception of East, all would later be imprisoned (Schermbrucker family) The sugar cane farm (Schermbrucker family) Drawings of Jill and Peter by Paul Trewhela while in prison. He drew them from a description provided by Ivan (Schermbrucker family and Paul Trewhela) The Fort Prison. The prison closed in 1983 and became dilapidated before restoration work began. The site now forms part of the Constitution Hill complex and the seat of the Constitutional Court (Constitution Hill Archive) Isolation cells at the Fort Prison (Constitution Hill Archive) The bag that Lesley made while in isolation (Schermbrucker family) Lesley’s prison “ticket”. Prisoners had to carry this little red book at all times. It contained personal information and details of their sentence. Even her dietary requirements were recorded (Schermbrucker family) Lesley in the company of Davey Leigh on a rare trip out of the house after her release during her first period of banning and house arrest. Mini-skirts were first invented by Mary Quant in 1964. She had not owned one before being in prison (Schermbrucker family) Jill, Peter and Lesley in the year before Ivan’s release (Schermbrucker family) Ivan and Lesley at Peter and Reviva’s wedding in 1977. Reviva’s parents, George and Yehudith are on the left (Schermbrucker family)

115 116 117

118 125

271

286 299 302

307

322 324

328

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Author’s Note

This book explores themes in the history of social movements, particularly the Communist Party of South Africa/South African Communist Party (CPSA/SACP), during the liberation struggle in South Africa through the lens of a dual biography. This focus on the lives of two “everyday” or “ordinary” communists—background workers rather than ideologues or publicly acknowledged icons—allows for an exploration of themes, tensions and disjunctures which are not clearly revealed in more generalised histories or in a focus on the leadership of the organisation. Conflicts between transnationalism and African nationalism, the divisive role played by Stalinist ideology and practices, “internal” verses “external” opposition to apartheid, the role of armed struggle versus other forms of activism, issues of gender, the question of language and the experience of white political prisoners in the struggle are thrown into sharp relief. In common with the wider liberation movement, the CPSA/SACP had strong transnational influences and ideologies. To some degree, any history of a Communist Party is going to be “transnational” in character. However, in South Africa, many of its members—and even some of its leadership—were also strongly influenced by African nationalism or simply focused their ideas on fighting for change, democracy and equality within the country first. To varying degrees, they may or may not have had a conception that national liberation would be a step towards the eventual victory of socialism on a world stage. Others, such as Ivan and Lesley © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_1

1

2

A. KIRKALDY

Schermbrucker,1 changed their views in response to the changing national and international political situation, the rise of Stalinism and the flight of (largely white) South African activists into exile from the 1960s. What is striking about the Schermbruckers (and perhaps other rank-and-file Party members in South Africa) is their lack of transnational experience. Despite surveillance and travel bans to socialist countries imposed by the apartheid state, any “important” party member should have made their pilgrimage to Moscow or some other place in the Eastern Bloc. With the exception of Ivan’s military service during the Second World War, he and Lesley were remarkably parochial for CP members—they never left the country. This was more than an attempt to remain working in the background, they never saw the need to do so. As a result, Ivan was seen by some of his comrades as being “unreliable” while Lesley—partly because of her gender—was dismissed as being of no consequence. Ivan was nevertheless particularly adept at managing the vagaries of Party politics and the adoption of the armed struggle without being accused of being as Trotskyite—a figurative, and sometimes literal, death sentence for any leftist activist at the time. After his release from prison, in the years leading to his death, the external wing of the Party saw his role as an activist as being over. Only then did he allow his growing frustration and disillusionment with what he saw as their theoretical hairsplitting, their slavish bowing to diktats from Moscow and party structures to erupt into vitriolic criticism (although still not public). His focus shifted to the plight of those still in prison at home. Ivan and Lesley’s lives also show how very ordinary people could be drawn into the movement, rise above the constraints of their backgrounds and play significant roles based on stances more rooted in common decency and morality than in the writings of Marx and Lenin. Kevin Morgan has argued that “the recent revival of Communist Party History” has empowered authors to move away from grand analyses of the operations and machinations (whether for good or for evil) of Communist structures and to focus instead on the lives of individual communists.2 By focusing on the lives of ordinary Communists, rather than the paper cut-out “Heroes of the Revolution/Struggle”, we are beginning to undermine the myth that party cadres were hidebound slaves of party discipline. Instead, we have affirmed “both the possibility and validity of approaching the individual Communist as a tangle of relationships and ambitions irreducible to a single line of determination”.3 In the South African context, a fair amount has been written on the previously hidden history of the CPSA/SACP, especially since the ending

1

INTRODUCTION AND AUTHOR’S NOTE

3

of apartheid. Included in this have been a number of biographies and autobiographies of its leaders and more public personalities. Despite this, we still know very little about the rank-and-file communists or their daily lives and political commitments, especially during the “underground” period this book focuses on. Ivan and Lesley have largely been forgotten in the corpus of recent Party history. This does not mean that their contribution—although less dramatic, more hidden and far more concerned with administration and fundraising—was less significant than that of Moses Kotane, Bram Fischer, Joe Slovo, Mac Maharaj or Umkhonto We Sizwe (MK) bomb-makers and saboteurs, Jack and Rica Hodgson.4 Ivan was not one of the public faces of the CPSA/SACP. He was known to many in the struggle, and hundreds of shopkeepers and small businesspeople scattered across what was then known as the Transvaal, as the fund-collector for the Guardian newspaper (under its various name changes)5 in particular and the struggle in general. Many others knew him as the proprietor of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, not realising that the bulk of the funds which this collected went into the Guardian and the underground SACP’s coffers. He was one of the “backroom boys”, working tirelessly, apparently with considerable success (and often with little or no recognition) to attempt to ensure that—in the absence of the mythical “Moscow gold” so beloved of the apartheid state’s propaganda—that the revolution did not run out of funds. Before Ivan’s imprisonment, Lesley, the quiet housewife with the exercise business, was secretly supporting Ivan and the Party in their work. After his arrest, she moved onto the Central Committee. From the unlikely safe-house of the ladies cloakroom at the upmarket John Orr’s department store, she organised the clandestine channelling of Party funds and was one of the small group organising Bram Fischer’s movements and hiding places during his period on the run as the “Scarlet Pimpernel”. She was one of the contact persons in, and a key part of, the group of people smuggling activists out of the country. With male leaders and activists in prison or in hiding, it was the women who had to step up to a far more forceful degree than they had in the past. Despite this, it is unlikely that anyone outside a small group surrounding Lesley and Ivan’s close friend, comrade and confidant Bram Fischer knew of her activities. Ivan and Lesley were perhaps unique among leftist white activists at the time in that he was a fluent isiXhosa speaker and she spoke isiZulu. This gave them a bond with African members of the Party and the Congress Alliance not shared by their contemporaries. They were able to build up

4

A. KIRKALDY

relations of trust in situations which their contemporaries found to be more inaccessible. The white left and the black masses that they sought to organise were often linguistic strangers. This was a significant handicap. It required interlocutors and translators, both for meetings and in the production of written agitprop. It elevated whites to leadership positions within the Party but simultaneously made them dependent on these interlocutors. It also made it possible for Africans who could master English to advance rapidly within the party ranks.6 Despite the role that they played, Ivan and Lesley don’t easily fit into a rigid struggle hero mould. Ivan certainly would have rejected the appellation. Lesley remains exceptionally proud of what she and Ivan, and their comrades, achieved and has often felt that his contribution should be recorded textually. She nevertheless shrugs off excessive praise, almost as a habit of her working-class and socialist past. Neither Ivan nor Lesley was a theoretician in the Joe Slovo mould. While both did some UNISA7 subjects while in prison, neither had a university education. Both came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds—Lesley more so than Ivan. Unlike many of their contemporaries (excluding, to some degree, Bram Fischer), neither came from any kind of tradition of involvement in the struggle. Even Bram could lay claim to an Afrikaner tradition of anti-imperialism. Ivan and Lesley came from families that actively supported (and had even fought to establish) the status quo. In common with many of their fellow white activists, they would end up owning a house with a tennis court and a swimming pool. Their children would go to private schools. Perhaps with more honesty than many of her compatriots, Lesley remembers that “I said to Ivan and we used to laugh about it but I didn’t say it to anyone else, but from Monday to Friday lunchtime was the revolution. Friday night to Sunday night you had parties”.8 In two formal interviews that I had with her, Lesley reacted against perceptions that Ivan and she have not received the recognition that they deserved for their role in the liberation struggle. While she feels let down by the fact that former comrades have glorified themselves at the expense of others in the prison and struggle memoirs published since 1994, she emphasises that: I’d like to just say again that Ivan and I […] had a very good life, and when my sister in law [Agnes] said ‘Poor old Ivan, you know, no school has been named after him, no street has been named after him, he’s simply

1

INTRODUCTION AND AUTHOR’S NOTE

5

been forgotten he’s not even mentioned in the books’, I said to her ‘He had a fantastic life, he did exactly what he wanted to do, with the full co-operation of his family.’ I mean, it was terribly unfortunate that he died so early, […] he was only sixty and five years before that he had the heart attack and he was really very, very debilitated. But in jail I think that he played a very, very big part which I don’t see coming out in any of these books.9

In 2010 I was sitting in the Old Gaol—then a backpackers and pub in Grahamstown’s oldest surviving prison building—with a group of students. I have long had an interest in the history of the CPSA/SACP. Ben Schermbrucker, one of the group, asked me if I had ever heard of his grandfather. I hadn’t and the conversation which followed left me thinking that there really was a story to be told here. Not only had Ivan been forgotten about in the Party hagiography but it was his ordinariness, coupled with his deep humanitarian commitment to communism and the Party, that begged to be written about. This led to meetings with Ben’s Great Aunt Agnes, parents, Peter and Reviva, Peter’s sister, Jill and their mother, Lesley. Through them, I received permission to use the family archive which makes up the major source for this work. Working through this, and in interaction with what remains a close family, I decided that Ivan’s story only made sense when woven in with that of Lesley. So she claimed her rightful place in this work too. Peter and Jill also claimed their space. Peter, Jill and Lesley provided me with links to Elizabeth Franklin [born Pitman, then Lewin, divorced wife of Hugh Lewin], Denis Kuny and Hilary Hamburger [then Kuny], close family friends and protagonists in this story. Elizabeth would work at Defence and Aid and assist Lesley with the Communist Party fund-raising front, Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, after Ivan’s detention and imprisonment. She would later leave the country on holiday, choose to remain overseas and only return postdemocracy. Denis was Ivan’s lawyer at his trial and Hilary, then married to Denis, was a constant source of strength to Ivan and Lesley. At Ivan’s instigation, she also visited Denis Goldberg in prison for many years and was instrumental in securing his release. Denis Kuny and Hilary put me in touch with Hugh Lewin, who was imprisoned together with Ivan, and Rica Hodgson, who accompanied him on collecting trips for the Party and its unofficial mouthpiece, the Guardian newspaper.

6

A. KIRKALDY

Jill introduced me to Ivan’s fellow accused and subsequent prison companion, Paul Trewhela. He now lives in the UK and I had a number of e-mail exchanges with him. She also connected me to Raymond Eisenstein, Ivan’s fellow political prisoner and sometime cellmate, now living in Paris and London. I had a fascinating and lengthy telephonic interview with him. Having read an article of mine on Ivan and Lesley published in the South African Historical Journal while I was working on this book,10 Jeanne Daly, a former family friend who the Schermbrucker family had lost contact with after she emigrated to Australia contacted me as I was in the final stages of editing the manuscript. I was glad to include some of her reminiscences at this late stage. I would argue that the oral and written sources which form the core of this work are particularly vivid in expressing the experiences, motivations and feelings of the participants. In the case of Lesley and some of their comrades, it is first-hand testimony. Since Ivan died long before I began this project (with but a few exceptions), one has to reach him through the testimony of Lesley, his sister Agnes (since deceased), and those who interacted with him. Because of the richness of these sources, the way that they manage to re-create the spirit of the times, and the fact that these are the voices of people who have not been heard in existing accounts of the struggle, I have made more use of direct quotation than I usually would in writing history. This is thus a deliberate stylistic choice, one which I feel is an essential characteristic of this book.

Notes 1. Because of the fact that his middle name was Frederick, many in the movement knew Ivan as “Fred”. [James Zug, The Guardian: The History of South Africa’s Extraordinary Anti-apartheid Newspaper, Michigan, Michigan State University Press and Pretoria, UNISA Press, pp. 274–275 n. 72, 300 n. 173, 300–301 n. 175.] This was not his nom du guerre, which was Peter [Gerard Ludi and Blaar Grobbelaar, The Amazing Mr Fischer, Nasionale Boekhandel, Cape Town, 1966, pp. 58–59; “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463 (9

1

INTRODUCTION AND AUTHOR’S NOTE

7

reels microfilm (positive): 35 mm), Reel 1, Trial record, p. 21.] Lesley’s official name is Leslie Erica. Her parents had wanted a boy and had chosen the names Leslie Eric before she was born. Both variations of her first name appear in the sources. She herself prefers the form “Lesley”. At her request, and for the sake of consistency, I use this version throughout, even in quotation. 2. Kevin Morgan, “Parts of People and Communist Lives”, in John McIlroy, Kevin Morgan and Alan Campbell (eds.), Party People, Communist Lives, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 2001, pp. 9– 11. See also especially Geoff Andrews, Nina Fishman and Kevin Morgan (eds.), Opening the Books: Essays on the Social and Cultural History of the British Communist Party, London, Pluto Press, 1995; Kevin Morgan, (a) “Labour with Knobs on? The Recent Historiography of the British Communist Party”, Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen, 27, 2002, 69–84; (b) “Socialists and ‘Mobility’ in Twentieth-Century Britain: Images and Experiences in the Life Histories of British Communists.” Social History 36, 2, 2011, 143–168. 3. Morgan, “Parts of”, p. 11. 4. See, for example, Colin Bundy (ed.), The History of the South African Communist Party, Department of Adult Education and Extra-Mural Studies University of Cape Town, 1991; Luli Callinicos, “The Communist Party During the War Years: The Beginnings of Grass-Roots Politics”, South African Labour Bulletin, 15, 3, 1990, 101–107; Lynn Carneson, Red in the Rainbow: The Life and Times of Fred and Sarah Carneson, Cape Town, Zebra Press, 2010; Allison Drew, (a) “Events Were Breaking Above Their Heads: Socialism in South Africa, 1921–1950”, Social Dynamics, 17, 1, 1991, 49–77; (b) “Writing South African Communist History”, Science & Society, 61, 1, 1997, 107–113; (c) Discordant Comrades: Identities and Loyalties on the South African Left, Pretoria, University of South Africa Press, 2002; David Everatt, “Alliance Politics of a Special Type: The Roots of the ANC/SACP Alliance, 1950–1954”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 18, 1, 1991, 19–39; Bob Hepple, Young Man with a Red Tie, A Memoir of Mandela and the Failed Revolution, Sunnyside, Jacana, 2013; Baruch Hirson, Revolutions in My Life, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1995 (Hirson was a Trotskyite); Rica Hodgson, Foot Soldier for Freedom: A Life in South Africa’s

8

A. KIRKALDY

Liberation Movement, Johannesburg, Picador Africa, 2010; Edward Johanningsmeier, “Communists and Black Freedom Movements in South Africa and the US: 1919–1950”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 30, 1, 2004, 150–180; Ronnie Kasrils, “Armed and Dangerous”: My Undercover Struggle Against Apartheid, Oxford, Heinemann, 1993; A. Lerumo [Michael Harmel], Fifty Fighting Years: The Communist Party of South Africa 1921–1970, London, Inkululeko, 1971; Norman Levy, “The Final Prize: My Life in the Anti-Apartheid Struggle”, downloaded from South African History Online at, http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/ final-prize-norman-levy, 15 April 2016; Tom Lodge, “Secret Party: South African Communists Between 1950 and 1960”, South African Historical Journal, 67, 4, 2015, 433–464; Mia Roth, “Eddie, Brian, Jack and Let’s Phone Rusty: Is This the History of the Communist Party of South Africa (1921–1950)?”, South African Historical Journal, 42, 2000, 191–209; SACP, The Red Flag in South Africa: A Popular History of The South African Communist Party 1921–1990, Johannesburg, SACP, 1990; Rashid Seedat and Razia Saleh (eds.), Men of Dynamite: Pen Portraits of MK Pioneers, Lenasia, Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, 2009; Joe Slovo, Slovo: The Unfinished Autobiography, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996; Ben Turok, Nothing But the Truth: Behind the ANC’s Struggle Politics, Cape Town and Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball Publishers, 2003; Alan Wieder, Ruth First and Joe Slovo in the War Against Apartheid, New York, Monthly Review Press, 2013. The exceptions to the forgetting of Ivan and Lesley’s contributions are Stephen Clingman, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner Revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998 and Glenn Frankel, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999. They also appear briefly in Thula Simpson, Umkhonto we Sizwe: The ANC’s Armed Struggle, Cape Town, Penguin Books, 2016. 5. During its lifetime, the newspaper’s name changed as follows: Cape Guardian, 19 February 1937–11 June 1937. Guardian, 18 June 1937–22 May 1952. Clarion, 29 May 1952–14 August 1952. People’s World, 21 August 1952–30 October 1952. Advance, 6 November 1952–21 October 1954. New Age, 28 October 1954–29 November 1962.

1

INTRODUCTION AND AUTHOR’S NOTE

9

Spark, 6 December 1962–28 March 1963. [Zug, The Guardian, p. xiii.] 6. My thinking here has been influenced by the comments of Palgrave Macmillan’s anonymous peer reviewer. I would like to thank them for their input. 7. The University of South Africa, the country’s main distanceeducation institution. 8. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, p. 8. 9. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 1. 10. Alan Kirkaldy, “Very Ordinary Communists. The Life of Ivan and Lesley Schermbrucker”, South African Historical Journal, 69, 3, 2017, 418–451.

CHAPTER 2

The Socio-Political Context, Finding Communism and Ivan and Lesley’s Early Years

Unlike many of their (white) contemporaries in the CPSA/SACP, Ivan and Lesley were not the children of trade unionists or socialists. Both had politically conservative parents and grew up on trading stations—he in the Transkei and she in Zululand. As it turned out, their early childhood experiences helped them to develop an appreciation of the plight of the dispossessed and disenfranchised masses in South Africa, and sympathy for local cultures. This was nevertheless not a foregone conclusion—like the majority of their contemporaries, they could just as easily (if not more so) have become supporters of the apartheid system. Born in 1921 and 1926, respectively, Ivan and Lesley’s personal biographies overlapped with the formation and subsequent development of the CPSA/SACP. Ivan’s radicalisation during the war years—the catalyst for his joining the Party—was not an isolated example. The Second World War, and reactions to it, proved to be a watershed in its growth and development. In addition, Ivan and Lesley had to negotiate the changing directions in party policy, its blind loyalty to Stalinism and the Soviet Union, its linkages with other liberatory movements, transnationalism, the internal and external wings of struggle, the move to armed struggle and the tensions and fractures that all of this brought. The changing patterns of their lives were intricately bound to the history of the Party until the end of the 1960s at least. They could, and did, take issue with some of these developments. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_2

11

12

A. KIRKALDY

The CPSA/SACP, the ANC, Transnationalism and African Nationalism Lucien van der Walt has argued “that the history of labour and the working class in southern Africa in the first half of the twentieth century cannot be adequately understood within an analytical framework that takes the nation-state as the primary unit of analysis”. Transnational influences were crucial role players in shaping working-class movements which crossed colonial borders, forming sections straddling the region, and even extending beyond it. In addition, “ideological, ethnic and racial divides within the working class across southern Africa played a more important role in constituting divisions than state borders”. He also reminds us “that the nation-state form of the capitalist state is a fairly recent phenomenon for much of the world, and only became the normal, rather than the novel, form of the capitalist state in the second half of the twentieth century. Before the late 1940s, the archetypical modern state was the formal empire”. Loyalty was focused on the empire, rather than its constituent states.1 With the mineral revolution in South Africa fuelled by the development of the diamond and gold mining industries, the working class was both “multinational and multiracial”. As a result of state policy, most skilled workers were white. The majority came from Britain but a significant number hailed from Australia, New Zealand, continental Europe and the USA. Most unskilled labourers were Africans. Many were not South African—in 1920 only 51% of African mine labour was drawn from within the country. The others came mainly from Mozambique and the High Commission Territories of Swaziland, Bechuanaland (Botswana) and Basutoland (Lesotho). In later years, a growing proportion would come from the “tropical territories” and a limited number from South West Africa (Namibia). There was continual completion among employers in the region for unskilled African workers. The Chamber of Mines established the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association (WNLA) in 1921 to recruit African workers from the Transvaal, Mozambique, Bechuanaland Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), South West Africa and Nyasaland (Malawi). Established in 1912, the Native Recruiting Corporation (NRC) drew workers from the Cape (including the Transkei), Natal, Swaziland and Basutoland. Similar bodies were established by employers in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South West Africa to recruit African labour for their needs. Despite these efforts at organisation and control, the labour market continued to be characterised by fierce competition.2

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

13

The SACP and its later ally, the SANNC/ANC,3 were not the only organisations representing workers and the oppressed and disenfranchised. Among other ideological streams, van der Walt has identified a strong tradition of “White labourism”. This had originated in Australia and was brought to South Africa in the early 1900s. This “combined social democratic demands with a platform of job colour bars” and segregation. Interacting—and competing—with this “was the tradition of revolutionary syndicalism, which stressed interracial working-class solidarity”. Workers also drew on a strong tradition of British trade union activity and Scottish socialism.4 Initially, the party grew out of white working-class discontent. It also saw this class as “the leading force for socialism”. It began as the International Socialist league, founded by militant socialists from around South Africa. In 1921, it became the Communist Party of South Africa.5 As the South African affiliate of the Communist International,6 from its inception, the Party had a transnational focus. Its first leaders, and the majority of its early membership, were white workers and socialists who had trade union and other workers’ struggle experience in Europe. On the whole, they were deeply inspired by the Soviet Union, the first workers’ state. In its earliest years, the CPSA supported the exceptionally controversial slogan: “Workers of the World Unite and Fight for a White South Africa” and played a major role in the 1922 white Miners’ Strike.7 After 1924, the majority of white workers were “co-opted by the Pact government, a coalition of the white Labour Party and the Afrikaner Nationalist Party”. This had a so-called “civilized labour” policy which favoured white workers over their black counterparts, restricting better paid semi-skilled and skilled jobs for them. Racial consciousness was deepened and working-class consciousness was eroded. This was paralleled by the rapid emergence of a black working class. The Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU) became “the first black mass movement in the country”.8 Its “politics were an amalgam of two transcontinental currents: Garveyism and IWW [Industrial Workers of the World] socialism”, having its roots in the USA.9 This truly was a transnational movement, with sections being formed in South West Africa (1920), Southern Rhodesia (1927) and Northern Rhodesia (1931). Running parallel to this, in addition to attempting to spread its support base in South Africa, the still largely elitist ANC served in an advisory capacity to, and frequently visited, the emergent nationalist movement in Southern Rhodesia during the 1910s and 1920s.10

14

A. KIRKALDY

These developments prompted serious reappraisal of its policies by the leadership of the CPSA. During this phase of its development, “the party began to move away from a simplistic class-against-class analysis of South African society, and towards an understanding of the relation between national liberation and class struggle”. Racial consciousness rather than simply class consciousness became a focus. As the party’s concerns grew from white working-class issues to include the rapidly growing black working class, the demographic of its leadership and membership shifted to reflect this change. After exhaustive debate within the party, and within the Communist International, the “Black Republic” slogan was adopted in 1928. The accompanying policy document began by noting that the CPSA was in the “exceptionally complicated but favourable position of being the only political Party in the country which unites the white and black proletariat and the landless black peasantry for the struggle against British imperialism, against the white bourgeoisie and the white and black reformist leaders”. It continued by commenting on the co-option of large segments of the white working class, the fact that the CPSA’s membership was predominantly black, and the rapid growth of the black working class (far outstripping that of whites). Arising from this, the CPSA committed itself to building “a mass Communist Party in South Africa”. In doing so, it was to “orientate itself chiefly upon the native toiling masses while continuing to work actively among the white workers”. The Party leadership was to reflect this demographic. The cornerstone of the revolution in South Africa was the national question, which was based upon the agrarian question. Beginning by joining the fight against discriminatory laws, the Party was to build alliances with nationalist organisations such as the African National Congress (ANC) and to foster the development of class alliances among the oppressed.11 Pillay has argued that this “was the first step in the development of an indigenous Marxist perspective, which culminated in the 1962 ‘colonialism-of-a-special-type’ thesis”. Arising from all of these factors, the CPSA re-orientated itself to concentrate “on black workers as the leading force for socialism”. It also engaged in wider work within the African communities. By the late 1920s, the majority of its membership was black.12 Caution should nevertheless be expressed about the degree to which black activists were speaking on behalf of the oppressed black masses or simply endorsing the decisions of the CPSA. This was cynically put by Gana Makabeni, who was expelled from the Party. In 1931, he wrote: “The natives at head office are not champions of the black man, they are only there for their pay and have to say and do

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

15

what they are told. The party with all of its stunts […] to catch the eye of Moscow has no position with the African masses today”.13 As the CPSA’s focus on the black working class and its accompanying concern with the discriminatory laws of South Africa grew, so did its relationship with other political organisations, such as the ANC. The relationship between the CPSA and other organisations suffered in the 1930s, a period where the party became characterised by “ultra-left sectarianism”.14 In addition to the internal and external conflicts which this generated, “conservative African moderates within the […] ANC” worked to weaken the alliance even further.15 The CPSA’s membership and influence dropped severely during this time. It was Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union during the Second World War that initially prompted the move away from this path. The Party, which until this point had refused to participate in war-related activities because of the Soviet Union’s policy of non-involvement, began to actively denounce fascism. It became involved with organisations such as Friends of the Soviet Union,16 who were involved in the war effort at this time. In addition to giving the Party legitimacy, this opened up new spaces for Party activity. “Black union organisation, primarily through the Council of Non-European Trade Unions (CNETU), reached unprecedented heights”.17 This was given further impetus by the economic boom conditions created in South Africa by increasing industrialisation related to the war effort, growing local production of goods formerly imported but no longer available due to the diversion of shipping away from merchant to war-related shipments, the employment of black workers in the place of white workers engaged in military service, and the accompanying growth in trade union activity (especially black trade union activity) between 1940 and 1945.18 In addition, following a Comintern directive in 1935, the Party abandoned “its ultra-left policy” and moved “to form alliances with groups like the ANC and the Transvaal and Natal Indian Congresses”. At first, the ANC Youth League was “opposed to working with communists”. Key members like Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu nevertheless later had a change of heart and “worked closely with the party”.19 Tom Lodge has argued that the Second World War years “witnessed a revival in the fortunes of the” CPSA. Having less than 300 members at the beginning of the war, six years later it could “count its adherents in thousands rather than hundreds”. It was able to win:

16

A. KIRKALDY

white local government elections, and its members presided over the largest-ever African trade union movement as well as contributing significantly to the leadership of the African and Indian Congresses. From 1945 knowledge of the Party’s development becomes vital for any understanding of the mainstream of black politics in South Africa.20

The 1940s in particular saw “a growing internationalism amongst radicals”, with activists embracing an amalgam of socialist, anti-colonial nationalist and anti-fascist dialogues. A significant number of people who joined the Communist Party at this time were either of Indian or Eastern-European descent. Even for many of the early Indian migrants to South Africa during the late nineteenth century, “the idea of India and ‘homeland’ were important components of their sense of identity and belonging”. As their struggle against restrictive and discriminatory legislation in South Africa developed, this became increasingly intertwined with ideas of “tradition”, coupled with Gandhi’s conception of satyagraha and a complex mixture of the dialogues just mentioned.21 It will become clear that, beyond their role as activists, many Indian South Africans were prepared to support the struggle in other ways. Ivan in particular was extremely adept at raising money from small-scale Indian shopkeepers, traders and businessmen. Arguably, his role in raising funds was his major contribution to the struggle. Anti-fascist beliefs and activity were a strong driving force behind the close relationship which existed between a number of Jewish and Indian activists and members, who found “a community of interest” in the Party.22 The first Jewish Communists in South Africa were immigrants, especially from Greater Lithuania. Young Jews in particular found Socialism and Communism particularly appealing. During the nineteenth century, life for Russian Jewry was characterised by pogroms, unemployment, poverty, famines and high mortality rates. Early industrialisation led to exploitation of workers, interacting with political repression. This resulted in the development of a politicised and highly militant Jewish working class organised into the “Bund”—the General Jewish Workers’ Union. Considerable number of Bundists became members of the Communist Party and took part in the 1917 revolution. Many of those who immigrated to South Africa brought these traditions with them. They found a home in the International Socialist League. Under pressure from the Comintern, the branches of the League—including the

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

17

Yiddish-speaking branch—moved with this body into the newly established CPSA in 1921. A disproportionate number of new white recruits to the Party during and after the Second World War were Jewish, drawn by the War, the Shoah, and the radicalising influence of street fights with Afrikaner neo-Nazi fascists in major centres during the war. Thirteen of the 23 whites accused in the Treason Trial of 1956 were Jewish. The five whites among the seventeen activists arrested in the Rivonia Raid in 1963 were all Jewish.23 The idea that all whites involved in the struggle were Jewish became fixed in the popular imagination. It was during the period of the revival of the CPSA in the 1940s that Lesley and Ivan became involved with the Party. Lesley revealed that it was Ivan who recruited Walter Sisulu as a member. Ivan’s fluency in isiXhosa and their childhood memories of life in the Transkei enabled his friendship with Sisulu to develop and to overcome the latter’s original deep suspicion of communism as a foreign ideology. This was a considerable coup as Sisulu was one of the major players in the dynamic Youth Wing of the ANC and a key participant in the struggle. He in turn persuaded Mandela to join the Party.24 There is a strong possibility that their suspicion and hostility would have lasted longer, or even remained, had Ivan not forged this bond with Sisulu. The 1946 African Mineworkers’ Strike, when 100,000 black miners went on strike, convinced the leadership of the ANC Youth League that mass militancy and action were crucial weapons of struggle. With their allies in the CPSA, and like-minded members of their parent body, they succeeded in transforming and radicalising the ANC. This was the first time that many white comrades came into direct contact with masses of African workers. Ivan played a role behind the scenes in these events but it is not clear in what capacity. It is tempting to postulate that his language skills may have been in demand. Fearful of the CPSA’s growing influence within the liberation movement, the National Party government banned it under the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950.25 The Act was passed at the end of June. However, the CPSA voluntarily disbanded itself prior to this, on 20 June. The Party line suggests that this “was based on consensus, the inevitable result of the legislation”. Contrary to this, David Everatt has argued that this in fact “seems to have represented a hasty decision taken by the Central Committee” and that “the general Party membership was left confused and without direction at the same time as the ANC and South African Indian Congress (SAIC) were successfully mobilising support for the Defiance Campaign” of 1952.26

18

A. KIRKALDY

After this, the CPSA went underground, emerging as the South African Communist Party (SACP) in 1953.27 Pillay has argued that, operating underground, the Party “continued to play an important role in black trade unionism”. SACP members played a crucially important role in the formation of the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU). A significant number of its members occupied executive positions in the ANC, the Indian Congresses, the Congress of Democrats (COD)28 and the Coloured People’s Congress. Along with SACTU, these organisations “formed the Congress Alliance which adopted the Freedom Charter in 1955”.29 Sophie Mort has argued that, during this period, “although ‘communists’ did have extensive influence on political organisations and events […] via individual involvement in these organisations, control of certain newspapers, and a presence in parliament and provincial councils, this influence was less as communists than as liberal democrats”. In the process, they moved away from the ideal of the Party as a “vanguard of the working class” and transformed it “into a small exclusive party whose members were in fact liberal-democrats who compromised the class basis of the CPSA/SACP in favour of what they believed was populism in the Congress Alliance”. It was only in 1960 that the SACP began “to reconstruct itself as a separate and distinct political force”.30 Mia Roth has also cautioned that it was only after the closing of the Soviet Consulate (opened in 1942 and closed in 1956) and the banning of the CPSA “that its members threw themselves wholeheartedly behind the blacks as they had nothing to lose”.31 Lying between these perspectives, in an analysis which corresponds with my own, David Everatt has argued that the roots of the modern ANC lay in the “changes it underwent in the late 1940s and early 1950s”. During this period, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and the others who would form the leadership of the ANC in the 1990s: “forced communists to reassess their relationship with the ANC in particular, and with nationalism more generally”. These militants were “committed to mass action and opposed to all organisations which impeded the growth of African nationalism”. With the success of the Defiance Campaign and the intensification of the anti-apartheid struggle in the early 1950s, “a new theory was evolved to fit South Africa’s unique conditions”. Called “‘Colonialism of a Special Type’ or internal colonialism”, this “was the ideological glue which held the African National Congress/South African Communist Party alliance together for the next four decades”.32

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

19

The last major phase in the history of the SACP during the time of Ivan and Lesley’s active involvement began with the formation of MK, a joint military organisation of the ANC/SACP, on 16 December 1961. This followed on from the banning of the ANC in 1960. In 1961, the Party’s new programme, The Road To South African Freedom, “characterised South African society as a ‘special type of colonialism’”.33 This “posited national liberation as the correct first stage of a broader social revolution in South Africa”.34 The alliance between the SACP and the ANC was further strengthened and formalised by the creation of a Joint Revolutionary Council. Arising from this, “the 1969 Strategy and Tactics of the ANC reflected the radicalising influence of the party”.35 As Habib has noted, this alliance “remained steadfast during the organisations’ lives in exile, and the party remained loyal to the ANC’s strategic perspective of armed struggle as a means of realising the establishment of a democratic, non-racial society”.36 Prior to the unbanning of the SACP in 1990, after the death of Ivan, the next phase in its history may be dated to the early 1980s, when the black working class emerged “as a central force in liberation politics”. There was a steady growth in the Party’s influence among workers. Accompanying this, “the party […] moved away from a rigid interpretation of the ‘two stage perspective’ of struggle”. Instead, it “placed greater emphasis on ‘sowing the seeds of socialist transformation’” during the then “current phase of the ‘national democratic revolution’”. Umsebenzi, emerged as “a new popular voice of the SACP” in 1985. The Party also had considerable success in developing a far more extensive underground network than at any stage in the past.37 It became increasingly common to see the SACP flag, often in conjunction with that of the ANC but also frequently alone, at political rallies, workers’ demonstrations and struggle funerals. This has been recognised even by its critics. For example, while exceptionally critical of the strategy, operational history and alliances of the Party, and arguing that it “will not realize the goals of the socialist project”, Adam Habib has conceded that: “The veil of mysticism that enshrouded the SACP, due to its underground character and its participation in armed struggle, attracted thousands of South Africa’s militant working and youth masses”.38 Linked to these developments in the history of the Party, from the 1940s onwards, its alliance partner the ANC increasingly developed transnational links with the emergent anti-apartheid movement, particularly in Europe. The CPSA/SACP could not do so directly because

20

A. KIRKALDY

of the ramifications of the cold war for protest action at the time—the anti-apartheid movement was careful to avoid providing ammunition that could have been used to portray it as a communist front or puppet, although this is exactly what the apartheid regime frequently branded it as. The formation of the UN in 1945 potentially provided a platform for the oppressed in Africa and other areas of the world to register their grievances against colonial powers or other forms of oppression. The organisation “debated racial discrimination as early as 1946” but it was only in the mid-1980s that “concerted international opposition” to apartheid developed.39 This was largely because tensions and economic realities resulting from the jockeying of the various power blocs in the cold war dictated that European powers and the USA saw support, covert or overt, for, and by, an economically strong South Africa—their ally in the struggle against communism—as more important than the forcible dismantling of apartheid. In 1946, the ANC and the SAIC started working together to protest against restrictions on land tenure rights for Indians. Both organisations sent a delegation to the United Nations. With support from India, they were able to prevent South Africa’s bid to annex South West Africa. India also instituted a boycott against South African goods. Continuing with their policy of drawing in transnational support for the liberation struggle, during the Defiance Campaign, the ANC attempted to increase international public awareness by giving briefings to foreign journalists, visitors and personalities. Ongoing lobbying at the UN led to the formation of a Commission on the Racial Situation in South Africa. The roots of a worldwide movement against apartheid were beginning to appear. At the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung in 1955, the ANC and SAIC appealed to delegates to pressure “freedom-loving nations of the World” to push the South African government to “abandon […] apartheid and racial discrimination”. At the All Africa People’s Conference, held in Accra in 1958, the ANC called for “for an international boycott of South African goods”, arguing that the only hope of achieving a peaceful solution in the country lay in increasing international pressure on the apartheid government.40 In the face of continuing reluctance to impose sanctions by the USA and Western European governments against the backdrop of the cold war (and because South Africa was seen as a valuable trading partner), it was originally civil society groups which set up anti-apartheid solidarity

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

21

activities. Much of the impetus behind this came from the introduction of further repressive measures in South Africa. In response to the Treason Trial of 1952–1962, the British Defence and Aid Fund (DAF) was established to provide financial assistance to the accused in political trials and their families. Arising from the emergence of similar initiatives in other countries in Western Europe, the International Defence and Aid Fund (IDAF) was formed in 1965. This had chapters in Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden West Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.41 In response to the call at Accra, a Boycott Movement was set up in Britain in 1959. Most of its membership consisted of African exiles. In Ireland, students and trade unions organised the first boycott actions. The Sharpeville massacre of March 1960 clearly demonstrated just how repressive the South African regime was and provided a new stimulus to anti-apartheid activism in Western Europe. The “Boycott Movement changed its name to the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) and began to diversify its membership”. Trade unions, students and cooperative organisations in the Nordic countries promoted a “moderately successful boycott of South African consumer goods”. With the banning of the ANC and PAC in the aftermath of Sharpeville, both organisations formed underground wings. Umkhonto we Sizwe, the joint ANC-SACP military wing, launched a sabotage campaign and established contacts “with the Eastern Bloc and newly independent African countries to provide military supplies and training facilities”. The arrest of the MK leadership in 1963, and the Rivonia Trial provided a serious threat to the underground structures of the ANC. Between “1964 and 1975, when apartheid reached its apogee, the prime ANC objective became survival, as it risked becoming increasingly isolated from South African realities”.42 Responding to these developments, the AAM organised an International Conference on Economic Sanctions against South Africa in April 1964. Representatives from about forty countries attended. The Movement also launched a “World Campaign for the release of South African Political Prisoners”. In protest against state repression, South Africa was expelled from the Commonwealth and the International Labour Organization (ILO). The Western powers nevertheless continued to refuse the imposition of economic sanctions and (in 1963) the UN Security Council only imposed “a voluntary embargo on the sale and shipment of arms to South Africa”. Consumer boycotts had a minor impact on trade with South Africa before the mid-1980s. The gradual imposition of

22

A. KIRKALDY

sports and cultural boycotts meant little given the lack of progress with regard to economic sanctions. South Africa’s economy continued to grow and the effectiveness of the repressive measures, coupled with the perilous state of the liberation movement in exile resulting from this, meant that from the mid-1960s until the mid-1970s, there were no major events in the country to capture the attention of the international community and pressure them to change their “business as usual” attitude to South Africa. However, from the point of view of civil society, protest movements in the 1960s and 1970s against the Vietnam War and Portuguese colonialism spawned new solidarity movements such as the country-wide AEIS in Sweden and Aktiekomitee Zuiderlijk Afrika (AKZA) in Belgium. This was symptomatic of the rise of new generation of anti-apartheid movements that would play a significant role, particularly from the second half of the 1970s onwards.43 Much of the impetus behind these developments was provided by a further wave of protest action and repression at home in South Africa and the collapse of the economic boom of the 1960s and early 1970s. Industrial action and strikes by black workers became increasingly common after a wave of strikes in Durban in 1973. This was followed by the Soweto uprising of June 1976. Workers and students were motivated by a new ideology which had arisen to challenge what was seen as the placidity and inactivity of the ANC, the PAC and the SACP, namely the Black Consciousness Movement. Motivated by thinking such as Steve Biko’s famous assertion of “Black Man you are on your own”, the BCM rejected the non-racialism of the Congress movement and argued that the struggle had to be taken forward by the Black oppressed masses, seeking to become the new Liberation Movement in South Africa.44 The role of white activists in the leadership structures of the liberation movement in South Africa had been the elephant in the room for a considerable period and had been one of the major factors leading to the split of the PAC from the ANC in 1959.45 With the growth of Black Consciousness, these long-hidden tensions were thrown into sharp relief both in South Africa and internationally. Taking two illustrative examples, Arianna Lissoni has noted that, in his autobiography, Ben Turok46 drew attention to the fact that, for many years, there had “been a subtle division of labour in the movement, with our black comrades giving a higher priority to the ANC and a small group of whites giving priority to the [Communist] party”. In the years of exile, by the mid-1960s, most

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

23

of the SACP members in London were not black Africans, a situation which “further deepened the divide within the Party, as well as between the ANC and the Party, along racial and geographical lines”. Furthermore, the Africa-based activists and guerrillas were seen as being physically closer “to the ‘real’ struggle arena, whereas the London-based cadres were perceived as primarily garnering solidarity”. The former group had also been heavily influenced by the strong Africanist currents prevalent in African liberation movements during the 1960s.47 As a second example of Africanism and the growing influence and importance of the BCM, in a document produced in 1976, an antiTambo group in the ANC accused him and his faction of selling out to “The White dominated South African Communist Party”. For the dissident group, the SACP had “no answer to the problems of revolution facing the African people, mainly because” they also believed in “White domination of the Africans, even doing so in the name of Marxism-Leninism”. In contrast, they portrayed themselves as being: interested in the full development of the African people – to unite as an oppressed and dispossessed people, to fight for their own liberation on the basis of national self-reliance principles, to develop their own strategy and tactics for uniting all Black oppressed people in the common struggle to overthrow the white majority regime and to establish a new system of government based on the universally accepted principle of Black majority.48

According to the group: African unity is more important than making the A.N.C. an appendage of the Sino-Soviet dispute used by the Moscow-supported White liberals such as the Slovos. We stand for African unity, we fight for African unity. This was the very first principle enunciated clearly as a primary objective in 1912 when the A.N.C. was founded.49

The group argued that, in contrast, they continued to “subscribe to and uphold African nationalism as our liberatory outlook. Our entire ideological perspective is based on African nationalism – that political philosophy that rejects White domination and imperialist exploitation”. This took “different forms in different historical conditions” in different parts of Africa but was “the uniting force out of which new forms of social organization grew”. In South Africa, the BCM had “revitalised African resistance to Apartheid as a political system”. In their analysis, the SACP

24

A. KIRKALDY

feared “African oneness because it will re-unite South Africa with the rest of Africa in rebuilding our plundered continent”. What they were calling for was the building “of a Black United Front of all revolutionary organisations and the oppressed people in South Africa”. They thus appealed “to our brothers and sisters in the Pan Africanist Congress [PAC], in the Unity Movement and in all other African political organisations in S.A. to put away the petty quarrels and brother-on-brother feuds which have plagued us all over the years while our house continues to be on fire” and strive for the development of this Black United Front.50 Despite its popularity, the BCM had lost the centre stage of the struggle by the mid-1980s, when the ANC and the SACP had managed to increase their popularity through an intensification of armed struggle and the revival of their underground structures. Through its alliances with the United Democratic Front (UDF), a nationwide umbrella organisation of civil society organisations founded in 1983 and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), formed in 1985, the ANC managed to seize the political centre. Through strategic manoeuvring, it became the central grouping which forced the National Party to enter into the negotiations after the release of Mandela in February 1990 which would lead to the establishment of a democratic South Africa.51 The worldwide anti-apartheid movement had been transnational from the start. Although the epicentre of the struggle was in South Africa, the movement consisted of “thousands of groups and organisations, including solidarity organisations, unions, churches, women’s, youth and student organisations in more than 100 countries”.52 In the first instance, they set out to influence the policies of their national governments towards the apartheid regime. More particularly, they called for the imposition of sanctions. Strategies included education, lobbying and demonstrations. National campaigning nevertheless “did not diminish the importance of cross-border contacts”. The ANC, the national solidarity organisations of Western Europe and the UN Special Committee against Apartheid had regular contact with each other. Transnational contacts were also utilised to inform and organise national campaigns—strategies and activities developed in one country would be modified to suit local conditions and used in other countries too. After the Soweto uprising, “the governments of Western Europe came under increasing international and domestic pressure to take action”. The UN Security Council instituted a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in November 1977. So as not

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

25

to be left behind by the changing position of their national governments—who found continued support of South Africa no longer to be in their economic self-interest—the anti-apartheid movement restructured and reformed itself to maintain and increase the pressure. In March 1979, they launched the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa. From then onwards, they also began to increasingly tackle not only individual states but also to focus on the role played by “transnational corporations, financial institutions and economically orientated IGOs” in the maintenance of apartheid. Arguably their greatest success here was in mounting a campaign against Shell in the 1980s, aimed at calling it to account for violating the oil embargo by the petroleum exporting Arab countries introduced in 1975.53 In the wake of growing resistance in the townships in South Africa from 1984, the government imposed a State of Emergency in July 1985. This “finally broke down Western European resistance to economic sanctions”. In September 1986, the European Community introduced a package of “restrictive measures”. Two years later, the Liaison Group of National Anti-apartheid movements in the countries of the European Communities was formally established. According to Goedertier, this: “was a momentous step in the history of the worldwide antiapartheid movement [… they] now had at their disposal a formal platform for lobbying supranational organisations”. Membership was limited to “national Anti-Apartheid Movements” and consisted entirely of organisations which supported the ANC. “Maoist groups supporting the PAC or trade unionists preferring a ‘non-political stance’ to the South African conflict certainly did not recognise the Liaison Group as their representative to the European institutions”. Liaison Group memoranda were presented to the Council of Ministers, “the political groups of the European Parliament, the UN Special Committee, and a host of other international contacts”. The group managed to exercise a significant degree “of authority over a portion of EC policymaking”.54 Against this background of the vying forces of transnationalism and African nationalism in the liberation movements, activists were faced with a range of strategies to adopt in interacting with their various political formations and against the apartheid regime.55 Some adopted a rigid transnationalist or nationalist approach. Others either vacillated between the two or adopted a more situationalist approach. Others changed their minds over time. Resulting from his conscientisation during the Second War, Ivan was originally strongly supportive of the USSR and was fired

26

A. KIRKALDY

by the transnational struggle for socialism. Lesley was enthused by the ideal of universal human rights and freedom from want promised by transnational socialism. In the face of growing disillusionment with the realpolitik of the Soviet Union, the flight of exiles from South Africa and the increasing hegemony of the external wing of the Party, Ivan came to focus much more on the local, rather than the transnational, situation. While he never entirely abandoned his belief that socialism would ultimately be victorious on a world scale, over time, he came to focus his energies on the local struggle and, more particularly, on the plight of political prisoners. Lesley would abandon her faith in communism completely.

Women in the Struggle It is only since the 1980s that the role of women in South African History has begun to be given recognition. Previously, women’s struggles for gender equality, and their role in the liberation struggle, was largely ignored or glossed over in history texts. Instead, these focused on the role of men—particularly white men. South African society was extremely patriarchal and women—both black and white—were seen as subordinate to men. Women were widely expected to focus their activities on motherhood and the domestic economy. Work outside the home to help feed and clothe the family was often grudgingly accepted by men but was generally viewed as not being “feminine”. Despite this, with growing industrialisation, particularly during and after the Second World War, women played an increasingly important role in the economy of the country. For black women in particular, their role in sustaining the rural economy while their menfolk were employed in migrant labour was a crucial one. White women also increasingly began to seek work outside the home.56 Perhaps the area where (white) women’s history received the most sustained attention in the historiography was the South African War of 1899 to 1902. Even then, they (together with children) largely featured as victims in the Concentration camps—casualties of what was portrayed as a “white man’s war”, a version which also ignored the participation and suffering of African women and men. Since the 1980s, from a more woman-centred perspective, scholars have explored anti-pass protests by African women in Bloemfontein (1913) and Potchefstroom (1930), and the Johannesburg protests of 1954–1956, culminating in the non-racial national Women’s March to Pretoria in 1956. These militant protests

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

27

arguably built on, and radicalised, early organisation by women in church structures and organisations, the first avenue of expression left open to them under patriarchy.57 Women were not eligible for membership of the SANNC/ANC when it was formed in 1912. This only occurred in 1943. White (largely English-speaking) women in South Africa began organising politically to for the franchise as early as 1894 through the Franchise Department of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), and more directly through the formation of the Women’s Enfranchisement Association of the Union (WEAU) in 1911. All members were white. They never questioned the racial basis of the franchise, accepting the exclusion of black people from the franchise in the Northern provinces, their effective exclusion in Natal and the qualified franchise in the Cape which enfranchised a tiny minority of coloured and African men. Afrikaner women had largely avoided the franchise debate, with the National Party being strongly opposed to it. However, in 1923, afraid that they may be overtaken by events, leading Nationalist women inaugurated the Women’s National Party. Their platform was largely centred on excluding black women. Thus, when white women finally achieved the vote in 1930, this “constituted a paternal triumph, as well as a racist one, for it was a nail in the coffin of the African vote in the Cape, and of course it excluded all black women”.58 Despite this, and in addition to the more well-publicised pass protests, black women also became involved in other protest actions and early political movements. In 1912, an organisation called the Native and Coloured Women’s Association was formed to plan for the anti-pass petitions and protests in the Orange Free State. This was followed in by the Bantu Women’s league (BWL), formed in 1913/14 as a branch of the SANNC. Its members became involved in passive resistance campaigns and antipass protests. They also adopted more traditional roles, catering and providing entertainment for the male-dominated SANNC/ANC deliberations. This at least made a number of their male comrades aware of the fact that women were becoming more politicised and assertive. The League survived until the early 1930s, when it was absorbed into the National Council of African Women (NCAW). Formed in 1933, this was less militant and mainly focused on welfare issues.59 In terms of the Liquor Act of 1928, the only place where African men could legally drink “traditional” beer (the only form of intoxicating liquor legally available to them) was in municipal beer halls. The

28

A. KIRKALDY

proceeds of these halls were used to fund municipal administration and so-called “Native Administration”. In effect, every container of beer purchased by Africans funded their own exploitation. Acting in terms of this law, and provincial ordinances, the police actively sought to prevent the home brewing of traditional beer and other liquor and the operation of shebeens. Liquor was confiscated, shebeens closed and those who broke the law were prosecuted. This was a severe blow to many African women’s source of supplementary income. The most militant action against this was in Natal. Beginning in Ladysmith, in 1929 a wave of resistance spread through the province, focusing on small towns like Dundee, Howick, Glencoe and Weenen. Brandishing sticks and chanting war cries, women raided the beer halls and assaulted the male customers. On 17 June 6,000 Africans clashed with 2,000 whites in Durban. At least eight people died and more than 120 were injured in the ongoing unrest. While some women received severe sentences, local magistrates were often conciliatory in their handling of cases, suspending sentences and, in some instances, issuing beer-brewing permits. The regulations and beer halls nevertheless remained in place.60 The First World War and the protectionist policy of Hertzog’s Pact government, aimed at encouraging the upliftment of “poor whites”, boosted the growth of the manufacturing industry. Women (both black and white) began to move to the towns and become drawn into the labour market. Women were paid the lowest wages and employed in the least skilled jobs. In addition to opportunities for domestic service, black women joined whites in a range of other jobs. By 1925, about 12% of women were employed in the industrial sector, particularly in the clothing, tobacco, food and drink industries. Against the backdrop of the worldwide depression, the early 1930s posed significant hardships. Growing unemployment led to widespread poverty in both urban and rural areas, particularly in the latter ones. Increasing numbers of black and white Afrikaans women flocked to the towns to find some way of feeding their families. From the 1920s, and particularly during the 1930s and 1940s, black and white women (especially English speakers) were increasingly drawn into trade union activity. A growing number also became active in the ranks of the CPSA.61 Women’s action was not confined to the towns. For example, with increasing levels of male migrancy in the Herschel district of the Eastern Cape in the 1920s and 1930s, many of the women in the area were

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

29

left in abject poverty and were unable to feed their families. In addition, droughts and bad harvests alternated with good harvests. The women were exploited by the local traders to whom they sold their surplus production of maize, sorghum and wheat, using the proceeds to purchase basic commodities. Utilising their superior market position, their greater ability to ride out bad years and their proximity to the point of sale, the traders stockpiled produce to keep the prices that they paid as low as possible but maximised prices for the commodities purchased by the women. In 1922, the women organised themselves and boycotted the trading stores. This also happened in the Qumbu district. Traders persuaded the police to arrest and charge women who confiscated or destroyed the purchases of boycott-breakers but this increased local solidarity. In the face of this, the traders agreed to regulate prices.62 With the growing radicalisation of protest politics during the 1940s, and against a background of wartime shortages and hardships, African women in particular began to increase their participation in community struggles and demands for representation in the developing liberation struggle. Women’s Food Committees were formed in Cape Town and had links with the CPSA and trade unions. They protested outside parliament about inadequate food supplies. The People’s Food Council was formed by women in Johannesburg in 1943. It sought to improve the distribution of food, organised a conference on the food situation and mounted raids on Fordsburg shopkeepers alleged to be hoarding food. In 1943, residents of Alexandra Township (including many women) organised a highly successful bus boycott in protest against fare increases. They maintained this until the bus company acceded to their demands.63 Increasing movement to the towns, coupled with municipal and government refusal to construct housing for Africans in the cities, led to a proliferation of informal settlements in and around urban areas. Women were also active participants and supporters of so-called squatter movements, among others, in Cape Town, and James Mpanza’s Shantytown, established near Johannesburg to defy anti-squatting legislation in 1944. At about this time, the Alexandra Women’s Council (AWC) was established. It was active in issues surrounding squatter movements and, in 1947, protested attempts to remove squatters from Alexandra Township.64 As part of its programme of rejuvenation and building up of mass membership in the 1940s, the ANC conference of 1943 resolved to admit women as full members. The ANC Women’s League (ANCWL)

30

A. KIRKALDY

was formed as a sub-section of Congress at the same time. All women members of the ANC automatically became ANCWL members. It was emphasised that its focus would be on the national struggle for freedom, rather than women’s rights. At this stage, it was exclusively an ANC body and there was no intention of having it establish ties with a general nonracial women’s movement. Much of the impetus for its growth came from moves by the National Party government to extend passes to women.65 Indian women had become involved in Gandhi’s passive resistance against restrictive measures against Indians in South Africa in 1913. It was nevertheless only in the 1940s that they again began to play an overtly political role by actively participating in the SAIC passive resistance campaign against the 1946 Asiatic Land Tenure and Representation Act (the so-called Ghetto Act). This established separate areas for Indians in Natal towns and intensified restrictions on Indian settlement. Over time, Indian woman activists established links with the ANC and the CPSA, being drawn into issues such as the anti-pass campaign. These links became extremely powerful during the 1950s when women of all “races” united in the Congress Alliance.66 The Native Laws Amendment Act of 1952 set out to tighten influx control. It was an offense for any African, including women, to be in an urban area for more than 72 hours without the relevant documentation. Only the wives and unmarried daughters of African men who were eligible for permanent residence were legally permitted to be in the townships. The Natives Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act was passed in the same year. This reduced the range of documents which African men had been required to carry to a single reference book. Provision was also made for the future extension of reference books to African women.67 These regulations would be tightened up by the Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1964, which stipulated that a woman could only live with her husband in the urban areas in cases where his original entry had been legal. In subsequent years, administrative actions denied the wives and unmarried daughters of entrenched urban residents any special right of admission.68 Protests against the 1952 Acts had begun in 1950, when rumours had begun to leak about the proposed legislation. Between then and 1953, meetings and demonstrations, sometimes including pass burnings and a commitment by women that they would never carry passes, were held, in Langa, Uitenhage, East London, Cape Town, Pietermaritzburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth among other areas. Women were also prominent participants in the Defiance Campaign. This

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

31

strengthened the ANCWL and encouraged women to form the non-racial Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW).69 Following discussions begun in Port Elizabeth in April 1953, the FEDSAW was launched in Johannesburg on 17 April 1954. This was the first attempt at establishing a national, broad-based women’s organisation. One hundred and forty-six delegates, representing 230,000 women from all over South Africa were present and pledged their support for the broad objectives of the Congress Alliance. The FEDSAW specifically aimed “to bring the women of South Africa together to secure full equality of opportunity for all women, regardless of race, colour or creed, as well as to remove their social, legal and economic disabilities”. The body adopted a Women’s Charter which: called for the enfranchisement of men and women of all races; for equality of opportunity in employment; equal pay for equal work; equal rights in relation to property, marriage and children; and the removal of all laws and customs that denied women such equality. It further demanded paid maternity leave, childcare for working mothers, and free and compulsory education for all South African children.70

Members were drawn from, among others, the ANCWL, the CPSA, the SAIC, the COD, and unions such as the Food and Canning Workers’ Union (FCWU) and the Transvaal All-Women’s Union.71 One of their first successful tasks was the major role that they played in organising the Congress of the People, held in Kliptown near Johannesburg, from 25 to 26 June 1955. In addition to assisting local bodies in preparing for the event and in recruiting new grassroots support for the Congress Alliance, they organised accommodation for the delegates. Despite this, and the fact that, through extensive lobbying, they had some of the demands of the Women’s Charter incorporated into the Freedom Charter, women did not play a major role in the meeting itself. Only 721 of the 2,848 delegates were women. While a number of women spoke from the floor, Helen Joseph (the FEDSAW’s Transvaal Secretary) was the only female platform speaker.72 In September 1955 the government announced that it would start issuing reference books to black women from January 1956. This arguably became the primary concern for the ANCWL, the FEDSAW and black women as a whole. Despite ongoing police harassment, the refusal of the Pretoria City Council to give permission for the meeting

32

A. KIRKALDY

or allow public transport to be used to ferry women there, the refusal of the then-Minister of Native Affairs, HF Verwoerd to receive any multiracial delegation and other blocking tactics, somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 women gathered in the grounds of the Union Buildings in Pretoria on 27 October 1955. The demonstration was a great success. Bundles of signed petitions of protest were delivered to the Minister’s door. In the aftermath of the protest, the government attempted to downplay its significance by asserting that it had been organised by white women. This was a complete myth as the major role had been played by black women from the ANCWL and the FEDSAW.73 The highlight of the anti-pass campaign was the Women’s March of 9 August 1956. Preceding this, militant meetings in Free State towns in late 1955 were followed by further meetings in Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Durban, East London Cape Town and Germiston in the opening months of 1956. The government slowly began issuing passes, particularly in less populous areas, in March 1956, arresting and charging those who responded by burning their passes in reaction to calls by the FEDSAW and the ANC/ANCWL. They also refused to pay pensions to women who did not produce their reference books.74 On the day of the march, an estimated 10,000–20,000 women of all “races” from all over the country marched peacefully through the streets of Pretoria and gathered in front of the Union Buildings. In addition to the speeches, large bundles of signed petitions were left outside Prime Minister JG Strijdom’s office door. He had refused to meet with any delegation and neither he nor any of his senior staff was present on the day. It was later revealed that the petitions were removed before he had even looked at them. The massive crowd then stood in silence for half an hour. Before leaving, the women sang “Nkosi sikeleli Afrika”. Women had once again convincingly debunked the stereotype that they were politically immature and inept. Events also debunked government and Afrikaans press propaganda that the event had been successful as it had been secretly organised by the white women. The FEDSAW and the Congress Alliance gained a great deal of credibility as a result of the obvious success of the event. The Alliance declared that 9 August would thereafter be marked as National Women’s Day. Since 1994, it has been a public holiday in South Africa. The campaign continued until the end of 1950. Protests were held in Zeerust (1957), Johannesburg (1958) and Natal (1959).75 Ten women activists were among the 156 individuals accused in the Treason Trial. One hundred and five of the accused were Africans, 23

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

33

were whites, 21 were Indians and 7 were coloureds. The women were Ray Alexander (General Secretary of the FCWU), Jaqueline (Jackie) Arenstein (SACP), Francis Baard (FCWU and FEEDSAW), Sonia Bunting (SACP), Ruth First (SACP), Bertha Gxowa (FEDSAW), Helen Joseph (COD, GWU and FEDSAW), Ida Fiyo Mntwana (first National president of the FEDSAW), Lilian Ngoyi (ANC and FEDSAW) and Debi Singh (SAIC). During the four and a half years that the trial lasted, women of the ANCWL and FEDSAW assisted in organising support for the trialists and their families.76 The imposition of the State of Emergency and the banning of the ANC and the PAC in the aftermath of the Sharpeville Massacre was a severe blow to the FEDSAW and the women’s struggle in general. Lilian Ngoyi and Helen Joseph, its most prominent members, were among those detained. Some members went into exile and worked for the ANC. For example, Ruth Mompati became Secretary of the ANCWL in Tanzania in 1962. Hilda Bernstein became a member of the External Mission and the ANCWL after her flight to London. Those who remained were hamstrung in their efforts to try and regroup as the local structures had collapsed in the face of police harassment and repression.77 In an attempt to revitalise the organisation, early in 1961, regional organisations such as the Federation of Transvaal Women (FEDTRAW), Natal Organisation of Women (NOW) and the United Women’s Congress (UWCO) in the Western Cape were established to organise resistance at ground level. Building on their efforts, by September, FEDSAW was able to hold a reasonably successful national conference in Port Elizabeth. Lilian Ngoyi and Helen Joseph were re-elected. This provoked further state repression. Ngoyi was banned and confined to Orlando for five years in October. Florence Matomela, from the Eastern Cape, was also banned. Helen Joesph’s banning order expired early in 1962. She was nevertheless served with another within a few months and sentenced to house arrest—the first person in South Africa to experience this. With its three main leaders effectively removed, the FEDSAW stood no chance of surviving. The banning of the COD in the following year was a further blow against politically active women. Over the next few years, more women were removed from office in the FEDSAW by arrests and banning orders. Among many others, these included Liz Abrahams, Amina Cachalia, Bertha Mashaba, Mary Moodley and Albertina Sisulu. Ray Alexander went into exile in Zambia in 1965. By the mid-1960s the Federation declined into insignificance.78 At the same time, paradoxically,

34

A. KIRKALDY

the beginning of the armed struggle arguably weakened the position of women in the underground structures of the ANC. Membership of MK was open to women but, in practice, they did not occupy any positions in the leadership at first. Interviewed in London in 1982, Hilda Bernstein argued that “they could no longer assume the leadership roles they had in the 1950s. The exigencies of supporting cadres of MK forced women back into traditional roles as cooks and cleaners”.79 During this period, there had also been signs of increasing struggle by Indian women. In the early 1960s, the government established the Indian National Council, purportedly to serve as a link between the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Asian community. This was widely (and correctly) perceived to be a puppet body. In addition to limitations placed on their rights by earlier legislation, Indian families were severely affected by the application of the Group Areas Act in the late 1950s and the 1960s. Many were forced out of their homes and businesses. In response, Indian women activists marched to the Union Buildings in Pretoria in October 1963. They were attacked with police dogs and baton charges. Soon after this, Zainab Asvat, the main organiser, was banned for five years. After her banning expired, she and her husband Dr Azizullakhar Kazi, who had also been banned, moved to London under exit permits.80 With the effective crushing of opposition by the state, it was only in the 1970s that women began regrouping effectively. The South African Students’ Organisation (SASO) was formed in 1968 when Steve Biko and his fellow BC followers broke away from the National Union of South African Students (Nusas). This organisation grew dramatically in strength after the formation of the Black People’s Convention (BPC) in 1972. A number of women, such as Mamphela Ramphele, Baleka Kgositsile and Winnie Mandela, were active in both the BCM and the ANC underground. In 1975, Fatima Meer and other politically active women established the Black Women’s Federation (BWF). Meer was the first President. She was banned in 1976. In the same year, in the aftermath of the Soweto uprising, Winnie Mandela established the Black Parents’ Association (BPA). Both the BWF and the BPA were allied to the BCM. All BC organisations, including the women’s organisations, were banned in 1977.81 Also in the aftermath of the Soweto uprising, Vorster agreed to make limited concessions to improve the position of coloured and Indian people. Legislation passed in 1978 provided for a new puppet body, the South African Indian Council, to replace the Indian National Council.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

35

Progressives, including women such Amina Cachalia, Fatima Meer and Ela Gandhi (Vice-President of the revived NIC), led resistance to this. When elections took place in 1981, only 10% of eligible voters cast their ballots.82 In the aftermath of the increasing strike action of the 1970s, the formation of new trade unions, and in the face of worldwide criticism of apartheid and the withdrawal of foreign capital, Vorster appointed two commissions of enquiry in 1977. The Wiehan Commission recommended the legalisation of black trade unions and the scrapping of aspects of job reservation. The Riekert Commission made suggestions for allowing residential rights for urbanised black workers. As a result of the legalisation of black trade unions, unionisation of black workers doubled between 1979 and 1982. Women such as Emma Mashinini and Linda Komape occupied prominent roles in the unions, struggling for the rights of women in the workplace. Trade unionism became an exceptionally powerful force in South African politics, a situation which still prevails today.83 Unions and community organisations also increasingly began to work together to link women’s labour and community issues under a single banner.84 Women were again at the forefront of the struggle in the 1980s. In the Western Cape, the United Women’s Congress (UWCO) was formed in 1981. This mounted campaigns on issues such as child care, the price of bread and increases in bus fares. Some branches mounted housing campaigns, organised rent boycotts and sought to protect children from police brutality. They were one of the organisations that participated in the formation of the UDF, where women also played a significant organisational and grassroots membership role. In 1986, the UWCO joined forces with another Western Cape women’s organisation, the Women’s Front. In 1986, they set out to re-establish the FEDSAW by uniting with other women’s organisations such as the Natal Organisation of Women (NOW) and the Federation of Transvaal Women (FEDTRAW).85 NOW had been formed in December 1983 as one of the affiliates of the UDF. Its first President was Pumzile Mlambo (later South Africa’s first female Deputy President). Its main aim was “to fight for the upliftment of women”. A constitution designed to safeguard women’s rights was formulated. Women were encouraged and empowered to assume leadership positions in a range of fields. They also campaigned for affordable and better housing, fought against the pass laws (effectively only ended in 1986), and strove for improved maternity benefits and childcare facilities. With the mass detentions and restrictions on the UDF that

36

A. KIRKALDY

followed the declaration of the 1986 State of Emergency, NOW activists provided political leadershipin Natal and mounted a number of campaigns that the organisation could no longer carry out itself. They provided moral support, food and shelter to victims of repression and political conflict between the Inkatha Freedom Party and progressive bodies in the province. Together with the UDF, the organisation was disbanded after the unbanning of the ANC and other political formations in 1990.86 The FEDTRAW was founded in December 1984. Its members worked together on issues such as high rents, high food prices, inadequate childcare facilities, the plight of rural women, and the compulsory conscription of white men into the army and. It also supported the families of detainees and provided support for youths fighting for the introduction of democratic Student Representative Councils (SRCs) in schools. In doing so, they also set out to combat sexual harassment at schools. They adopted the 1955 FEDSAW Women’s Charter as a working document—their demands were the same. Sister Bernard Ncube was the first President of the Federation. Francis Baard, Rita Ndzanga, Albertina Sisulu and Maniben Sita were elected as active patrons. Winnie Mandela and Helen Joseph were non-active patrons.87 Women played an active role in the formation of COSATU and in its constituent unions. The UDF Women’s Congress was formed in April 1987, committing itself to upholding the Freedom Charter and the Women’s Charter. Its membership included all UDF-affiliated women’s organisations, such as unions, women’s co-operatives, church groups and the women’s sections of youth and civic organisations. In addition to developing the skills of women, it aimed to educate men and women in the UDF about women’s oppression. Women also participated in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) I and II, which negotiated the path towards the first democratic elections in 1994. As part of this process, a number of prominent women activists began to return to South Africa. They, and women who remained behind, made an active contribution to the development of the new democracy and have participated in, and assumed leading positions in, government and civil society.88 It is clear that, as Shamin Meer has argued, women played a key role in the liberation struggle in South Africa during the years of apartheid. Mass mobilisation and mass action were cornerstones of the struggle and entire communities participated in protests and work stay-aways. Workers took part in strike action, students boycotted classes and disrupted the teaching

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

37

programme at academic institutions. Women were involved in all of these struggles, participating as community members, workers, students and mothers. In addition, they “pursued an additional struggle - the struggle for women’s liberation from oppressive gender relations”. Through this involvement, and through careful strategising, they managed to ensure that “non-sexism was made an aim of the mainstream struggle - at least at the level of language”. They managed to win the support of some men in these efforts. Nevertheless, any “gains that they made were constantly under threat”. This was the result not only of the strength of apartheid capitalism but also of entrenched patriarchy and “the resistance of men in the liberation organisations”. Even although gender equality has been enshrined in the post-apartheid South African constitution, and there are mechanisms to guard this, “progress on gender equality made during the transition has not automatically been transformed into unambiguous gains for women within the post-apartheid era of development”.89

A Sense of Rootedness: The Colonel Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker was the great grandson of Colonel Friedrich Xavier Schermbrucker. The son of an Appeal Court Judge, the Colonel had come to South Africa as a soldier after being recruited in Germany as a mercenary to serve the British in the Crimean War (October 1853–February 1856).90 After the war, the mercenaries were offered the opportunity to settle in South Africa. About 2,500 of them accepted. They were settled in Kaffraria on land seized from isiXhosa-speakers on the eastern periphery of the Cape Colony. Military and strategic conditions predominated over economic ones in the siting of villages. They were thus established in extremely arid and remote areas. In addition, most of the soldiers were unmarried. Some had married English women and Irish girls were “imported” for others. This meant that the settlement of the area was not particularly successful. Most of the former mercenaries settled in other parts of South Africa or were re-employed by the British to crush the Sepoy rebellion in India (1857–1859). The main contribution of the German Crimean legion to the history of the Eastern Cape was the establishment of villages with German names, such as Berlin, Braunschweig, Frankfurt, Stutterheim and Potsdam. They also established “German congregations and schools, in which most teachers were retired soldiers”.91

38

A. KIRKALDY

Having settled in the Eastern Cape, the Colonel was elected as a member of the House of Assembly. He later moved to Bloemfontein. There he edited The Express, a newspaper highly critical of the British annexation of the Transvaal.92 He fought in the Gaika War of 1878 and the “Zulu War” of 1879. His military career included service with “Schermbrucker’s Horse”, a group of 42 of his German neighbours whom he brought together to form an irregular force he called the “Kaffrarian Vanguard” (also called the Kaffrarian Rifles although there was another regiment of this name) and the Cape Mounted Rifles.93 At the end of the “Zulu War”, he went to Basutoland [Lesotho] for a brief period. On his return to the Cape Colony, he was again elected to the House of Assembly. Shortly thereafter, he became the Minister of Crown Lands and Public Works. He also served on a commission negotiating with President Kruger of the South African Republic about free trade and the establishment of railways. He was buried with full military honours in 1904.94 The Colonel’s second eldest son, Edward Patrick, married Agnes Ranger in October 1883. They lived in the Stutterheim area and would have four children. The eldest of these, Lionel Edward Schermbrucker (Ivan’s father), married Marie Sarah Catherine Brann in 1919. They lived on a so-called Native Trading Station at Ncembu, at the foot of the Drakensberg near Ugie.95 Lionel worked for Viedge Brothers, who had trading stations scattered throughout the Transkei. Marie Sarah was a housewife and helped out in the shop96 (Fig. 2.1). Ivan’s family have drawn attention to the fact that he viewed his connection to his militaristic ancestor as being extremely important. He always had a keen interest in finding out any information that he could about the Colonel, collecting books, articles, photographs and any other memorabilia that he came across. In giving her explanation for her father’s fascination with the Colonel, Jill stated that this served to establish a sense of rootedness in South Africa which set him apart from the majority of his contemporary white activists (with the exception of a few such as Bram Fischer and the “traitor” Piet Beyleveld): I suppose, in a way, what the Colonel was doing was saying ‘We have a long history in South Africa’. I mean, the Colonel was a bad guy, there was no doubt about that […] And you know, on my mother’s side, they had been in South Africa hundreds of years. So that [...] as quite a big thing. I mean, their roots were deep in South Africa, there was never any shtetl

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

Fig. 2.1 Ivan’s Father (Schermbrucker family)

from Eastern Europe that they came from, or from the fields of Ireland or whatever, they were South Africans, they had been South Africans for generations […] And I think that that was important, the Colonel was always lurking in the background [Laughs]. […] So, […] speaking a black language, deep-seated roots in South Africa was a big thing.97

39

40

A. KIRKALDY

It also does not seem too fanciful to argue that an image of the Colonel as an iconic ancestor fighting for what he believed in underlay many of Ivan’s attitudes as an activist (or soldier) struggling for the kind of South Africa that he wished to bring into being and live in. While poles apart ideologically, viewed at another level, they were both fighting for what they saw as the better future of the country. The Colonel was fighting for white supremacy. Ivan was fighting for the liberation of his fellow South Africans from dispossession, inequality and exploitation. The fact that they were striving for what they saw as a better South Africa was nevertheless a further link between Ivan and the memory of his ancestor. Originally Ivan saw the situation in terms of his exposure to the dispossession and discrimination suffered by Africans in the Transkei. As time, and his wider knowledge of the socio-political situation in South Africa, developed, he came to formulate a clearer picture of the struggle as a fight for national liberation. Beyond that, he would come to see it as a part of a wider transnational working-class struggle. We will see that Ivan formed his communist ideology as a soldier fighting in the Second World War. This would lead to a broadening of his attitudes to take cognisance of a wider—transnational—struggle. In common with a select number of his former compatriots, using the Soviet Union and a firm conviction about its superiority over capitalist social formations as his yardstick, he then fought for the kind of democratic and egalitarian South Africa that he believed in through his activities on behalf of the Party. With disillusionment arising from the revelations of the excesses of Stalinism, and his growing contempt for the exiles and the external wing of the Party, Ivan’s internationalism and transnationalism retreated, leading to a focus on more national issues again.

The Rural Economy: Transkei and Zululand Traders Traders and trading stores were very much a part of the rural economy by the time that Ivan and Lesley were born. Traders from the Cape Colony had begun to trade with African groups in the areas later known as the Transkei and Zululand long before white settlement there. The spread of Christian missionaries saw a rise in the number of traders.98 It has been argued that the period 1903–1968 saw the Transkei “saturated with trading stations”. It was only the existence of a limit of five miles between stations that prevented aggressive competition.99

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

41

Phyllis Ntantala grew up in the Transkei in the 1920s.100 She provides a local perspective of the traders, the relationship between them and the local people, and their perceived lifestyle, at the time that Ivan and Lesley were growing up: They were a hard breed of men and women these traders, isolated, lonely and hardworking. In order to survive in this sea of black people they had to learn to live with the people. Very few of them slept with revolvers under their pillows or locked their doors. They knew that they were safe among their neighbours. They learnt the language of the people and made sure their children learnt it too. Some of them born in those parts knew Xhosa before they knew English.101

Traders and customers were also mutually inter-dependent. The traders bought commodities such as tobacco, craftwork, surplus crops, and hides and skins from the local communities. In turn, this enabled their customers to purchase goods that they themselves did not produce.102 In addition, the traders provided credit facilities to the local people waiting for harvests or for remittances from breadwinners on migrant labour contracts. During times of drought or cattle disease, this service became even more crucial. When compared to other white business people, the smaller scale traders (as opposed to the big companies) may have been economically poor. However, in comparison to their African neighbours and clients, they were relatively privileged, being capable of extending patronage and security from starvation in times of need. As with any privileged group (however impoverished), this familiarity and interaction with the local people, and the mutual interdependence of trader and customer, did not extend to all aspects of their lives. As Ntantala has pointed out: “But for all that, these traders never forgot that they were white – their children attended white schools in town and not the local African school, just a few miles from home”.103 Similar themes are also revealed in Debbie Whelan’s study of “Memory, identity and inheritance amongst Zululand traders”—the area where Lesley grew up. Even those no longer trading identify themselves as traders. They argue that “trading is in the blood” and that, despite the “hardships and difficulties” they faced because of the isolated nature of their stations, they “had a good time”. “We had fun” and “It was a good life”. The children grew up speaking English and isiZulu, sometimes speaking only the latter until they were three or four. The trading

42

A. KIRKALDY

stations were “lovely” places to grow up and they fished and enjoyed the security and freedom that were on offer. The “one big drawback” was the fact that they had to go to boarding school.104 Also reflective of the situation in the Transkei, Whelan had argued that: The life of the trader was characterized by living and trading in the spaces of people with different cultures, languages and needs. Despite the maintenance of some ‘English’ practices, such as the social rounds of tennis and gymkhana balls, which involved much logistical arrangement, this isolation from urban society sometimes became too much, and together with other pressures, often forced traders to move to urban centres.105

The references to relationships with mission stations, the freedom and safety enjoyed by the traders, the fluency in isiXhosa (or isiZulu) of their children, the interdependence of traders and their customers and the creation of a lifestyle with settler practices such as tennis and fishing resonate strongly in the accounts about Ivan (and Lesley’s) childhoods. So too does the fact that, as whites, they also lived apart from the local African people, including their black playmates. Unlike most of their contemporaries, Ivan and Lesley would dedicate their lives to attempting to break this division. While they did not yet have an ideology to explain this, or any sense of the transnational nature of oppression, they came to see this situation as morally wrong. Shula Marks has noted that long before the 1913 (and 1936) Land Acts, “land shortage, the absence of credit, and state support for white, but not black production” was destroying the once-proud, strong and independent African peasantry. Although this was an uneven process, by the 1920s the political economy of the Transkei was characterised by the migrant labour system and the skewed demographic of the area to encompass the elderly, women and children. Within a decade, the world depression had further impoverished the region.106 The situation was further compounded by the implementation of so-called “betterment planning”, which aimed to limit the number of cattle black farmers could own, as well as to implement contour farming, and enforce the villagisation (rather than the traditional pattern of scattered homesteads) of the peasantry.107 This tactic was an integral part of the apartheid policy which ensured that the African reserve areas would essentially serve labour reserves, providing a struggling level of subsistence for women, the very young and

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

43

the old while those (most especially those men) of productive age would be forced into labour on the mines and for other white-owned enterprises. The policy was a failure. By the 1960s numerous rural committees had resisted the betterment policy and soil erosion had in fact increased.108

Foundations of an Activist Ideology: Ivan’s Childhood and Youth Ivan grew up in this area, and cultural setting. He was born on 22 February 1921 in the small Transkei village of Ngqeleni. This was where his mother had grown up and where his maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Rebecca Brann lived with her son, William Bernard Brann (Uncle Bill), who worked as a messenger of the court. At a few weeks of age, Ivan was taken to the trading station at Ncembu, where he would spend his earliest years.109 His sister, Agnes, recalled that the setup was very simple. There was a shop with a verandah, tanks for storing loose grain and a large thatched rondavel for bagged grain. The homestead, mainly consisting of rondavels, was behind this. There were pit-drop toilets and no running water or electricity. There was also a cattle kraal for their milk supplies and a chicken coop. The shop served the Africans in [...] the surrounding countryside – thatched mud huts – an enclosure for cattle and sheep of Aloes planted close together – pigs and fowls roamed free.110 […] The Africans brought grain, wool and hides to trade for their needs of food, blankets, ochre and a coarse material [... white unbleached calico] they used for their traditional dress and the ever popular small beads, then sold by the spoonful, to make their traditional beadwork.111

Other stocks in the shop included red ochre, black braid and sweets112 (Fig. 2.2). Ivan’s siblings, Agnes Marie and Lionel Brann were born in 1924 and 1929, respectively.113 After Brann’s birth, Ivan—then eight years old—remained behind with his grandmother and Uncle Bill to start his schooling. Their mother returned to Ncembu with Agnes and the baby later.114 However, she had suffered from chronic ill-health for years and could not really look after the children. As a result, they “were attended to by a faithful nursemaid, Charlotte”.115 After their mother’s death in September 1939, Charlotte moved back to the Ngqeleni district, where

44

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.2 Ivan and his Mother (Schermbrucker family)

she had come from. Their father bought her a sewing machine so that she could set herself up as a dressmaker and seamstress.116 The children stayed with their grandmother and Uncle Bill for a time and their father went back to Ncembu. He employed a governess, Dorothy O’Connor from Kimberley. Agnes and Brann were sent back to stay with their father but this did not work out. Dorothy was young and inexperienced and the children did not settle down with her. In mid-1933, they were sent back to their grandmother and Agnes started school at the primary school in Ngqeleni117 (Fig. 2.3).

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

45

Fig. 2.3 Agnes and Ivan at Ngqeleni after the death of their mother, just before their return to Ncembu (Schermbrucker family)

In Agnes’ recollection: Our only playmates during this time were the picaninns who came with their parents to shop at the store or those who lived in mud-hut kraals near by [...] We played around the store verandah and yard and near our home. We learnt to speak Xhosa from a young age and over the years became fluent – Ivan and our younger brother [Brann118 ] in particular.119

Sometimes the young African children brought clay oxen—replicas of their parents’ long-horned cattle—and wooden sleighs with them to play with or to sell to get money for sweets which they shared with the Schermbrucker children. They taught Ivan how to make the oxen and sleighs, to play drums and other traditional instruments, how to make rawhide whips and how to cut and carve knobkieries120 (Fig. 2.4). Growing up in such proximity to each other, Ivan and Agnes became extremely close. Family members have frequently said that Agnes idolised Ivan and, until his death, he remained concerned about his sister, who did not mix easily and eventually married a difficult and domineering man.

46

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.4 Brann on Horseback. A keen rider, he joined the equestrian section of the police (Schermbrucker family)

This bond was further strengthened by the fact that their father had a drinking problem and was inappropriately affectionate towards her when intoxicated.121 What the family refer to informally as “Agnes’ unhappy life”—her inability to mix easily with others, her relationship with her difficult husband, and her over-dependence on and closeness to her protective older brother—are clear indicators of a survivor of childhood abuse, be it sexual, physical or emotional.122 The primary school (which was for whites only) consisted of two interleading classrooms and had a veranda running down two sides. There was only one teacher, Miss Bea Smith, who taught all classes from Sub A to Std. VI—thirty to thirty-five children.123 Already at this age, Ivan had begun to develop the mercurial temper for which he would become famed in later life.124 In 1936 Ivan went to (the whites only) Umtata High School, matriculating in 1939. (Agnes would join him there during his last year.) Despite his upbringing in the rural Transkei with black playmates, at this stage, he could have followed the majority of his peers and accepted the

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

47

privilege that being white offered him. Although his family were not welloff economically, he ticked all of the boxes to establish himself among the white petty bourgeoisie. Doing reasonably well academically, he was reportedly well-liked by teachers and house-masters. A boarder at Viljoen House, he was a house prefect in 1938/39 and a school prefect in 1939. He was in the school’s first cricket, rugby and tennis teams.125 Uncle Bill had a cottage at the Wild Coast. The family went there for all the school holidays. Ivan’s greatest joy was “to go fishing on the rocks and come back with a good catch”. At night, when the moon was right and the night was very dark, they would go spearing fish by the light of carbide lamps.126 Ivan would never lose his love of fishing. Once married, he would spend many family holidays on the Transkei Wild Coast, particularly at Coffee Bay and Port St. Johns with Lesley and the children.127 In addition, he began to broaden his lifelong interest in music. He and his siblings had grown up with music played with 78 records on a gramophone. Their mother had played the mandolin and Agnes had taken piano lessons for a short while. This love for music—classical and, later, protest and pop, persisted throughout Ivan’s life and was shared by Lesley and the children.128 Instead of following the easier path towards white bourgeois social privilege, Ivan nevertheless began to develop a political ideology which would set him on the road to his later activism. Some of the teachers at the school were supporters of the National Party while others were anti-nationalist. There were frequent political arguments and discussions including both teachers and matric pupils. This, coupled with his early experiences of speaking isiXhosa and growing up on the trading station, began to convince him of the moral reprehensibility of segregation and discrimination.129 It would take his experiences after school, particularly in fighting in the Second World War to shape this into communism (Fig. 2.5).

Radicalising Influences Thus far, Ivan’s life does not appear to have differed markedly from that of his peers among the white population of the Transkei. Perhaps the only real exceptions to the idyllic childhoods described by the children of trading families were his mother’s failing health and subsequent death, his father’s dysfunctional relationship with Agnes and the fact that he had spent a large part of his youth with his grandmother and uncle, rather than his father. As with many young men of the time, the Second

48

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.5 Umtata High School Cricket Team: 1939 (Schermbrucker family)

World War nevertheless provided a turning point in his ideologies and his life. In his exploration of the “nexus between military service and political activism”, Graeme Plint has argued that military service in the Second World War drew together volunteers from all strata of white society and from all parts of the country. This assisted in developing a common “South Africanism” which provided a foundation for later mobilisation against the National Party and apartheid. Having fought against the Germans and the Italians on several fronts, many of the soldiers developed a deep antipathy to totalitarianism. Their experiences of interacting with black auxiliaries and their political conscientisation, particularly by the Springbok Legion,130 meant that they often combined this with a rejection of the growing racial intolerance and institutionalised racism at home. A significant number joined the United Party but others

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

49

became involved in other parliamentary and extra parliamentary formations and structures.131 Many young soldiers at the time were influenced by communist ideology. Building on his youth in the rural Transkei, his experience of rural poverty and white privilege, his childhood friendships with African playmates, his linguistic skills and his wartime interactions with South African and Italian communists, soldiers and partisans, Ivan’s commitment would prove to be far deeper than most. After leaving school, Ivan would have loved to go to university. The family were not able to afford this. As a result, he signed up for the army as a volunteer at the beginning of 1940 but had somewhere between three and six months before he had to report for duty. Arising from his fluency in isiXhosa, he found work at the Chamber of Mines, working for the Native Recruiting Corporation (NRC). This gave him a job to come back to after the war.132 It also further exposed him to the hardships faced by the disenfranchised African proletariat (Fig. 2.6). After receiving training within the borders of the Union, Ivan was sent North in 1941. He served in signals in North Africa and Italy. Seconded to the British Eighth Army Headquarters, Ivan and his company served at Tobruk and Gazala, being transferred there before the fall of Tobruk in June 1942. Towards the end of the year, they returned to South Africa for a period of somewhere between six weeks and two months.133 On his way back to South Africa, Ivan became involved in the Springbok Legion. His company were then asked to volunteer for service in Europe. Ivan volunteered and he and his fellow volunteers were attached to the British Eighth Army in Italy. They were among the first South African troops to land there and “saw a great deal of fighting”.134 It was here that he was exposed to communism and his ideas about the injustices of life in South Africa were given a concrete ideological framework and method of action, rather than simply being a cause of frustration and anger.135 In addition, his wartime experiences exposed him to the idea that the struggle to achieve socialism was an international and transnational one. While he would never lose his sense of the necessity for liberation in his own country, during this period his activism also encompassed the fight against fascism and the wider transnational worker’s struggle. This would be accompanied by a deep sense of the leadership role played by the Soviet Union and an almost millennial belief in the superiority of all that came out of the USSR. This would persist until Krushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956 and the Soviet invasion of Hungary which followed. Because of their disillusionment, after this, Ivan and Lesley would shift the

50

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.6 Ivan in the army possibly prior to being deployed in North Africa (Schermbrucker family)

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

51

focus of their attention more to the local situation than the transnational struggles of communism. While driving in a convoy of trucks to Tunisia, prior to transportation to Italy, Ivan met Fred Carneson, who was also part of the Headquarters Company of Signals.136 According to Wolfie Kodesh, who also served with Ivan at this time, it was Fred who formally recruited Ivan into the Communist Party.137 In this task, he was closely supported by his close friend Brian Bunting,138 who was stationed as an information officer to an air force squadron based nearby.139 Ivan would also join “The Friends of the Soviet Union”, apparently some time in 1943 or 1944.140 Communism provided a welcome relief to the violence and held up a vision of an alternative society which could be constructed from the ruins of war. Recalling his days of derring-do in Italy with Ivan, Wolfie stated that the troops would be billeted in houses or buildings. When these were not available, they would be “put up in tents in the fields”. Ivan and Wolfie shared a tent. Once, when word came though of the possibility of an attack, they camouflaged their “tent with hammers and sickles […] The Red Army was held in high regard at that time”.141 The Springbok Legion activists wanted to arm the Africans fighting in the war and disarm the Nazi sympathisers back home in South Africa. Many, including Ivan and Wolfie, “wanted a Socialist Revolution in South Africa”. Together with other comrades, they began making contact with the Italian partisans and the Communist Party in Italy. Sarah Carneson, Fred’s partner, managed to obtain a considerable number of books from the Italian Communist Party. She sent them to Fred. He, Ivan and the others gave these to the local people that they came into contact with. “For them, these books were like manna from heaven after fascism”. They also made contact with the leadership of the partisans in the Marché province and organised to have propaganda literature distributed by them. In addition, Ivan played a key role in organising a joint march of South African troops and local people to celebrate May Day. Advancing on through Italy, Ivan, Wolfie and Fred Carneson would spend over a year at the port of Ancona.142 Ivan was demobilised in May 1945.143 Together with other communists, he continued with his work on behalf of the Springbok Legion, serving on the editorial board of its newspaper, Fighting Talk, until it was banned in 1963.144 Even Ivan’s far from politicised sister, Agnes, would state that: “When he came back from Italy he seemed to me to be more for the blacks than he was before he went”.145

52

A. KIRKALDY

The Party’s Paper: Work, the Move to the Guardian and Funding the Party After the war, Ivan briefly continued working for the Chamber of Mines but didn’t enjoy this and joined the Native Affairs Department as an interpreter in the Native Administrator’s Court in Johannesburg instead.146 He thought that: “perhaps by joining the Native Affairs Department, I would be able to help the African people in some way. I felt a great pity for them”. Possibly somebody like him, who could speak isiXhosa “would be able to help” alleviate their plight in some way.147 He continued working there for some time. However, with his growing political awareness and involvement in formal communist political activity, he could not bring himself to work there permanently.148 Having become more extensively involved in Communist Party work, attending meetings, and distributing the party’s anti-apartheid newspaper, the Guardian, he resigned from the Native Affairs Department towards the end of 1946 and joined the Guardian, serving as its Johannesburg branch manager (under its various names) between 1947 and 1963. Because of the crucial role that he played in fundraising for the newspaper and the Party, he also rose through the ranks of the CPSA, becoming a member of the Central Committee.149 Lesley would later say: “Ivan simply adored the paper, […] it was his lifeblood”.150 In his history of the Guardian, James Zug has written that, with Ivan’s arrival at the Guardian: A champion cussing artist joined [Ruth] First at Commissioner Street. […] At the same time First came to the Guardian, Schermbrucker latched on as the Johannesburg circulation and office manager. He matched First with an equally fiery temper. ‘Ivan had a reputation for being the biggest swearer in the whole of South Africa,’ Albie Sachs remembered. ‘He was a sweet, gentle, super guy, but at work he swore and swore and swore and swore.’151

Zug would also note that Ivan’s fluency in isiXhosa “and his engaging personality gave the Guardian an essential access to the African scene”.152 Ruth First would comment in a letter to Lesley in August 1981 that: “Somehow I thought of him as one of the indomitables, enduring, ever resilient. I was sure we’d make up one day for lost time […] he is always there. One of the indestructibles”.153 Calling him by his nickname, Brian

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

53

Bunting would say that: “Fred […] came in and organised sales of the Guardian, something the Party had been doing before. We had to get it on a stronger, more permanent basis. […] He was very explosive, dynamic”.154 Raymond Eisenstein,155 who later shared a cell with Ivan, also recalled the swearing: Now, you know, when you are for several hours locked up with somebody things come out and obviously Ivan [...] did not have his tongue in his pocket. In other words, he sometimes would use words and sometimes they were derogatory of people [...] And Ivan, well you must know that, he was a guy who was very loud and was very good with expletives, you know that [...] Oh my God, expletives, […] all the expletives in the English language, absolutely, I promise you.156

It was from his base at the Guardian that Ivan began establishing himself as an organiser and fundraiser for the Party. In the absence of the mythical “Moscow gold” and other overseas funding which featured prominently in apartheid propaganda, this was essential if the Party was to survive. This work was not well-paid, and in his subsequent career as an activist, a Party organiser and a revolutionary, Ivan would come to rely heavily on the continuing emotional and financial support and stability of his partner, Lesley.

Lesley’s Family and Youth Lesley Erica Williams was born in Eshowe, Zululand, on 4 January 1926. As with Ivan, her youth and upbringing were very different from other white activists at the time. Although both had parents who were politically conservative and benefitted to some degree from white privilege, their daily lives were far more enmeshed with those of black people than those of any of their contemporaries. Lesley was the daughter of Eric Lesley Williams and Catherine Elizabeth (nee Millar), and was the fourth of seven children. The eldest, Maurice Ainsley, was born in 1920 and all the rest were daughters. The second and third of her siblings were Enid Valeria (1922) and Catherine Eunice (1924). Lesley was followed by Stella Elizabeth (1928), Joan Elsie (1932) and Muriel Audrey (1937)157 (Fig. 2.7). Lesley’s father was of Welsh stock and was born in Richmond in Natal. Having left school at the age of 12 to become a waggon hand, he had

54

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.7 Lesley as a small child (Schermbrucker family)

little formal education. At fifteen, he was working on the mines to support his mother and sisters in Durban—he would only marry once they were settled. During the depression, he struggled to make a living and tried various ways of making money. Besides working on the mines, for a while he had a trading store. Eventually “he took out two bonds to have a sugar farm, but he was constantly in debt”. He was not involved in union activity during his working life and was conservative politically and patriarchal in his views of social and home life158 (Fig. 2.8). Lesley’s mother, who was from the Cape, “came from quite a different family where books and music contributed to a more established cultural life”. She had first been married for five years to John Hart, a school

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

55

Fig. 2.8 The Williams family at Kwa Magwaza, 1935. (Back) Maurice, Lesley’s father, Enid. (Middle) Catherine, Lesley’s mother, Stella, Lesley. (Front) Joan. Muriel was not yet born (Schermbrucker family)

56

A. KIRKALDY

teacher/principal who had died during the 1918 flu epidemic. Sent on holiday to recover from her grief, she met Eric. Moving into the trading store with her piano and collection of classic works of fiction by Dickens, Shakespeare, Bronte, Austin, Kiping, Dante and Scott, she began a lifestyle and a marriage with a man both of which were totally different from anything she had known previously. Lesley noted that, despite these differences: “There was no doubt in my mind that Mum and Dad loved each other – today I recognise it as an electric current that ran between them – always so alive and crackling”.159 Lesley spent the first twelve years of her life on the mission station of Kwa Magwaza in a “Native Reserve” in Northern Zululand. Theirs was “the only house and store for miles around on the Native Reserve – otherwise it was the mission and kraals”. Their father built a wattle and daub house and the family were poor—poorer than the Schermbruckers.160 Lesley would later recollect that they nevertheless never really seemed to notice this. Black children in the area generally did not go to school. Many of the Afrikaner children went to school without shoes. Lesley and her siblings had shoes, even though they were usually cast-offs. Aunt Ruby Moorhouse who lived in Pietermaritzburg and had seven children would sometimes send money. She also regularly sent parcels of clothes and shoes that her own children had grown out of. The shoes “never fitted properly and that meant blistered and sore feet”.161 So, “we didn’t think that it was hard […] it was just what was going on […] you wore second-hand clothes, you wore second-hand shoes, you had lamps, you had candles”, there was a wood-stove and only cold water to wash with but the children were expected to stay neat and tidy. Four girls shared a room with Stella and Lesley in the same bed. Joan, the baby, was in with their mother and father. The chamber pots under the beds had to be emptied before school and cleaned with “sheep’s dip” (Jeyes Fluid). From the age of eleven or twelve years, the girls began to make their own clothes. Poverty and having to do the best with few resources taught the girls how to be independent and “how to get on with things on their own”.162 Lesley loved school and reading. Up to Standard Six, the children went to school in the small village of Melmoth, five miles away from the mission station.163 After homework and chores at the weekends were completed, they:

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

57

were allowed to visit the kraals and speak with the people.164 […] We spoke Zulu with varying frequency – no Natives spoke English then, except the young boys attending the Mission School […] They didn’t seem poor to me then – the huts were beautifully kept and all the appointments and implements were so neat and orderly – the children clean and shiny.165 […] Sour milk and mealies and mealie pap (pu-tu) were readily available for us;166 […] we sat quietly and had a deep respect for their different ways of living. Even then I noticed a lack of men-folk – young and middle aged - Dad said they’d gone to work on the mines.167

Even then, they always seemed to have enough food, according to Lesley, The trading store provided a shaky living. […] Under the counter was a sjambok but I never saw Dad use it on the cheerful rowdy ‘Natives’ who came to buy. His gun was kept locked in the top drawer of the Tallboy in the bedroom; only once did he use it to shoot at us.168 […] Sarah our faithful nanny quickly got mum and us out of the house and behind the hedge – the bullet whistled overhead […]169

Lesley feels that her mother gave her and her siblings a good and happy start to life.170 Her father, though, was a different kettle of fish. Like Ivan’s father, he also showed signs of inappropriate behaviour towards his children. He was far more violent than Lionel Edward Schermbrucker. Lesley would state that: “Dad, like all fathers [at the time] I think[,] was a strict disciplinarian – we came in for many hidings with hand or stick”.171 It nevertheless went deeper than this: I don’t know what it was, my mother gave a lot of excuses for him, he was in the First World War and she said it was because he was gassed. He [...] flew into terrible rages. I remember one particular time when [I was six years old and] my eldest brother [Maurice] […] had a vegetable patch and he was digging [...] and I was curious and […] inadvertently he chopped [the back of] my head […] And my dad kicked him right around the yard, I thought that he was going to kill him [chuckles] and I was taken to hospital for stitches […] but we had a lot of hidings […] for the least little thing […] my mother never hit us, […] it was always ‘Wait until your father comes home’ […] which I think was standard in those days […].172

58

A. KIRKALDY

It was an argument over education for the girls that provided the only real case that Lesley can remember where her mother stood up to her father. At twelve years of age, Lesley and Catherine moved to Eshowe High School. Before this, Maurice and Enid had been pulled out of school in their respective Junior Certificate (Grade ten) years. “Dad wasn’t making a living from the store” and insisted that the family needed the extra income. Maurice was apprenticed as an artisan in a wattle factory and Enid got a job first behind the counter as an assistant in a stationery shop, and then “in the Zululand Trading Store at three pounds a month and it was a lot of money in those days […] so it definitely helped”.173 Despite a “serious row”174 about this, Lesley’s mother had lost the battle to keep the eldest two children at school. Overruling Lesley’s father’s statements that they had to go out to work as the family needed the money, her mother insisted that: “The next five girls are going to matric”. As Lesley recalls, at that stage, “very few people went up to high school, I think there were only twelve in our matric class […] mixed [boys and girls]”.175 The opportunities afforded to the five girls created a division in the family—Maurice “was very resentful because he could have gone further and he was clever”. Enid reacted by “bottling it all up and building a reserve and turning to religion”.176 With the five girls at school: Dad got a Land Bank mortgage and a second bond from Aunty Ruby Moorhouse to buy the sugar farm. He knew nothing about farming and was always in debt. Floods, drought, locusts and fires were severe hazards. We had heavier duties before school and after. Separating milk to sell the cream to the dairy, washing the [separating] machine, feeding the ducks and pigs, tending the vegetable garden, doing the laundry, mending, sewing and cooking. Looking back I realize we were ‘poor whites’ […] There were rows about no money but Mum stuck to her resolve.177

Evenings were often spent grouped around the piano singing. In addition, they told stories, played charades, draughts and dice games, and had a huge box of things for playing dressing up games. Their parents were keen bridge players and played with visiting relatives and fellow enthusiasts from Melmoth.178 Despite their relative poverty, and their closer relationship with African people, the family clearly enjoyed a degree of white privilege. With the move to the sugar farm, they also became employers of black labour, rather than traders.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

59

Developing a Political Ideology and Establishing a Working Career There had been little outside influence on Lesley’s life which could have motivated her to develop an over-reaching political ideology. Poverty was seen as the norm and, despite her interaction with African people, Lesley had not yet thought to challenge the socio-political order—the existing system was just the way that things were. Lesley later recollected that it was only with the move to the farm that she began to realise just how poor her family were. She came to realise that her mother only managed to support the family by eking out the money that came in from the sugar mill from time to time, shifting it between accounts and getting deeper and deeper into debt. It is far from axiomatic that growing up in relative poverty predisposes a person to being sensitive to the plight of others, especially in the South African context with its admixture of race and class. However, in her case, unlike the case with the majority of her white peers, this is what occurred. She began to understand the situation not only of Africans but also of poor white Afrikaners. Both of these groups were even poorer than them. Africans generally did not attend school at all—they were lucky if they went for only a few years. The labourers on the farm lived in a compound and were dressed in cast-off sugar sacks. Lesley and her siblings were no longer allowed to visit them. Afrikaner pupils were frequently ignored by their English peers and had often left school to work by the age of fourteen. Many showed signs of malnutrition. “There were no satisfactory answers to questions”.179 One gets the strong impression that, because of her family’s financial situation, she had a more developed appreciation of class than Ivan (Fig. 2.9). Lesley and her sister matriculated at the end of 1943. At the start of the following year, Catherine went to Durban to study to become a primary school teacher and Lesley went to Johannesburg to do a year’s physical education course at the Witwatersrand Technical College.180 Most other white activists at the time came from an urban background. A significant number were also the children of immigrants to South Africa. This meant that they developed a transnational, or at least more cosmopolitan, world view earlier on than Lesley. Instead, leaving her sheltered rural life and moving to the big city was a life-changing experience for her. She moved into a girls’ hostel at the bottom of Lovett Street where you had to sign in and out, tell them where you were going

60

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.9 Worker on the Williams’ farm dressed in a sugar sack (Schermbrucker family)

and leave a phone number. You were also only allowed out until 11 pm on Saturday nights.181 She would later recall that: I was both excited and afraid in JHB. It was so big-city[,] people were so different from country people. So confident and ready for all sorts of risks – I felt myself tagging and lagging behind and scuttling back to the

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

61

hostel as soon as classes were over – didn’t know how to handle the smart questions and answers and seeming wit of the girls and boys and was very shy. Thank goodness for the […] sheltered life of the hostel […] I went out with boys introduced by other resident girls – we were always in a group but now I started to encounter those gropings and feels from boys in the back of cars – above the waist – It was scary.182

Struggling to come out on her £1 per term pocket money, and utilising the skills she had learned while growing up, Lesley set children’s hair and walked everywhere rather than taking public transport or a taxi.183 Her father died in August 1944, during her year at college184 (Fig. 2.10). After graduating, Lesley remained in Johannesburg, securing a job as a physical education teacher with the Johannesburg Welfare Department at the Fordsburg Recreation Centre, organising afternoon play groups for poor white children. Most were Afrikaans-speaking. In the evenings she taught Keep Fit classes at the Centre for adults. By this stage, she had “gained more confidence” and was more settled in the city. After leaving the hostel, she moved in to the Lyngford Hotel, near the Wanderers in Hillbrow/Berea. She recalls that, while she went out to dances and picnics from time to time, her “heart was with the more serious side of life”.185 This was communism. It was at this stage that Lesley joined the Young Communist League YCL)186 and became actively involved in political work for the Party. Her world view at this stage was certainly transnational. In her recollection, it was the concern with the plight of others and the desire to build an equitable, equal world that attracted her and made communism the logical path for her to follow. One of her first tasks was to distribute the Party mouthpiece, The Guardian.187

Stalinism According to Lesley, at that time Stalin was viewed as: “Tip-Top [laughs]. They all had that view that everything was a straight line to Moscow, a straight line. And Ivan and I used to laugh about this”. While she and Ivan were committed supporters of the Soviet Union and many of its programmes and policies, they were not uncritical supporters of the “Great Leader” myth. This was unlike many of their colleagues, who “were very, very rigid, and those are the ones who stuck to communism even after it was glaringly obvious that it didn’t work”. When Stalin was eventually denounced “they all thought it was some kind of imperialist

62

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 2.10 Lesley shortly after her arrival in Johannesburg (Schermbrucker family)

plot, some kind of Western plot”. Lesley couldn’t understand this, especially after the invasion of Hungary: “That was shocking”. There were a few Trotskyites “here and there” but they were ostracised or disciplined. “If you didn’t toe the line, the Leftist line”, you faced expulsion from the Party.188 Interviewed by the historian and political commentator Hermann Giliomee in October 1988, Joe Slovo, arguably one of the most unapologetically doctrinaire of the party leadership and one of its major theoreticians, admitted that the SACP had been “part of a cult of personality worship”. Acknowledging that he had defended the Stalinist show trials

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

63

of the 1930s, he confessed that “It’s not that we did not know what was going on, but we just rejected whatever evidence was produced and rationalised our way out of it. […] It resulted in a defence in principle of everything Russia did both domestically and internationally”. This included uncritical support of the Soviet invasions of Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan. It also necessitated occasional mental gymnastics such as initial support of the Hitler-Stalin Pact followed by a reversal of the Party’s anti-war stance with the USSR’s entry into the Second World War. Arguably, this kind of inflexible sectarianism, which was often profoundly undemocratic in nature, persisted until the collapse of the Soviet Union.189 It may also be argued the Party has never come to terms with, or adequately apologised for, this aspect of its history. In a widely distributed discussion document produced in 1990, Slovo defined Stalinism as “socialism without democracy”, arguing that this “bureaucratic-authoritarian style of leadership (of parties both in and out of power) […] concentrated power in the hands of a tiny, self-perpetuating elite”.190 Slovo later claimed that he had personal misgivings about this stance by the mid-1950s but chose to remain silent as “It became almost risky and counterproductive to battle this issue out in our Party. It would have caused an enormous split, and it had less and less bearing on our own work”. As Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley have argued, this refusal to take a principled stance out of fear of provoking a split (perhaps more accurately of alienating the Soviet Union, resulting in a withdrawal of military aid for the armed struggle and other sanctions) makes a mockery of the oft-repeated “claim that internal democracy has always existed in the SACP”.191 It also begs further exploration of the strength and persistence of an ideology which, at root, stood in marked contradiction to the ideals of the national democratic struggle. Realpolitik certainly played a role—alienating the USSR was interpreted by many of the leadership at least as undermining the primary justification for the Party’s existence, the liberation of the working class and the oppressed masses. There were nevertheless other issues at play, not only among the leadership but among ordinary members too. Many Party members had been conscientised by the anti-Fascist struggle of the Second World War. In their reading, it was the Soviet entry into the war under the leadership of Stalin that had saved the Allied cause. This meant that this path was the ideal (or even only) one to follow in the antiFascist struggle in South Africa itself. The transnational dimensions of

64

A. KIRKALDY

international communism and the struggle held out a further appeal to others. Glenn Frankel has commented that communism gave a generation of activists the strength and certainty that they needed to take on the armed might of the apartheid state. Norman Levy, one of Ivan’s later co-accused, told him that: “We loved the certainty that Marxism gave us […] and we needed it”.192 Coming to a similar conclusion, James Zug wrote that: “Marxist ideology and Leninist strategy provided radical South Africans with the foundations upon which they could depend during the battles they fought. It gave them an internal, steel-like strength and certainty – extremely rigid but steadfast”.193 Frankel has said of Bram Fischer, that, despite his “gentility and compassion, he was in many ways the most hardline of all the comrades”.194 Similarly, Harold Strachan, later one of Bram and Ivan’s prison mates, saw Fischer as caring and committed, but “He wasn’t an old cuddly pussy cat that a lot of people think, you know, he’s a full-on doctrinaire Marxist, make no mistake”.195 Despite the atrocities of the Soviet Union and the failings of the Communist Party, given the political context in South Africa, the message of an egalitarian, classless society held a particular poignancy.196 It was this in particular that would attract Lesley: The thought of a world in which all were fed, clothed and housed and had access to education, was irresistible particularly in S[outh] Africa where I’d become aware more and more of so many injustices and inequalities [...] ‘All equal before the Law’; ‘Equal opportunities for all’; ‘To each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities’ sounded wonderful and I was swept along by the slogans thinking they were really possible and that the world would be like that. I read everything on Soviet Russia, Lenin, Stalin and the magnificent stand they and the allies had made during the war against the horrendous atrocities of the Germans.197

At least outwardly, both Ivan and Lesley had relatively few difficulties in adapting to changes in party policy and direction from the time of their joining until their arrest and imprisonment in 1964 and 1965, respectively. However, behind the façade that they presented to their comrades, they were disturbed by the evidence of the crimes that had been perpetrated under Stalin and the brutal suppression of the Hungarian uprising. This would provide the first significant strain on their deep support for the Soviet Union. They were nevertheless far too skilled at manoeuvring

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

65

the treacherous undercurrents of party politics at the time to fall into the trap of being branded as Trotskyites and purged from party membership. They also did not feel compelled to follow the lead of others and resign their membership.198 Convinced that the Party offered the only hope for a non-racial future political dispensation, Ivan in particular saw himself as a unifier, rather than a promoter of division within its ranks. Largely because he and Lesley were hard working, and avoided open criticism of Stalinists, they managed to transcend this major division in the Party, and remain friends with comrades in the various Party factions. They also handled the move from an open, legal CPSA to an underground SACP with relative ease, fulfilling their political ambitions within the COD in the interim, and adopting this as a cover after the emergency of the underground structure. Lesley was cagey about Ivan’s support for the armed struggle but it would appear that, once this had become Party policy, he gave it his support, refraining from giving Lesley too much information about this to protect her if she were to be arrested. It was only during her imprisonment that Lesley would seriously begin to question the ideological tenets of the Party, and of communism itself. Ivan would remain a communist until he died. In common with Lesley, and certainly after his release in 1970, he would nevertheless develop an antipathy towards those who they felt had deserted the struggle by fleeing the country. By this stage, his communism was definitely more firmly rooted in the national struggle for liberation. He would also become extremely disillusioned and angry about the fact that he felt that he was being under-utilised by the Party.

Notes 1. Lucien van der Walt, “The First Globalisation and Transnational Labour Activism in Southern Africa: White Labourism, the IWW, and the ICU, 1904–1934”, African Studies, 66, 2–3, 2007, 223– 224. 2. Ibid., 225–227 (quotation, 225). 3. The South African Native National Congress (SANNC) was founded on 8 January 1912. It changed its name to the African National Congress (ANC) in 1923. 4. van der Walt, “The First”, 224–225, 227–228. 5. Devan Pillay, “The South African Communist Party”, South African Labour Bulletin, 14, 6, 1990, 29.

66

A. KIRKALDY

6. John Pampallis, Foundations of the New South Africa, Cape Town, Maskew Miller Longman, 1991, p. 103. The Communist International was also known as the Comintern or the Third International. It was formed on Lenin’s initiative in 1918 to achieve unification of the world’s revolutionary Marxist parties. For its functioning as the “General Staff of the World Revolution” and the CPSA’s relation to it, see Tony Karon, “Fascism, War and National Liberation: The Comintern and the United Front in South Africa 1928–1939”, unpublished mimeograph, Cape Town (?), Department of Economic History, August 1985, pp. 2–4, 6–10 (numbered by hand). 7. Adam Mahomed Habib, “The Politics of the South African Communist Party 1962–1990: A Critical Analysis of Aspects of Its Theory and Strategy”, MA thesis in Political Studies, University of Natal (Pietermaritzburg), 1991, p. 2. 8. Pillay, “The South”, 29. See also Habib, “The Politics”, p. 2. 9. van der Walt, “The First”, 223–224. 10. Ibid., 237–238. 11. Pillay, “The South”, 29; South African Communist Party, “South African Communist Party Documents, 1928: The South African Question”, at https://www.marxists.org/history/international/ comintern/sections/sacp/1928/comintern.htm, accessed 2 April 2016 (quotations). See also Allison Drew, “Social Mobilization and Racial Capitalism in South Africa, 1928–1960”, PhD thesis in Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1991, Chapter 3; Karon, “Fascism”; Brigid Lambourne, “Sowing the Seeds of Alliance: the Evolution of Colonialism of a Special Type: 1952–1954”, Africa Perspective, December 1993, 47–61; Kgalema Motlanthe, “The History of the SACP Is the History of Us All”, African Communist, 184, 2011, “Celebrating 90 Years of South African Communism”, 20–21; Max Ozinsky, “‘For Land and Freedom’, the Communist Party of South Africa and the Strategy of United Fronts in the 1930s”, Long Paper, South African Economic History, 1983. 12. Pillay, “The South”, 29. For the continuance of the majority black membership into the 1950s, see Sophie Mort, “Some Indications of CPSA/SACP Activity in the Early ’50s as Evidenced by ‘Leftist’ Newspapers of That Period”, paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Congress of the Association for Sociology in

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

67

Southern Africa held at the University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, 29 June–2 July 1987, pp. 2–3. 13. Mia Roth, “Eddie, Brian, Jack and Let’s Phone Rusty: Is This the History of the Communist Party of South Africa (1921–1950)?”, South African Historical Journal, 42, 2000, 202. 14. Pillay, “The South”, 29–30. 15. Habib, “The Politics”, p. 2. 16. Catherine Burns has argued that there has been a long history of repressive states attempting to ascribe internal friction and resistance to outside agitation and control. Prior to the first democratic elections, the South African state was no exception. Almost all resistance was linked to communist forces, agents and propaganda. In attempting to counter this, it assumed “everwidening powers to suppress ‘communism’, whose definition” was broad enough to embrace almost any form of opposition, whether socialist, communist or liberal, even if it was “avowedly non-communist”. The Friends of the Soviet Union and the South African Peace Council (SAPC) were ideal pawns used by the state in this regard. [Catherine Burns, “An Historical Study of the Friends of the Soviet Union and the South African Peace Council”, BA Honours dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, November 1987, p. 1.] The International Association of Friends of the Soviet Union was formed on the initiative of the Comintern in 1927 to co-ordinate solidarity efforts with the Soviet Union around the world. In the early 1930s, at the instigation of the local CPSA, a branch was formed in South Africa which even non-communists were invited to join. Activities, lectures, a film programme and exhibitions were organised to promote a positive image of the USSR and to attempt to develop economic and social ties between the two countries. Literature discussing Marxism and revolution, and showcasing Russian culture and developments in the Soviet Union, was also distributed. On 7 November each year, the October Revolution was celebrated at the Soviet Consulate. Government officials, members of the Friends of the Soviet Union and a selection of activists were invited. During the Second World War, the organisation campaigned for black soldiers in the South African forces to be armed and for the establishment of full diplomatic and trading relationships with

68

A. KIRKALDY

the Soviet Union. After the War, it increasingly concerned itself with supporting the ANC, the SAIC and the CPSA. Branches were opened in many of the townships and the majority of its membership came to comprise Africans. By 1951, the organisation had re-named itself the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union. With increasing state persecution of Communists during the 1950s, the Soviet Consulate (which had opened in 1942) was closed in February 1956. The SASPFSU came under severe attack by the Government. With its officials banned and placed under house arrest, the SASPFSU had effectively stopped functioning by the end of 1956. [Esther Barsel, “Friends of the Soviet Union”, Communist University, 29 July 2006, http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/Fri ends+of+the+Soviet+Union,+Esther+Barsel+and+Mosie+Moolla, accessed 17 March 2012; Burns, “An Historical Study”, especially pp. 1–5, 11, 12, 72, 97, 119, 122; Stephen Clingman, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998, pp. 158–160, 164, 178–179, 203, 212; “On the Closing of the Soviet Consulate”, Statement issued by the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union (Signed by the Chairman, the Rev. D.C. Thompson), 1 February 1956, in University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers website, Collection Number AD1812, Records relating to the ‘Treason Trial’ (Regina vs F. Adams and others on Charge of High Treason, etc.), 1956, 1961, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits. ac.za/inventories/inv_pdfo/AD1812/AD1812-Ex2-4-2-4-001jpeg.pdf, accessed 2 May 2014; South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R., “For Peace and Friendship. News About Life in the Soviet Union” by the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R. (AFRICA, South), 1951, at http://books.google.co.za/books/about/ For_Peace_and_Friendship_News_about_life.html?id=maHuMg EACAAJ&redir_esc=y, accessed 1 May 2014; “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

69

Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 2, Record of Evidence of the Accused, pp. 1969, 1970–1972.] 17. Burns, “An Historical Study”, pp, 7, 10–11, 25–29, 30, 34– 65; Pampallis, Foundations, p. 157; Pillay, “The South”, 30 (quotations). 18. Burns, “An Historical Study”, p. 7; T.R.H. Davenport, South Africa: A Modern History, Bergvlei, Southern Books, 1988, pp. 330, 341; Tom Lodge, “Class, Conflict, Communal Struggle and Patriotic Unity: The Communist Party of South Africa During the Second World War”, unpublished African Studies Institute seminar paper, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 October 1985, pp. 1–2; Pampallis, Foundations, p. 156. 19. Burns, “An Historical Study”, p. 7; Mort, “Some Indications”, pp. 12–20; Pillay, “The South”, 30 (quotation). 20. Lodge, “Class, Conflict”, p. 1. 21. Parvahti Raman, “Yusuf Dadoo: Transnational Politics, South African Belonging”, South African Historical Journal, 50, 1, 2004, especially 28, 30, 36. 22. Ibid.”, p. 39. 23. Mark Israel and Simon Adams, “‘That Spells Trouble’: Jews and the Communist Party of South Africa”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 26, 1, 2000, 145–162; Steven Krawitz, “SA Jews: The original Communists”, in South African Jewish Report, 4 May 2017, at https://www.sajr.co.za/news-andarticles/2017/05/04/sa-jews-the-original-communists, accessed 30 January 2019. 24. Stephen Ellis, (a) “Mandela, Communism and South Africa”, Open Democracy, 25 July 2011, at https://www.sahistory.org. za/archive/mandela-communism-and-south-africa-stephen-ellisopen-democracy-25-july-2011-south-africa, accessed 2 February 2021; (b) “Nelson Mandela, the South African Communist Party and the Origins of Umkhonto We Sizwe”, Cold War History, 16, 1, 2016, 1–18. 25. Pillay, “The South”, 30; Untitled, unpublished attempt at writing a personal biography by Lesley Schermbrucker in her possession, handwritten insertion on the back of p. 14. 26. David Everatt, “Alliance Politics of a Special Type: The Roots of the ANC/SACP Alliance, 1950–1954”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 18, 1, 1991, 21. The Defiance Campaign, more

70

A. KIRKALDY

correctly the “Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws”, was organised by the ANC and the South African Indian Congress, It focused on mass defiance to the pass laws, stock limitation laws (betterment planning), the Separate Representation of Voters Act, the Bantu Authorities Act, the Group Areas Act and the Suppression of Communism Act. [Pampallis, Foundations, pp. 195–199.] 27. Pillay, “The South”, 30. The SACP was unbanned in February 1990 and re-launched as a legal organisation on 29 July 1990. 28. Whites who identified themselves with the ideals of the Defiance Campaign formed the South African People’s Congress in 1952. In the following year, this organisation met with the ANC, the SACP, the SAIC, banned members of the Communist Party and other organisations in the Congress Alliance to form a Congress of Democrats. It was decided that the COD would be a part of the Congress Alliance and would consist only of whites. At this stage, ANC membership was not open to whites. It was thus envisaged that the COD would serve as the white wing of the Congress Alliance. It never became a political party, instead remaining “a small and strictly secondary wing of the Congress Movement”, striving for the attainment of political rights and full human rights for all South Africans. Although the organisation was never overtly communist, many members of the banned Communist Party joined it, and filled key leadership positions. It remained small, never having more than 700 members but was very active, taking part in every Congress Alliance campaign until its banning in September 1962. [South African History Online, “Congress of Democrats”, at, http://www.sahistory.org.za/organisations/ south-african-congress-democrats-cod, accessed 17 March 2012. See also Tony Burman, “The South African Congress of Democrats: 1953–1962”, BA Honours dissertation, University of Cape Town, March 1981; David Everatt, “The Politics of Nonracialism: White Opposition to Apartheid, 1945–1960”, PhD thesis in Modern History, Lincoln College, University of Oxford, 1990, Chapter 5.]

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

71

29. Pillay, “The South”, 30. For discussion on whether the ANC of this period was an example of “Bourgeois Nationalism or People’s movement”, see Everatt, “Alliance Politics”, 34–38. 30. Mort, “Some Indications”, pp. 1–2, 23. 31. Roth, “Eddie, Brian”, 204. 32. Everatt, “Alliance Politics”, 19–39 (quotation, 19). 33. Pillay, “The South”, 30. 34. Everatt, “Alliance Politics”, 20. 35. Pillay, “The South”, 30. For discussion of what became the “minority view”, namely the primacy of class struggle, see Everatt, “Alliance Politics”, 27–32. For the “majority view” of “Colonialism of a Special type”, see 32–34. 36. Habib, “The Politics”, p. 3. 37. Pillay, “The South”, 30–31. 38. Habib, “The Politics”, pp. ii, 1, 3. 39. Audie Klotz, “Transnational Activism and Global Transformations: The Anti-apartheid and Abolitionist Experiences”, European Journal of African Relations, 81, 1, 2002, 49–76. 40. Wouter Goedertier, “The Quest for Transnational Authority, the Anti-Apartheid Movements of the European Community”, Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, Année 2011, 89, 3–4, 2011, 1249–1276, 1254. 41. Ibid., 1254. 42. Ibid., 1254–1255. 43. Ibid., 1256. 44. Ibid.; Elaine Unterhalter, “Women in Struggle: South Africa”, Third World Quarterly, 5, 4, 1983, 891–892. 45. Klotz, “Transnational Activism”, 61. The other main tension was between those who saw the struggle against apartheid as a struggle against the capitalist system and those who wished to transform the free market system to make it more equitable (62). 46. Ben Turok was born in Latvia in 1927. His family, moved to South Africa in 1934. After graduating from the University of Cape Town in 1950, he moved to London, where he worked as a lecturer at a Polytechnic Institute and a surveyor. Three years later, he returned to South Africa. In 1955, he joined the COD, becoming the secretary for the Cape western region. He was also a full-time organiser for the Congress of the People and contributed to the writing of the Freedom Charter. Banned in

72

A. KIRKALDY

1955, he continued to act as a trade union organiser. Arrested for treason in 1956, he was one of the accused in the Treason Trial. Charges against him were withdrawn in 1958. While on trial, in 1957, he “was elected unopposed to represent Africans of the Western Cape on the Cape Provincial Council”. In 1958, Turok became the national secretary of the COD. For a time, he served as secretary of the consultative committee of the Congress Alliance. During the 1960 State of Emergency, he managed to evade arrest. Going underground, he helped to re-organise Congress activities. Convicted under the Explosives Act in 1962, he was sentenced to three years in prison. Placed under house arrest after his release, he escaped via Botswana. After three years in Tanzania, he moved to Britain with his family, serving as the editor of the ANC mouthpiece Sechaba until 1972. He also taught at the Open University in London and at a number of African universities. Returning to South Africa in 1990, he served as an ANC MP from 1995 to 2014. Thereafter, he focused on his work as “director of the Institute for African Alternatives and editor of the journal New Agenda”. He was also a visiting professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Turok died in 2019. [Karen Kotze, “Anti-apartheid Activist Turok Remembered”, False Bay Echo, 12 December 2019, at https://www.falsebayecho.co.za/news/ anti-apartheid-activist-turok-remembered-39114108, accessed 19 April 2020; Andiswe Makinana, “Outspoken ANC Veteran Ben Turok Dies, Aged 92”, Times Live, 9 December 2019, at https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2019-12-09anc-veteran-ben-turok-dies-aged-92/, accessed 19 April 2020; South African History Online, Ben Turok, at https://www. sahistory.org.za/people/ben-turok, accessed 19 April 2020 (quotations).] Turok met his partner, Mary Butcher, at UCT through their shared involvement in progressive politics. She became a member of the COD in 1950. Sent as a COD delegate to the AllAfrican People’ Conference in Cairo, she played an active role in the discussions which led to a call for the imposition of economic sanctions on South Africa. In addition to her membership of the COD, she was a member of the SACP, the ANC and MK. In 1962, she was given a six month sentence for her

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

73

underground involvement with the ANC. After Ben went into exile to escape further imprisonment, she joined him with their three children. [South African History Online, “Mary Butcher Turok”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/mary-butcherturok, accessed 19 April 2020.] 47. Arianna Lissoni, “The South African liberation movements in exile, c. 1945–1970”, PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, January 2008, pp. 257 (quotation), 258. 48. African National Congress of South Africa (African Nationalists), “In Defence of the African Image and Heritage. Reply to the Central Committee of the South African Communist Party statement entitled ‘The Enemy Hidden Under the Same Colour’. Issued in February 1976”, Dar Es Salaam, 1976, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/arc hive-files3/boo19760200.026.021.000.pdf, accessed 17 January 2020. 49. African National Congress of South Africa (African Nationalists), “In Defence”, p. 10. 50. Ibid., pp. 20, 29, 47. 51. Goedertier, “The Quest”, 1256. 52. Hâkan Thörn, Anti-apartheid and the Emergence of as Global Civil Society, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, pp. 5–11, quoted in Goedertier, “The Quest”, 1249–1250. See also 156. 53. Goedertier, “The Quest”, 1256–1261. 54. Ibid., 1264–1265, 1267, 1270–1271. 55. Even the SACP itself sometimes struggled to deal with these forces. In a discussion document produced in 1980, the Party argued that the core of its strategy was that “the socialist revolution cannot succeed unless we carry through the democratic revolution in the first instance. […] The apparent inconsistency of claiming that the Party is the vanguard of the working class and at the same time projecting the ANC as leading the liberation movement rested on a misunderstanding of the realities of the South African situation”. Because of the country’s history, both race and class had to be seen as essential components of the political economy of the region. “The ANC is a national movement. But […] it embraces a nationalism which has very little in common with traditional bourgeois nationalism. […]

74

A. KIRKALDY

In addition, the ANC’s international position has progressively developed towards the establishment of close bonds with the socialist world and the world working class movement; in short, the ANC has stood fast by the principles of what we have come to understand by proletarian nationalism”. [South African Communist Party, “The role of the Party and its role in the national liberation movement”, discussion document, 1980, BC 1081, Manuscripts and Archives Department, University of Cape Town Libraries, n.p. (pp. 3–6 of 16), Digital Innovation South Africa, at https://www.aluka.org/stable/pdf/10.5555/al.sff.doc ument.cir19800000.026.021.000, accessed 19 January 2020.] 56. South African History Online, “History of Women’s Struggle in South Africa”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/historywomens-struggle-south-africa, accessed 26 January 2021. 57. Ibid.; Elizabeth van Heyningen, “The Voices of Women in the South African War”, South African Historical Journal, 41, 1999, 22–43; Julia Wells, (a) We Now Demand! The History of Women’s Resistance to Pass Laws in South Africa, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1993; (b) “Why Women Rebel: A Comparative Study of South African Women’s Resistance in Bloemfontein (1913) and Johannesburg (1958)”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 10, 1, 1983, 55–70. 58. Sheila Meintjies, “The Women’s Struggle for Equality During South Africa’s Transition to Democracy”, Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 30, 1996, 52; South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 59. Meintjies, “The Women’s”, 52–53; “South African History Online, “History of Women’s”; Unterhalter, “Women”, 889. 60. Helen Bradford, “‘We Are Now the Men’: Women’s Beer Protests in the Natal Countryside, 1929”, in Belinda Bozzoli (ed.), Class, Community and Conflict: South African Perspectives, Johannesburg, Ravan Press, 1987, pp. 292–323; Paul La Hause, Brewers, Beerhalls and Boycotts: A History of Liquor in South Africa, Johannesburg, Ravan Press, 1988; South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 61. Jeremy Krikler, “Women, Violence and the Rand Revolt of 1922”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 22, 3, 1996, 349– 373; Cherryl Walker, Women and Resistance in South Africa, Cape Town, David Philip, 1991, pp. 14–15; South African

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

75

History Online, “History of Women’s”; Unterhalter, “Women”, 889. 62. William Beinart, “Women in Rural Politics: Herschel District in the 1920s and 1930s”, in Bozzoli, Class, Community, pp. 324– 357; South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 63. South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid.; Unterhalter, “Women”, 887. 68. Unterhalter, “Women”, 887–888. 69. Meintjies, “The Women’s”, 54; South African History Online, “History of Women’s”; Unterhalter, “Women”, 887. 70. Meintjies, “The Women’s”, 54; South African History Online, “History of Women’s” (quotation); Unterhalter, “Women”, 890, 892–893. The full text of the Women’s Charter is included in the “History of Women’s” article. 71. South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 72. Meintjies, “The Women’s”, 54; South African History Online, “History of Women’s”; Unterhalter, “Women”, 890. Helen Fennell [Joseph] was born in 1905 in Midhurst, Sussex. She spent her formative years in London with her parents and her brother, Frank. In 1927, she graduated with a degree in English from King’s College at the University of London. She then taught for three years at Mahbubia School, a school for girls, in Hyderabad, India. In 1930, she moved to Durban and married Billie Joseph, a dentist. The marriage didn’t last long. During the Second World War, Helen returned to Britain and served as an Information and Welfare Officer for the Women’s Auxiliary Airforce. Returning to South Africa after the war, she became a social worker. This exposed her to some of the realities of life under apartheid. Moving to Johannesburg, Helen began working for the GWU. She was a founder member of the Congress of Democrats and national secretary of FEDSAW in the 1950s. In 1955, she participated in the Congress of the People. She, together with Lilian Ngoyi, was one of the main organisers of the Women’s March of 1956.

76

A. KIRKALDY

In December 1956 Helen was arrested on a charge of High treason. She was banned in the following year. Confined to her house in Norwood, Johannesburg, she became the first person to be placed under house arrest in 1962. A Security Policeman moved into the house next door. She survived a number of assassination attempts. Not easily silenced or intimidated, Helen continued to speak out against racism and oppression. In 1971, she was diagnosed with cancer. Her banning orders were lifted for a short while but were reinstated for two years in 1980. Her final ban was only lifted in 1985. Christianity played a focal role in Helen’s life. She studied theology part-time through London University. Over the years, Helen also took the children of comrades in jail or in exile into her care. These included Zinzi and Zenani Mandela (children of Nelson and Winnie), Ilse Fischer (Bram and Molly’s daughter), and Sheila Weinberg (Eli and Violet’s daughter). Helen Joseph was awarded the ANC’s highest award, the Isitwalandwe/Seaparankoe Medal for her contribution to the liberation struggle. She died in Johannesurg in 1992. [Ameen Akhalwaya, “Obituary: Helen Joseph”, at http://www.ind ependent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-helen-joseph-1565649. html, accessed 1 October 2014; Rhodes University, Helen Joseph House, “Helen Joseph: 1905–1992”, at http://www.ru. ac.za/helenjosephhouse/whoishelenjoseph/, accessed 1 October 2014; South African History Online, “Helen Joseph”, at http:// www.sahistory.org.za/people/helen-joseph, accessed 1 October 2014.] 73. South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid.; Unterhalter, “Women”, 889–890. 76. “Today in History: The 1956 Treason Trial Came to an End in 1961: Reliving the Trial’s Key Moments”, Roodepoort Record, 29 March 2018, at https://roodepoortrecord.co.za/2018/ 03/29/today-in-history-the-1956-treason-trial-came-to-an-endin-1961-reliving-the-trials-key-moments-web/, accessed 12 February 2021; South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 77. South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 78. Ibid.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

77

79. Meintjies, “The women’s”, 55–56; Unterhalter, “Women”, 890. 80. South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid. 83. Ibid. 84. Shamin Meer, “Freedom for Women: Mainstreaming Gender in the South African Liberation Struggle and Beyond”, Gender and Development, 13, 2, 2005, 37; Meintjies, “The Women’s”, 50– 51; Unterhalter, “Women”, 892. 85. South African History Online, “History of Women’s”. 86. Ibid. (quotation); Meintjies, “The Women’s”, 56. 87. Ibid. 88. Meer, “Freedom”, 36; South African History Online, “History of Women’s” (quotation). 89. Meer, “Freedom”, 36–37. 90. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1941; Untitled, undated notes on the biography of Ivan Schermbrucker beginning “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great Grandson” prepared by Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 1. 91. “The Kaffraria Germans”, at http://www.safrika.org/kaffraria_ en.html, accessed 1 April 2014. 92. S. Monick, “Profile of an Army: The Colonial and Imperial Forces of the Zulu War of 1879”, Military History Journal, 4, 5, June 1979, The South African Military History Society, at http://sam ilitaryhistory.org/vol045sm.html, accessed 1 April 2014; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1941 (quotation); Mike Thompson, Traders and Trading Stations of the Central and Southern Transkei, 3rd Edition, Ashburton, Brevitas, 2013, p. 80. 93. Monick, “Profile”; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1941. 94. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1941–1942. See also “Col Schermbrucker: Eloquent Tribute by the Cape Premier”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 April 1904, 7. 95. Lionel Edward was listed as a resident of Ngqeleni village and a trader at Mabetsha in official records for 1915. He worked for Trouw & Trouw, the licenced traders there. He then moved to Ncembu in the Tsolo District. At some stage, he also managed the station at Riverview in the Elliotdale District for Willie Wylie.

78

A. KIRKALDY

[Thompson, Traders, pp. 76, 79, 202.] Agnes referred to her mother, Marie Sarah Catherine as Sarah Catherine. The Ugie, Maclear and Mount Fletcher areas were well known the cultivation of Ramente. This strong strain of tobacco was very popular (p. 97). Thompson (p. 202) describes Riverview as having: “a very small business potential, as most customers had to be ferried over from the Idutywa side to come and buy”. 96. “Extra notes on Ivan for Alan & Ben”, written communication from Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, n.d. (29 August 2010), p. 1; Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010, p. 1; “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 1; Thompson, Traders, p. 79. 97. Interview with Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), Arniston, 5 January 2011. 98. Charles Ballard, “The Role of Trade and Hunter-Traders in the Political Economy of Natal and Zululand, 1824–1880”, African Economic History, 10, 1981, 3–21; Phyllis Ntantala, A Life’s Mosaic: The Autobiography of Phyllis Ntantala, Berkley, University of California Press, 1992, pp. 2–6; Shelagh O’Byrne Spencer, “The European Settler Population of Natal up to 1860, and Their Influence Beyond the Borders of the Colony”, at http://shelag hspencer.com/influence/, accessed 21 April 2016; Thompson, Traders, pp. vii–viii. 99. Thompson, Traders, p. viii. Most of the traders were bought out by the Transkei administration in 1969. Many of them argue that it was this political intervention that led to their demise. However, it is unlikely that they would all have remained on their trading stations anyway. From the 1970s, with the lead-up to so-called “independence”, there were significant socio-economic changes in the area. With increasing purchase of motor vehicles, especially bakkies —light pick-up trucks—by Africans and the development of a black entrepreneurial class, it is unlikely that many of the white “traders would have survived economically”. [Ntantala, A Life’s Mosaic, p. 6; Thompson, Traders, pp. viii, ix, xii (quotation, ix).] A similar process happened in the Zululand Bantustan, where the KwaZulu government closed the family trading stores and encouraged the growth of local black traders. [Debbie Whelan, “Memory, Identity and Inheritance Amongst Zululand Traders”, Natalia, 39, 2009, 92–93.]

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

79

100. The activist and author Phyllis Ntantala was born into a relatively privileged Transkei family in the 1920’s. After attending school at Healdtown and Lovedale, she studied further at Fort Hare. Having received a BA from UNISA, she subsequently graduated with a degree in Comparative African Government and Law from UCT and a qualification in Early Childhood Education from Madison Area Technical College. She would go on to work as a teacher, social worker and linguist. Married to the scholar A.C. Jordan, she is the mother of the former ANC activist, MP and intellectual Pallo Jordan. [SAWW (South African Women for Women), “Phyllis Ntantala”, at http://www.interlog.com/ ~saww/phyllisntantala.html, accessed 16 March 2016.] 101. Ntantala, A Life’s Mosaic, p. 4. 102. Thompson, Traders, p. xii. 103. Ntantala, A Life’s Mosaic, p. 6. 104. Whelan, “Memory, Identity”, 79, 84, 90. 105. Ibid., 89. 106. Shula Marks (ed.), “Not Either An Experimental Doll”, The Separate Worlds of Three South African Women, Pietermaritzburg, University of Natal Press, 1987, p. 15. See also William Beinart and Colin Bundy, “State Intervention and Rural Resistance in the Transkei, 1900–1965”, in Martin A. Klein (ed.), Peasants in Africa: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1980, p. 285; Colin Bundy, The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry, London, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979. 107. William Beinart, “Soil Erosion, Conservationism and Ideas about Development: A Southern African Exploration, 1900–1960”, Journal of Southern African Studies 11, 1, 1984, 52–83; Phia Steyn, “A Greener Past? An Assessment of South African Environmental Historiography”, New Contree, 46, 1999, 18–19. See also William Beinart and Peter Coates, Environment and History: the Taming of Nature in the USA and South Africa, London, Routledge, 1995, pp. 51–71. 108. See, for example, Chris de Wet, (a) “Betterment Planning in a Rural Village in Keiskammahoek, Ciskei” Journal of Southern African Studies, 15, 2, 1989, 326–345; (b) Moving Together, Drifting Apart: Betterment Planning and Villagisation in a

80

A. KIRKALDY

South African Homeland, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1995; Fred T. Hendricks, “Loose Planning and Rapid Resettlement: The Politics of Conservation and Control in Transkei, South Africa, 1950–1970”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 15, 2, 1989, 306–325; P.A. McAllister, “Resistance to ‘Betterment’ in the Transkei: A Case Study from Willowvale District”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 15, 2, 1989, 346– 368; Steyn, “A Greener Past”, p. 19; Herman Gerald Timmermans, “Rural Livelihoods at Dwesa/Cwebe: Poverty, Development and Natural Resource Use on the Wild Coast, South Africa”, M.Sc. thesis, Rhodes University, 1994. 109. “Extra Notes”, p. 1; Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 9; Untitled, undated reminiscences on the life of Ivan Schermbrucker beginning “Ivan was born on 22nd Feb 1921” produced by Agnes Abercrombie in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 1; “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 1; Thompson, Traders, pp. 79–81. 110. “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 1. 111. “Ivan was born”, p. 1. See also “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1942. 112. “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 1. 113. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 1. 114. “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 3. 115. Ibid., p. 1. 116. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 9. 117. Their fathereventually married Dorothy. They remained at Ncembu for some time and then moved to two other trading stations. After this, they relocated to the West Rand, where Lionel would work as a cabinet maker. They had three daughters, the last born in September 1938. Ivan, Agnes and Brann were estranged from Dorothy and these children. [Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 4; “Ivan was born 1”, p. 2; Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 5.] 118. Brann became “a translator in the police force for a while” [Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 1]. 119. “Ivan was born”, p. 1. 120. Ibid. 121. “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, pp. 2–3.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

81

122. See, for example, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, “Committee Opinion: Adult Manifestations of Childhood Sexual Abuse”, Number 498, August 2011, at http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Commit tee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-UnderservedWomen/Adult-Manifestations-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse, accessed 7 March 2016; Joseph H. Beichman, Kenneth J. Zucker, Jane E. Hood, Granville A. DaCosta, Donna Akman and Erika Cassavia, “A Review of the Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse”, Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 1, 1992, 101–118; Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, “The Long Shadow: Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse”, Chapter from The Hidden Feelings of Motherhood: Coping with Mothering Stress, Depression and Burnout, Oakland, CA, New Hampshire, 2001, at https://www. vetmed.wsu.edu/docs/librariesprovider16/default-document-lib rary/the-long-shadow-adult-survivors-of-childhood-abuse.pdf? sfvrsn=0The_Long_Shadow, accessed 7 March 2016; Survivors of Incest Anonymous, “The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse on the Adult Survivor”, at http://www.siawso.org/page-5143, accessed 7 March 2016. 123. Ibid. 124. “Extra Notes”, p. 1; Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 9. 125. “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 3; Telephone conversation, Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), 14 March 2014. 126. “Extra Notes”, p. 3. 127. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 4. 128. Ibid., p. 1; “Extra Notes”, p. 1; “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 7. 129. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1942–1943. 130. The Springbok Legion was founded in December 1941 to fight for the rights of soldiers during the war and in the post-war period. It initially aimed to serve as a “soldiers trade union, a non-discriminatory organisation with a mixed race membership” and “to carry over into peace time, the cooperation which existed between the races”. Over time, an increasing number of CPSA members joined its ranks. This radicalised the organisation and led to its serving as a recruiting ground for the Party. The Party actively viewed the Legion “as a vehicle for mobilising the white

82

A. KIRKALDY

working class and reorganising white political culture”. In all, some 200,000 white South African men, 110,000 white women and 80,000 black men joined the Union Defence Force during the Second World War. Although the Legion accepted black and female members, it remained predominantly white and male. By 1944, the membership stood at about 60,000. Of these, black members constituted only in the low hundreds (maybe as low as 100). Black men in the Union Defence Force were not permitted to carry arms and some, but not all, were only issued with spears and knobkerries. Others went to war totally unarmed as auxiliaries. Shortly after its foundation, the Legion published a Soldiers’ Manifesto. This contained a list of demands from former servicemen for equitable treatment and called for “unity and cooperation among different racial groups”. Branches of the Legion were formed in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. Although its activities were reported on by the Guardian, it established its own publication, Fighting Talk, in January 1942. This was published until 1963, when it was shut down by the government. Among the Communists on its Editorial Board were Jack Hodgson, Brian Bunting, Ruth First and Lionel Bernstein. A number of Communists also served in leadership positions in the League. These included Jock Isacowitz (National Chairman), Jack Hodgson (National Secretary), John O’Mera and Joe Podbrey (executive committee members). Fighting Talk was specifically utilised as a vehicle to conscientise members of the working class and, later, to denounce apartheid policies. By 1946, the Springbok Legion was in decline. Its active membership was somewhere around 100. This was because the demands of white ex-servicemen had largely been met by this stage—they felt that there was no real reason for it to exist anymore. Their black counterparts had certainly not had their demands met but their insignificant numbers in the organisation meant that this could not keep it going. Others left because they were perturbed by what they saw as its increasing radicalisation. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 sounded the final death knell for the Legion. Late in 1952, the Special

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

83

Branch clamped down on the organisation, raiding its headquarters and seizing much of its documentation. Many of its leaders joined the exodus of listed communists and other anti-apartheid activists into exile. Those who remained “increasingly threw their weight behind the Congress Movement.” [South African History online, “A History of the Springbok Legion”, at http://www.sah istory.org.za/topic/history-springbok-legion, accessed 30 March 2014 (quotations); Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “No more liberation politics” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. (p. 2); B. White, “The Role of the Springbok Legion in the Communist Party of South Africa’s Common Front Strategy, 1941–1950”, African Historical Review, 25, 1, 1993, 95–109; Neil Roos, (a) Ordinary Springboks: White Servicemen and Social Justice in South Africa 1939–1961, Burlington, Ashgate, 2005, especially pp. 1, 27, 67–69; (b) “The Springbok and the Skunk: War Veterans and the Politics of Whiteness in South Africa”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 35, 3, 2009, 643–661.] 131. Graeme Wesley Plint, “The Influence of Second World War Military Service on Prominent White South African Veterans in Opposition Politics, 1939–1961”, Masters in Military Science thesis, Stellenbosch University, 2021. 132. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 1–3; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1943. See also Denis Kuny, untitled address at Ivan’s funeral, 1981, p. 2; “Extra Notes”, p. 4; “Ivan was born”, p. 3; “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 6; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, pp. 11, 14; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 14. 133. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2, 3; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1944. 134. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2, 3; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1944 (quotation). 135. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 11, 14. 136. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Fred Carneson by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “I called myself a Communist when I was 16” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. (p. 4). The sixth of Anthony and Annie Carneson’s nine children, Fred was born in Goodwood, Cape

84

A. KIRKALDY

Town, in 1920. His father was a coach-painter in the railway workshops in Salt River. During the depression, he was placed on half-time employment. Anthony was transferred to the Pietermaritzburg workshops in 1924. As a result of their poverty, they “lived on the border of Coloured and Indian areas”, seeing much of the unpleasantness of apartheid. Fred’s parents were barely literate. His father nevertheless enjoyed simply-written books, such as Westerns. He would send Fred to the library to take these out for him. The youngster started browsing around the shelves. He later recalled that, when he was fourteen or fifteen, one book had sparked his political awakening. This was The Cry for Justice, an “anthology or collection of things on man’s search for justice”. Having read this, he went on to read books by authors such as Jack London and Upton Sinclair. He began to think of himself as a communist. Fred won a bursary to Martizburg College, obtaining a First Class Standard 6 (Grade 8 today). Unfortunately, his parents needed him to go out and work. He left school aged 14. First working as a messenger for the Post Office, he then trained as a post and telegraph assistant. He worked at Post Offices in Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Port Shepstone. Sharing accommodation with Communist students, he joined the CPSA in 1936, aged 16 years. Carneson met Sarah Rubin in Pietermaritzburg in 1936. Two years later she helped him establish the first Communist Party group in Pietermaritzburg. Shortly after this, he joined the Signals Unit of the Union Defence Force. From 1938 to 1945, he served as a radio officer in East Africa, Abyssinia (Ethiopia), North Africa and Italy. At Tobruk, “he ignored the order to surrender and escaped across the desert in a van, complaining that you could not fight fascists from a prison camp”. Fred was badly wounded during the battle of El Alamein. Placed on leave, he travelled back to South Africa, where he married Sarah in March 1943. From there he went back to Egypt. During the war, he met Brian Bunting. They were to become firm friends and comrades. After the war, Fred worked for the Springbok Legion. He and his family moved to Cape Town. In 1945, he became full-time secretary of the Western Cape CPSA. He also began working

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

85

as manager, editor and fundraiser of the Guardian. Following this, he was editor of New Age. Once a week, he and Sarah sold the Guardian on street corners. He was on the Central Committee by 1946. In August, he was arrested on charges of sedition. As part of their anti-communist campaign, the United Party had accused him and other Communists of wanting to overthrow the government. He would be arrested more than sixty times as a result of his political activities. He was also elected by African voters as Representative for Native Affairs on the Cape City Council, serving from 1949 until 1952, when African voters were disenfranchised. In 1952, both Fred and Sarah were banned for the first time. Their banning orders were renewed in 1954. They were prohibited from working for trade unions and related organisations. Later in 1954, Fred “was prohibited from being in a gathering of more than two people and prohibited from printing, publishing or teaching”. In all, he would spend 18 years banned. He and Sarah were frequently arrested for breaking their banning orders. In December 1956, Fred was one of 156 people arrested for treason. They were acquitted in 1961. Following the Sharpeville killings, he went into hiding. Sarah was arrested in April 1960 after the government declared a State of Emergency. She was released from prison in August. Fred returned home from hiding a month later. With the formation of MK in December 1961, Fred became the political commissar for the Western Cape. In December 1965, he was arrested. He was tortured, kept in solitary confinement and then charged with three counts of sabotage and contravention of the Suppression of Communism Act. His trial began in March 1966. In May he was sentenced to five years and nine months imprisonment, which he served in Pretoria Central Prison. His family went into exile in London. Sarah was told that she would be arrested if she ever re-entered South Africa to visit him. Released on 24 February 1972, Fred joined his family in London. Carneson continued to play an active role in exile politics, becoming the international representative of the SACP, collecting funds on behalf of the Party and the ANC, and chairing the AntiApartheid Trade Union Committee. He was also employed by the

86

A. KIRKALDY

National Union of Teachers in London. He subsequently worked for the mental health charity, Mind. Fred and Sarah returned home in 1991, settling in Cape Town. He served as the Western Cape treasurer of the SACP and on the Executive Committee of the Provincial SACP. Under the new dispensation, he was nominated as the ANC staff representative to the transitional Cape Metropolitan Council and the Cape Regional Council, effectively reclaiming the seat on the provincial council from which he had been expelled 40 years earlier. He was also elected to the Reconstruction and Development Programme Committee. Fred died in 2000 and Sarah in 2015. [Chris Barron, “Sarah Carneson: Feisty Communist Harassed and Exiled for Her Beliefs”, Obituary, Sunday Times, 8 November 2015, 19; Denis Herbstein, “Fred Carneson: The Great Escaper of South Africa’s Freedom Struggle”, Obituary, The Guardian, 18 September 2000, at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/sep/18/ guardianobituaries, accessed 14 September 2014; South African History Online, “Fred Carneson”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/fred-carneson, accessed 14 September 2014; South African History Online, “Sarah Carneson”, at http://www.sah istory.org.za/people/sarah-carneson, accessed 19 February 2016; “I called”, n.p. (pp. 1–4). See also Upton Sinclair (ed.), The Cry for Justice, An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest, New York, Upton Sinclair, 1915.] 137. “No More Liberation”, n.p. (p. 3). Wolfie Kodesh was born in Benoni in 1918. His paternal grandparents came from Belorussia and had come to South Africa to flee the pogroms. His mother, Fanny Shapiro, was from the East End in London. His father’s hansom cab business went bankrupt during the great depression in the 1930s. His parents separated, and then divorced, when Wolfie was 14. He and his two siblings moved to Woodstock in Cape Town, joining their mother. They lived in Gimple Street. The area was well known for prostitution and they had no electric lights and no bath. The toilet was out the back. They heated water in a paraffin tin on a primus stove. Their mother ran a small provision shop on the Main Road. “We had rich relations but mother wouldn’t take help”. Their father came down but it was “finished between mother and father”. The area was cosmopolitan

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

87

and, from early on, Wolfie became acquainted with non-racialism and poverty. Kodesh went to school in Villiersdorp, becoming an ardent rugby player. His politicisation was boosted when his sister was employed as a typist by Moses Kotane, General Secretary of the CPSA. He joined the Party in 1938 and began selling the Guardian around the streets of the Woodstock, District Six and the Bo-Kaap. In 1940, Wolfie joined the army. He served in Ethiopia, Libya and Italy. During his army service he had his first experience of arrest and detention. Not only were Black soldiers not issued with firearms but their pay was lower than that of whites. Wolfie was charged with mutiny for speaking to them, and agitating for them to receive equal pay. While he was brought before a military tribunal, charges were eventually dropped. Kodesh became an active member of the Springbok Legion in 1942. Having returned to South Africa after the war, Kodesh began working full-time for the Communist Party in 1947. In addition to Party organisational tasks, he wrote for the Guardian about conditions in the Cape Town slums and continued to sell the newspaper. In 1953 he was served with a banning order. Despite the fact that this prohibited him from working as a journalist, he carried on doing so. His best-known pieces of writing at this time were an exposé of the terrible conditions faced by black workers on the potato farms in the Eastern Transvaal (written in conjunction with Ruth First) and an exposé of the Afrikaner Broederbond. Ruth First’s father organised a laundry collection business for Wolfie. He used this as a cover for his underground work, particularly in Johannesburg, during the 1960s. He was assigned to counter-intelligence and the protection of the leaders of the Congress movement. For example, when Nelson Mandela went underground in 1961, he spent two months in Kodesh’s oneroom flat in Berea. Kodesh moved Mandela from one safe house to another, keeping him hidden from the Special Branch until his arrest in Natal in 1962. Wolfie was also responsible for the distribution of arms, banned literature and messages, and bought and sold second-hand cars to keep the Movement supplied with

88

A. KIRKALDY

vehicles. He disguised himself by wearing false-bottomed shoes to increase his height and by growing a beard. Wolfie continued to work for the Guardian/New Age during its various emanations. In 1963, the year that the paper was finally closed down (under the name of Spark), he was detained without trial for ninety days. He was subsequently illegally deported to England. While in exile, he first worked for the ANC in London. He was later deployed to work in MK camps, eventually being placed in charge of logistics in Lusaka. This task became particularly important after many recruits crossed the border in the wake of the 1976 student revolts. With the unbanning of the ANC, Kodesh briefly returned to South Africa in 1990. He left soon after but returned to Cape Town in 1991. Between 1992 and 1995, he worked on collecting the stories of South African political activists. These are now housed in the Mayibuye Archive at the University of the Western Cape. Wolfie died in October 2002. [Gerald Shaw, Obituary “Wolfie Kodesh”, in The Guardian, 13 November 2002, at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/nov/13/ guardianobituaries, accessed 1 May 2014; South African History Online, “Wolfie Kodesh”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/peo ple/wolfie-kodesh, accessed 1 May 2014; “No More”, n.p. (pp. 1–2, 4—quotations).] 138. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1945–1946 (incorrectly labelled as 1947 in original). Brian Bunting was born in Johannesburg in 1920. His father, S.P. (Sidney) Bunting had been one of the founders of the CPSA. His mother was Rebecca Bunting. Matriculating at the age of fifteen, he then studied at the University of the Witwatersrand. While there, he ran Wu’s Views, a campus newspaper, edited Umpa, a literary magazine, and served as President of the SRC. Graduating in 1940, he joined the Party. At first, he refused to fight in the Second World War, seeing it as an imperialist war. He worked as nightshift sub-editor on the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Times, completing his Honours thesis at the same time. Once Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Bunting changed his mind about war service. He joined the army in 1942, serving in North Africa and Italy as an air mechanic and in the Information Service. With his return home after the war,

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

89

he served as the Assistant Secretary of the Springbok Legion and, for a while, edited its newspaper, Fighting Talk. In 1946, Bunting was elected to the Johannesburg District Committee of the CPSA. He later served on the Central Committee. Arrested following the 1946 African Mineworkers’ Strike, charges against him were subsequently dropped. In June of that year, the Communist Party sent him to Cape Town to assist Betty Radford, Editor-in-Chief of the Guardian from 1937 to 1948. He moved there on the day that he married Sonia Isaacman and was employed as Assistant Editor of the Guardian. He subsequently served as editor of the newspaper through its various name changes until its final banning in 1963. Until 1937, African voters in the Cape (the only province where those other than whites could vote) were on the common voters’ roll. After the passage of the Representation of Natives Act (1936), they had to be represented by three white members, and the voters’ roll was limited to only 11,000. These seats were abolished in 1960. They had invariably been held by Liberals or Communists. Bunting, by now banned under the Suppression of Communism Act, was elected as “Native Representative” for the Cape Western District in November 1952. He succeeded Sam Kahn and, like Sam, would be expelled from parliament because of his membership of the Communist Party. This was done in October 1953. In the same year, he played a significant role in the re-launch of the underground SACP. Sonia was charged in the Treason Trial. The couple was detained during the 1960 State of Emergency. Their three children were looked after by their grandmother. In the end, Brian was subjected to house arrest for 12 hours a day and Sonia for 24. He was forbidden from working as a journalist. Any time it seemed that Brian may find employment, the Special Branch visited his prospective employers and the offer was withdrawn. In 1963, the Buntings moved to England. For most of the next 28 years, they lived in North London. Their house became a focal point for exiled communists, including Party Leader Yusuf Dadoo, MK Commander Joe Slovo, Ruth First, and the future President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki. The Buntings remained fiercely loyal communists for all of their lives and were known for the harsh stance they took against dissidents from the Party Line.

90

A. KIRKALDY

Brian worked for Tass, the Soviet news agency, and edited The African Communist, the Journal of the SACP. Brian and Sonia returned to South Africa in 1991. He regained his parliamentary seat in 1994. Expressing regret that the democratic government had abandoned the goal of a socialist South Africa, he continued to serve on the Central Committee of the Communist Party until his death. Sonia died in 2001 and Brian in 2008. [Denis Herbstein, Obituary “Brian Bunting”, The Guardian, 9 July 2008, at http://www.theguardian.com/ world/2008/jul/09/southafrica.pressandpublishing, accessed 1 May 2014; South African History Online, “Brian Percy Bunting”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/brian-percybunting, accessed 1 May 2014.] 139. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1945–1946 (incorrectly labelled as 1947 in original). 140. Ibid., pp. 1947, 1969. 141. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “Would billet us in houses/buildings” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. (pp. 1–2). 142. Ibid., n.p. (pp. 2, 3). 143. Kuny, untitled address, p. 2. 144. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 2028. 145. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 3. Granny Brann died at the age of 84 in 1942. In August of the following year, Uncle Bill died at the age of 48. Because of his peculiar behaviour, Agnes did not wish to see her father much. There being nobody left to go back to, Agnes established a new life for herself in Johannesburg when she matriculated at the end of 1942. She worked there for thirty-five years. She married Jim Abercrombie, a conservative and difficult man who did not approve of Ivan’s political involvement. He was taciturn and this was not a happy marriage. [Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2, 4–6, 10; “Ivan Schermbrucker Was the Great”, p. 7; Interjection by Reviva Schermbrucker to Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 14.] 146. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2, 3; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1948. 147. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1948.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

91

148. Kuny, untitled address, p. 2; Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2, 3; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 14; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1949. 149. Kuny, untitled address, p. 3; Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2 & 3; Ruth First Papers project, “Interview with Hilary Kuny and Luli Callinicos”, part 1, An interview conducted by Don Pinnock c. 1992. Part of a series carried out at Rhodes University and held at the UWC/Robben Island Mayibuye Archive. Republished in 2012 by the Ruth First Papers Project, at http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4520/2/Hilary_ KUNY_and_Luili_CALLINICOS_1.pdf, accessed 2 April 2013, pp. 5 and 6; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1944, 1949–1950; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 14; James Zug, The Guardian: The History of South Africa’s Extraordinary Anti-apartheid Newspaper, Michigan, Michigan State University Press and Pretoria, UNISA Press, p. xii. 150. Zug, The Guardian, p. 274 n. 72. 151. Ibid., p. 83. 152. Ibid., pp. 83–84. 153. Ibid., p. 275 n. 73. 154. Ibid., p. 274 n. 72. 155. Raymond Eisenstein was born in 1935. A Polish Jew, he came from an assimilated family who spoke Polish rather than Yiddish. They were also anti-communist. His father was a volunteer in the Polish Bolshevik War (1919–1921), holding officer’s rank. Captured by the Soviets, he escaped. Otherwise he would have been murdered at Katyn. They spent most of the Second World War in hiding. After this, they moved to France and then to South Africa, where they had family. Having completed his secondary education in France, he did a B.A. LLB at Wits. He then worked as a journalist on the Rand Daily Mail. Having become involved in politics, he became a friend of Baruch Hirson, a Trotskyite. Raymond, whose life during the war had dependend on the Polish Resistance movement, rejected Trotskyism because the Trotskyites had viewed them as “reactionary forces”. Although Left Wing, Raymond “could never become a Stalinist, I knew too much”. So he found a home in the African Resistance Movement (ARM).

92

A. KIRKALDY

On 1 December 1964, Raymond and his co-accused Hugh Lewin were sentenced to seven years imprisonment in their trial under the Sabotage Act for their activities on behalf of the ARM. Their fellow-trialist Baruch Hirson was sentenced to nine years. After his release from prison, Raymond moved to England, where he continued to work as a journalist on Fleet Street and also did freelance work. He married a French Protestant Doctor. They had four daughters and, at the time of the interview, five grandchildren. [Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, p. 6 (quotations); Hugh Lewin, Bandiet out of Jail, Cape Town, Umuzi, 2013, pp. 61–62.] 156. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, p. 6. 157. “Early Years”, notes on her life written by, and in the possession of, Lesley Schermbrucker, n.d., p. 1; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, p. 1; Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker and her marriage to Ivan Schermbrucker by Hilary Hamburger in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., p. 1. 158. “Early Years”, p. 1; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 1 (quotation), 3; Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 1; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 2. 159. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 1, 3; “Early Years”, pp. 1, 2; Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 1; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 1, 2 (quotations, p. 2). 160. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 2; “Early Years”, p. 1; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 1, 24. 161. “Early Years”, pp. 1, 3, 4; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 4–5; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 6; Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker, pp. 1–2. 162. “Early Years”, pp. 1, 2; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 2, 3; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 2–3, 22; Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 2.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

93

163. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 1, 2; Early Years”, pp. 1, 2; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 3. 164. “Early Years”, p. 2. 165. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 3. 166. “Early Years”, p. 2. 167. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 3. 168. Ibid., pp. 1–2. 169. Ibid., p. 1. 170. “Early Years”, pp. 1–2. 171. Ibid., p. 1. 172. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 2. 173. “Early Years”, p. 1; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 3 (quotations). 174. Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 1. 175. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 3. 176. “Early Years”, p. 3; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 2–3, 4; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 4. 177. “Early Years”, p. 3. 178. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 2, 3; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 7. 179. “Early Years”, p. 4 (quotation); Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 6, 24. 180. Early Years”, pp. 3, 5; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 4, 5; Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 1. 181. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 5. 182. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 10. 183. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 5. 184. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 11–12. 185. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 5; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 10–11, 13– 14. 186. The YCL of South Africa served as the youth wing of the Party. While its roots may be traced to Johannesburg in 1921, it was only officially constituted in May 1922. During the 1922 white Miners’ Strike it assisted in the formation of a Strike Prisoners Committee and played an active supportive role. Affiliated to

94

A. KIRKALDY

the Young Communist International (headquartered in Berlin), it followed their direction in starting an anti-militarist campaign. Members refused to serve in the Union Defence Force because of the role that it had played in suppressing the strike. Originally its membership consisted largely of young white men, with a few young white women. Despite internal frictions and schisms about this, from 1924 it began recruiting black members and organising among African workers. By the end of the 1920s, YCL leaders were more involved in the activities of the CPSA mother body and the organisation became largely moribund. It was revived in 1942, against the background of the Second World War. Young people were recruited to distribute leaflets and to distribute their newspaper, Youth for a New South Africa. Banned together with the CPSA in 1950, the YCL became inactive. It was re-launched in December 2003. [Brian Bunting, “How the YCL Began”, The African Communist, 169, 2005; South African History Online, “Young Communist League of South Africa (YCLSA)”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/youngcommunist-league-south-africa-yclsa, accessed 31 October 2016; Young Communist League of South Africa, “YCL History”, at http://www.ycl.org.za/docs/history.html, accessed 31 October 2016.] 187. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 5– 6; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 11. 188. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 6. 189. Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, The Opening of the Apartheid Mind: Options for the New South Africa, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993, Chapter 4, “Dilemmas and Contradictions in the ANC Alliance, Stalinism Reconsidered”, at https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9580 09mm&chunk.id=s1.4.3&toc.id=ch4&brand=ucpress, accessed 28 January 2021. 190. Joe Slovo, “Has Socialism Failed?, at http://www.sacp.org.za/ docs/history/failed.html, accessed 28 January 2021. 191. Adam and Moodley, The Opening. 192. Glenn Frankel, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999, pp. 4–5. Norman Levy’s biography is discussed in endnotes to Chapter 5 of the present work.

2

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT, FINDING COMMUNISM …

95

193. Zug, The Guardian, p. 126. 194. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 86. 195. Zoë Molver, “‘But He Didn’t Know How to Read It…’: The Editing of Harold Strachan’s ‘Way Up, Way Out’”, English in Africa, 34, 2, 2007, 58. 196. Zug, The Guardian, p. 126. 197. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 12. 198. For discussion of some of the human impact of Stalinism on the liberation struggle in South Africa and a critique of Slovo’s document from the perspective of one of its victims, see especially Baruch Hirson, “Socialism—Has it failed? or Joe Slovo’s Apologia for Mr Gorbachev”, Searchlight South Africa, 2, 1, 1990, 14–29.

CHAPTER 3

Partners in Activism—Ivan and Lesley

The majority of activists in leadership positions during the struggle had partners who were also involved. One thinks immediately of Oliver and Adelaide Tambo, Walter and Albertina Sisulu, Nelson and Winnie Mandela, Bram and Molly Fischer and Joe Slovo and Ruth First. A number of further partnerships are documented in the short biographies included in the notes to the present work. On one level, this resulted from the fact that activists usually mixed with other activists, meaning that the possible relationship pool was heavily influenced by the group of people that one was in contact with the most. On another level, in addition to shared interests and commitments, activists had to be able to trust their partners in the face of increasing state repression. Some of these relationships were more stable than others, but a number ended in divorce, partly owing to the stresses related to underground political work, detentions, bannings and house arrests. On another level, engaged in a struggle to transform society, many activists felt that they should not be shackled by bourgeois norms and values—a number had open relationships. In Lesley and Ivan’s case, their relationship was more stable than most (Fig. 3.1).

Life Partners and Struggle Partners Somewhere between 73,557 and 100,000 African mine workers on the Witwatersrand went on strike on 12 August 1946, demanding a higher © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_3

97

98

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 3.1 Pass protests in Johannesburg in the second half of the 1940s photographed by Ivan (Schermbrucker family)

wage of 10 shillings a day. The strike lasted for a week until it was ruthlessly suppressed by the police and army, who treated it almost as if it was a state of war. Official figures stated that 1248 workers were wounded and nine killed—the actual injury and death tolls were undoubtedly higher. During the strike, union offices and the homes of their officials were raided and leaders were arrested. The compounds were surrounded and workers were forced down the shafts at gunpoint. The persecution of worker organisations unleashed during the strike continued at least until the achievement of democracy in 1994 (many would argue that, as evidenced by the Marikana massacre, it continues to the present day). This strike played a major role in radicalising the liberation movement. The “policy of concession” gave way “to more dynamic and militant forms of struggle”.1 Thula Simpson has argued that previous scholarship about the history of the ANC may well have “under-acknowledged” the “levels of radicalism that existed in the movement in its earliest years”.2 Lucien van der Walt has also clearly demonstrated that there were other

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

99

far more radical trends current in the labour movement at the time, impacting in particular on the ideologies and actions of the Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU) and (for white workers) the Industrial Workers of the World.3 It is clear that the late 1940s and 1950s “saw great changes occur in the character and nature of the”4 ANC and CPSA in particular. In the ANC, the Youth Leaguers under the direction of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and others began to act as a power bloc challenging the old guard of conservatives within the organisation and securing the election of their candidates to senior leadership positions. In 1949, they managed to get Congress to adopt a Programme of Action which “demanded ‘freedom from White domination’ and the right of Africans to self-determination”. It called for “boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience and non-cooperation” as the new weapons of struggle.5 Largely through their shared membership in the structures of the CPSA, and the charisma and political acumen of their champions such as Moses Kotane, this culminated in the formation of an “alliance of a special type” between the two organisations, as typified by Communist support for the ANCs adoption of the armed struggle in 1961 and its continued implementation.6 Kotane, a prominent CPSA and ANC leader,7 strongly advocated that worker action should be driven by the workers themselves, rather than being directed from above. His dominant ideology blended both internationalism and nationalism, fusing transnational Marxist convictions with African nationalism, Pan-Africanism and an emphasis on the central importance of indigenous African leadership in the struggle to achieve a just society. He advocated this struggle being guided and led by the African Mineworkers’ Union, rather than the Party. The CPSA played an active role in providing backup to the union organisers in the form of pamphlets and marshalling and motivating striking workers. Without its input, it is unlikely that the strike would have been as well supported and organised.8 Ivan was active behind the scenes, particularly in organising funding for the production of leaflets and pamphlets, but the extent of his involvement is not clear. Ivan and Lesley first met in 1946. Lesley would later recall that she had not been present at the strike but Ivan had told her about it.9 They were both staying at the Lyngford Hotel. Ivan had just left the Native Affairs Department and begun working at the Guardian. Revealing the keystone of her and Ivan’s faith in transnational communism at the time, Lesley would later write that

100

A. KIRKALDY

We had the same ideal of a perfect world waiting out there to be moulded by those on the ‘left’ all over the world. It sounds arrogant – but we never thought of it like that – the central theme was to help create a world of equal opportunity, no discrimination as to colour, race or religion and above all to level the economic base. I now know that it doesn’t work that way; we humans are frail; a mixture of weakness and strength, caring and neglect, evil and good, mainly trying to survive. In a crisis perhaps, it boils down to individual survival.10

Lesley recalls that their first meeting was at a dance at the Wanderers (today Johannesburg Station). Ivan came up to her and said: “‘I believe that you […] go to those meetings, the Communist Party meetings’, and I said ‘Yes’, and he said ‘Well, let’s go together’ sort of style”.11 They were married in February 1947. In January, having already planned to marry, Lesley had realised that she was pregnant. She recalls that this “was a terrible shock, I couldn’t have managed without Ivan”. Due to his war service, and the fact that he was 26, he was much more mature than Lesley, who was only 20.12 He “took charge right away” and the couple were married in court. Jill was born on 1 November 1947 (Fig. 3.2).13 Lewis Baker,14 later one of Ivan’s co-accused, was cynical about the basis of their marriage. His assessment was that: “Lesley [was] ordinary. Their relationship was of people coming from same place. Ivan was devoted to Lesley – served by her – serviced by her. Life was short, hazardess (sic. – hazardous)”.15 This is too harsh a view. In reflecting an obviously widely held chauvinistic mindset—which by no means was confined to Baker alone even in struggle circles—it does not take into account the complexities or nuances of the situation that women activists found themselves in. Lesley did in some ways subordinate herself and her interests to those of Ivan (and the children). This was a choice which all activist couples had to make, particularly if they had children. To varying degrees, those who prioritised the struggle over family commitments alienated their children—Nelson and Winnie Mandela, Oliver and Adelaide Tambo and Ruth First and Joe Slovo, for example, had strained relationships with their children which, over time, led to resentment. This comes across clearly in interviews with Gillian Slovo, her autobiographical family history, and in the account of Mandela’s condolence visit to the Slovo children following the death of Joe. Speaking of the sacrifices that activists and their families had been forced to make, he recalled a time when he attempted to hug his own grown daughter. She flinched away,

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

101

Fig. 3.2 Lesley and Ivan’s wedding (Schermbrucker family)

saying, “You are the father to all our people, but you have never had the time to be a father to me”.16 The alternative was to make compromises where at least one partner cut back to varying degrees on overt political involvement. Even Baker’s hard line communist partner, Villa, had made this decision after the birth of their children. Ivan and Lesley were arguably more successful at this than most. Coming from families who did not support the struggle in any way, they at least attempted to acknowledge family expectations

102

A. KIRKALDY

about the importance of family life in expressing their political commitment. Their activism was also inextricably bound with their wider social life, they lived in a society where women’s roles in providing a home and childminding were seen of being of crucial importance—even (albeit unconfessed) by many of their comrades. It will become increasingly clear that Ivan’s immersion in fundraising for the struggle meant that he did not draw a real salary of his own—the family depended largely on Lesly to act as the breadwinner. Both Ivan and Lesley were devoted parents and attempted to spend as much time with their children as possible but Ivan was frequently away on collecting trips for funds. The children had close friends who did not necessarily come from struggle circles. As with other women activists, Lesley certainly had to be more creative in the way that she handled her involvement in the struggle and balanced this with her commitment to the family. Largely because of the way that their parents managed these difficulties, balancing family life and political commitment, Jill and Peter continued to remain supportive of the choices made by their parents. Speaking of the couple in his address at Ivan’s funeral, Denis Kuny stated that they complemented each other and this was very much a love match based on mutual support: No oration about Ivan would be complete without mentioning Lesley and their relationship. They were married for 34 years and of all the marriages that I know this was probably one of the best. He and Lesley complemented and supported one another magnificently and through all the very hard times that they endured either together or apart when each one was in goal, they remained steadfast in their believe (sic.) that what they were doing was right and each one always knew that he or she had the support of the other.17

Family friend and political sympathiser, Jeanne Daly, later recalled that: “Ivan took the action but he and Lesley were a team”.18 Lesley remembered that at the time of their marriage, she was “pregnant and in love but no money”. She remained in her job until she was about seven months pregnant and then took an office job, filing: Ivan and I laughed about it but I did my best. I started worrying about money again. Ivan was always so upbeat about finance up to the time of his arrest – no need to worry about Med[ical] Aid or pension he used to say with Freedom/Uhuru around the corner, everyone will be looked after [...] In so many ways he was idealistic about people; worked for a very small salary and

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

103

gave the ‘movement’ and paper – Guardian and New Age his whole support and enthusiasm – in the end he gave it his life too -19

Wolfie Kodesh remembered that “Ivan [was] the finest manager & administrator in the movement. [… Had he survived], He would have been in gov[ernment]”.20 And, he continued, Ivan was [the] key figure in JHB in raising money – circulation. I would pick up phone to Ivan & say we were desperate for money. Ivan would get cracking – wonderful organizer – gifted – enormous range of contacts. He knew people outstanding ability to gather information. If it wasn’t for Ivan [the] Papers wouldn’t have lasted.21

Lewis Baker would grudgingly admit that Ivan had skills needed by the movement: Remember him well from New Age22 – another person in the office. Struck by the fact that people deferred to him. He was clearly the anchor guy. Knew that he collected lots of funds & travelled around […] Ivan was clearly someone who assumed a leadership role [...] he didn’t articulate any understanding – he had an eye for the long term, the significant. He could rise above the petty and go for the jugular.23

Lesley continued the story of her and Ivan’s life together by stating that, as a concession to ex-servicemen expecting a family, they were allocated a one bedroom flat in Rosettenville. Beyond meeting her “life long friend Ruth Levy, who lived next door, it was a very grey and dreary area to live in”. When Jill was six weeks old, Lesley realised that she would have to go out to work again and started teaching physical education in convent schools. She hated leaving Jill and would worry about her all day until her return from work. They frequently had only enough money to cover the rent, Jill’s milk, vegetables and a little fruit. Ivan’s request for a raise was turned down as he had only been working at the Guardian for a little over a year. Revealing the crucial role that she played in ensuring the family’s survival, Lesley commented that: “Early in our marriage I realized that I’d have to try and earn money while Ivan devoted his time to political work which I supported without reservation”. This meant that she would have to cut back on active political involvement. Further revealing that her commitment to the struggle was more about fighting for basic

104

A. KIRKALDY

human rights than an ideological commitment to Marxist theoretical writings, she also remarked that: My active political involvement slowly drew to a trickle – except for helping whenever possible with luncheons and raising money for the Guardian. My interest remained steadfast but I wasn’t sorry to give up going to meetings and cell groups. I don’t think I was cut out to follow a narrow political line – what I really cared about was for everyone to have equality in all spheres, freedom and social responsibility and to think for themselves.24

Lesley particularly enjoyed her involvement in the jumble sales which were held to raise funds for the Guardian and, through this, for the Party. It was through initiative such as this, rather than the rumoured foreign funding, that the communist struggle was funded. These sales were held at Guardian league leader “Trudy Gelb’s25 house and at Bram and Molly’s place and others”.26 In 1948, the National Party came to power. Representatives of the Communist and the National Parties had come to know each other in the running battles which often followed protest meetings in Johannesburg. The Nationalists were protesting about South Africa’s participation in the War and the supposed “swart gevaar”—the purported dangers presented by the black majority. The Left protests, which gained momentum after Russia had entered the war, were anti-fascist and supported participation on the Allied side. They also raised other issues—the appalling treatment of black soldiers in the Union forces, the welfare of soldiers and demobilised troops and the continuing erosion of political rights in South Africa. Ivan and Lesley participated actively in these, although, after the birth of Jill, Lesley avoided violent confrontations.27 Their hectic routines, lack of money and the bleak political situation at the time, had a negative impact on Lesley’s health. She began to feel “tired and listless, very thin and out of sorts”. She did not realise that she was pregnant again. Abortion was illegal in South Africa, but she “was fortunate in having a sympathetic and enlightened Doctor”. He booked her into “hospital for a D + C”, remarking casually, “we’ll soon get you well again”. It “came as quite a shock” to her later that she had been pregnant—she “could never have coped with another child at that stage”. Later, the same doctor allowed her “severely deformed child to die – without words he knew Ivan and I agreed”.28

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

105

In 1950, Ivan and Lesley’s son Peter was born, and the Communist Party was banned: Now it became illegal to belong to the Com Party and comrades took a few precautions – hiding illegal literature, being careful about how and where to hold meetings – we were all subject to police raids at any time, particularly in the early hours of the AM.29

The family moved to a one-bedroomed flat in Yeoville. Lesley stated that this: “was the best move we ever made as there we met Stella and Davey Leigh caretakers of Eltruda Court Yeo Street and their two boys Richard and Eric. What good friends they were all those years and sympathetic to the movement”. Ivan was “occupied more and more with underground party work as well as collecting donations almost every evening to keep the Guardian paper going” and was often away.30 With increasing Special Branch activity and raids, the couple learnt to use friends and family who were not part of the struggle to store documentary material and perform underground tasks. For example, Ivan asked Agnes to store “a couple of suitcases” of documents including lists of Communist Party members and sympathisers.31 Lesley experienced a change of fortunes at this stage. On the recommendation of Rebecca Bunting (Brian’s mother),32 she found work with Gita O’Bell, “who had started a School of Exercise for Health and Slimming at Circle Court in Hillbrow”. This job nevertheless only lasted for a year. With the move from the Southern Suburbs to Eltruda Court in Yeoville, the rent had jumped from £13 to £22. As Gita paid Lesley £25 a month, this only covered the rent “with a few pounds to spare”. Ivan’s income from his party activities and the Guardian was erratic—in fact, he was largely unpaid—and Lesley, Ivan and the children simply could not survive on this. When Lesley’s request for an increase was refused, she stormed out and resumed working at the convent schools. Also, some of her former clients from the O’Bell studio asked her to teach them privately. For a while she did so in the bedroom of her flat while continuing her work at the schools. When a two-bedroomed flat became available upstairs at Eltruda Court, the family moved in and fitted out the bigger bedroom with bars, mirrors and other equipment. Lesley left the school and began teaching full-time.33 “And so started my business which was to be the backbone of our finances all through the years – before jail, afterwards and right now too”.34

106

A. KIRKALDY

Lesley would later recall that, reflecting the unsettled and unsettling conditions of the time, she and Ivan joined the COD—a movement with close ties to the Communist Party. With Ivan often away, given the increasing repression, Lesley developed the “rather desperate habit of looking under all of the beds and in the cupboards for intruders before going to sleep at night. Every little sound used to wake me”.35

Security Legislation, Repression and Financing the Guardian These milestones in the struggle and the Schermbrucker family’s life were occurring against a backdrop of increasingly restrictive security legislation passed by the apartheid government. Previously, for white activists anyway, the Special Branch had to some degree operated according to a code of conduct which prohibited overt and serious violence against their persons. With the accession to power of the National Party government, the gloves were removed. Increasingly authoritarian and repressive laws were enforced with growing violence by the state and its officials. At first, whites remained partially protected by their privileged status. As time went on, certainly by the 1960s, they were as likely to face assault and torture as their black comrades—particularly if they were seen as communists or as advocating violence. Of particular note in the 1950s were the following Acts: The Suppression of Communism Act (1950) declared the Communist Party of South Africa to be a proscribed organisation. It also gave the Governor General the right to declare a political party unlawful if they were deemed to be “pursuing communistic” goals.36 The Criminal Law Amendment Act (1953) set out the punishment for protests aimed at the government or its laws.37 The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Act and the Criminal Procedure Act (both passed in 1955) gave the government more power over those that opposed them. The police and judges were given more power over warrants and arrests.38 The Riotous Assemblies Act (1956) prohibited any outside gathering which the Minister of Justice interpreted as a threat to public peace, and gave the government the power to ban any newspaper or “documentary information” which would either “cause hostility between Black and White people” or lessen the divisions between the two groups. The penalties of the Act also included banishment.39 Collecting money to keep the Guardian going had become increasingly necessary with a dramatic fall-off in advertising revenue after the

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

107

accession to power of the National Party government. Sellers and agents suffered increasing victimisation from the police.40 As Wolfie Kodesh would later put it: “The white firms don’t advertise in our newspaper. All newspapers depended on advertisers. We had a column asking for donations”. Ivan, Fred Carneson, Rica Hodgson and Yusuf Dadoo41 were particularly adept at soliciting donations. Many came from Indian merchants. However, those that came in were “not enough”.42 As a further (successful) means of raising money for the Guardian/New Age/Spark paper and the Communist Party, somewhere between 1952 and 1954, Ivan was involved in starting a Christmas hamper business, Arnold’s Xmas Hampers. Clients could place orders for hampers and pay them off during the course of the year, receiving the groceries and goods at Christmas time. Included in repayments was a subscription to the newspaper.43 Together with its Cape Town precursor, the Guardian Christmas Club (started by the Cape Town circulation manager, Johnny Morley, in 1949) this would, in fact, become “the financial saviour of the newspaper in the 1950s”44 and a source of secret funding for Communist Party projects. Arnold’s Xmas Hampers (named after its first manager, the banned trade unionist Arnold Selby),45 took off. In its first year of operation, it had 450 customers and made a profit of £500. In 1955, it delivered over 1000 parcels. By the following year, the figure had risen to over 5000.46 Once fully operational, it raised between R60,000 and R80,000 a year, most of which was in the form of newspaper subscriptions.47 At first, Ivan, together with Winnie Kramer, assisted Selby in getting the business off the ground. Thereafter, Ivan supposedly pulled back, leaving Winnie and Arnold to run affairs. As the workload increased, Winnie also withdrew, leaving Arnold in full charge of his own staff at Commissioner Street. These included Conrad Dnibe, Joyce Wood Exsteen, Joyce Watson Mohamed, Esther Mtshali, Thomas Letlalo and Agnes Nkosi. Ivan only became actively involved in the club’s affairs towards the close of the year and in January—the busiest times.48 The practice was somewhat different—Ivan was not content to take a back seat in anything. Winnie Kramer was strong enough to stand up to Ivan but Joyce Watson Mohamed had a much tougher time of it. The former was described by James Zug as “A quiet Jewish woman […] another daughter of Baltic émigrés […] teamed up with the two foul-mouthed firebrands”, Ruth First and Ivan Schermbrucker. She served as the Johannesburg

108

A. KIRKALDY

administrator of the Guardian, in charge of all of the bookkeeping, from 1946 to 1960.49 Sadie Forman, political activist and long-term member of the Communist Party,50 would tell James Zug in May 1994: “The person in Johannesburg who did all the hack work was Winnie Kramer. She was very nice, very soft. She was very good in the office, very friendly. There were a lot of people who weren’t friendly in those days, I can tell you. But Winnie was”. Winnie left South Africa immediately after her August 1960 release from detention. She joined Yusuf Dadoo, her long-term partner, in London and the two of them were subsequently married.51 Joyce Watson Mohamed, “the daughter of the well-known coloured Food and Canning trade unionist Mary Moodley, canvassed homes in East Rand townships for new members” for Arnold’s Christmas Hampers. “Soon she worked at Commissioner Street, taking weekly payments from customers and filing their small red cards covered in stamps”.52 It was not long before she learned about Ivan’s temper: Oh, oh, when I started there, I thought I would never stay because, ‘Ahh, what the hell are you doing there, you bloody bastard.’ Mary, mother of God, oh. Ivan used to make my nerves, oh, especially. But he was the most wonderful, wonderful, kind-hearted person that you could ever meet.53

Once Ivan caught two Christmas Hamper employees stealing and, according to Lesley, chased them down the stairs. No literally, I remember there was a tremendous explosion. I think he just told them, ‘That’s it’ and chased them down the stairs. You see, he was like that. He couldn’t conceive of anybody doing anything like that.54

Selby left the hamper scheme after an argument with Ivan in the office in 1958. He had received a message that he “should phone someone”. He felt that it involved an issue that Ivan should have dealt with and told him this. Ivan took exception, they had a blow-up and Selby stormed out. He started his own Christmas hamper scheme, but it was not a success. He would go into exile before Sharpeville.55 For some time after Selby’s departure, Ivan was assisted in running Arnold’s by his old friend and Comrade, Wolfie Kodesh, who worked first as a seller and then as a staffer of the Guardian both in Cape Town

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

109

and Johannesburg.56 Ivan was nevertheless effectively in charge. After the banning of the Guardian and its successors, and the final collapse of Spark, he started working full-time for the club.57 At no stage, even after he began working there full time, did he accept any remuneration for his task. It existed both as a means of raising money for the Guardian/New Age/Spark paper and the Communist Party and as a way of ensuring that black people were not ripped off like they were with some of the other Christmas clubs.58 Ivan and those who worked with him at Arnold’s were motivated to secure a better life for the poor and oppressed—as well as the struggle for liberation. Full-time office staff varied from between four to six people but, as Christmas approached, this could double. It had “hundreds of agents operating in the townships”. In addition, it gave Ivan access to contacts in the townships, in small towns and villages, and from liberation movements.59 Summing up the role that Arnold’s played, Joyce Watson Mohamed60 would later state that: We really did a lot of good work. The hampers really helped a lot, because they paid off one shilling a week and you had something. They were very happy, because they really got their money’s worth at the end of the year. And they got a newspaper. There were strong bonds between the people and the paper. People come into the office, you know, there was always a cup of tea. You don’t just come and pay, ‘How are you?’ Talking to them about their problems. The conversations were so wonderful. It was really, you know, it was a pleasure working there. [...] We gave the people the best for their money. I mean, we were not just there for the sake of making money. Getting to know the people, politicizing – that was the main thing of the hampers.61

Growing in the Struggle By this time, according to Lesley, most Communist activists were well known to the Special Branch, who found it “fairly easy to keep a watch on” them. “Stupidly”, they had “been quite contemptuous of the intelligence of the police in the past and very few Party members had been kept in the background to work secretly”.62 Raids on our house became a regular occurrence; very frightening at 2 am in the morning – banging on the doors of our flat and barging in, children waking in terror and screaming and them going though cupboards,

110

A. KIRKALDY

drawers, everything everywhere – removing all papers, pamphlets and especially books with ‘Black’ in the title. Once I sat huddling in a big chair clutching Jill and Peter closely knowing full well and intentionally sitting on incriminating stuff. We tried to laugh afterwards but mostly it left us with a sick feeling in the stomach –all seemed soiled after the S[pecial] Branch had pawed through our possessions. What right had they to do this to all of us I shouted – met with laughter and waving bits of paper – the right of one of their endless laws.63

According to Jill, “You were always aware, number one, that the ‘phone was tapped – to this day, people pull my leg and say ‘You know, you hate the ‘phone, sort of thing’ […] There were always police raids”.64 Peter also remembers these raids: the Special Branch: “wouldn’t question us or frighten us or anything but they’d come into our rooms and they’d search and they’d look for things […] you just sort of stood by then because everyone thought that they would try and plant things”.65 Lesley described the attraction of communism, the Party and the wider circle of comrades: What I liked about Communism was the easy mixing with all peoples of every colour and background. I’d missed my upbringing on the mission station where we were allowed to visit the kraals freely and play with the children down at the rivers – speaking the language and never caring about their colour. I admired the intricate beadwork, decorative clay pots and grass mats and baskets; enjoyed the mixed atmosphere of thatch, wood fires, sour milk and roast mealies inside the huts with the misty rain falling softly. Later Ivan and I collected beadwork and other artefacts while on our lovely holidays in Zululand and the Transkei. We paid their asking prices which were low and we realized anew how much the money was needed.66

She also particularly enjoyed the “Guardian jumble sales with the children of all colours playing tog[ether]; the fetes and Guardian Birthday Dances”. All of these provided “occasions to mix freely”, even after the banning of the Communist Party. There were also House Parties where the comrades met socially and danced well past midnight.67 James Zug noted that the Guardian’s two annual parties were “mustdo events on the calendar of the South African Left”. One of these was a black-tie Christmas Eve dance at Hilary and Norman Flegg68 in Cape Town. The other was Bram and Molly Fischer’s joint birthday party:

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

111

To host the hundreds of friends who religiously attended, they pitched a tent on the back lawn and cleared away the dining room. In 1954 they built a swimming pool, a rare accoutrement for a leftist family in Johannesburg, and the party became an opportunity for friends of all races to splash and swim in the midsummer heat. Bram Fischer usually demonstrated his patented head-first flip. As the night wore on, some revelers (sic.) left sandwiches in the inner recesses of the piano (to be found months later); others disappeared into the far reaches of the garden; and more than a few took off their clothes and skinny-dipped.69

These antics would form a titillating diversion in the evidence and cross questioning of police spy Gerald Ludi at the later trial of Bram Fischer and 13 others (the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial). Despite the frivolity: “people took the fundraising seriously. The Fischers charged each couple one pound, one shilling entrance fee, usually netting more than £300 for the newspaper each year”. In addition, Bram once “found that one of his favourite jackets was among the pile of clothes destined for a Guardian jumble sale; he paid Molly £5 to keep it”.70 According to Lesley, “Friday was the big day in the Guardian/New Age Office”. The papers would arrive from Cape Town by train at about 4 a.m. Ivan would meet the train and load them into his car and any other transport available (including horse-drawn carts). Sellers would come from all over the city, the townships, the East and West Rand “to pick up their bundles and pay in subscriptions collected during the previous week”. In her opinion, most sellers “were honest, hard working and dedicated to the cause”. However, “much to Ivan’s disgust”, there were occasions when “some absconded with the money”. The office would then explode with his “stream of curses accompanied by nods from on-lookers. He was praised and loved for his practical down to earth views – no pussy footing and excuses for these ‘jackals’ even if they were down and out”.71 The mid-1950s and early 1960s were times of growing repression. For Lesley, “the police were especially hated and feared; as the level of oppression grew the people were left powerless but underground events were taking shape”. These were the years of the Treason Trial, the women’s pass protests, the formulation of the Freedom Charter, increasing detentions and banning orders, the Rivonia Trial and, eventually, the Bram Fischer Trial, in which Ivan was a co-accused. In his oration at Ivan’s funeral, Denis Kuny would say that, behind the scenes, Ivan had been

112

A. KIRKALDY

“one of the moving spirits in the organisation of the Congress of the People and the formulation of the Freedom Charter”.72 Again, it is tempting to postulate that his fluency in isiXhosa would have played an important role here. Lesley would tell me that, despite this behind-thescenes activity, during these years Ivan tried to keep in the background, attending secret meetings underground. One of the casualties of this period that hurt Ivan and Lesley the most was Ruth First, who was first detained for a lengthy period and then went into exile. In Lesley’s version of events: Ivan and Ruth had a special regard and respect for each other – after her 119 days in detention he understood but never condoned her going into exile [in March 1964] - I can still see them today locked in a bear hug saying goodbye in our Observatory backyard with tears in their eyes – Ruth walked out of the gate and Ivan went into the bedroom, closed the door for a good while – they never saw each other again.73

After he had come out of the bedroom, he was still shattered. He said to Lesley: “I never thought she’d leave the country”. Neither of them ever really forgave her or the others who went into exile. They viewed this as selling out black comrades, the majority of whom did not have the resources or contacts to skip the country. Over time, this would play a role in their growing hostility towards, and alienation from, the external wing of the Party and increasing focus on the internal struggle.74 Choosing to remain behind, with two children and her own business, and with increased police scrutiny of activists, Lesley cut back on her political work: For me, a lot of time was doing other things because it was actually bringing in money. And I found in a funny sort of way that I actually loved it that way, it gave me a nice balance – because […] I think that even then I was probably moving away from communism. You know, everybody was so fixed on this Russia and this wonderful Lenin and Stalin and so forth. I stopped going to the cells because by that time it was ’52.75

She later qualified this statement: “But I was a member of the Communist Party and I mean, that was it, I was a member of the Communist Party”. Even though she respected some of the more liberal opposition groups such as the Black Sash, she felt that there was no other effective force of opposition at the time besides the Party. By this stage, she had clearly developed a keen sense of the central issues lying at the heart of

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

113

debates within, and between, the SACP and the ANC. Her talk about the cult of personality around Stalin and the cliques within the Party partly reflects the tensions between those who saw the pursuance of class struggle as the sole method of bringing about revolutionary change and those who sought to find an accommodation with the national struggle. She was also keenly aware of the concurrent tensions within the ANC between those who were prepared to work together with communists and whites and those who were more suspicious of following what was seen as a foreign ideology: “There was a time, I think, when the ANC didn’t really want white people in it. They wanted Africans, you know, African National Congress”. However, it became clear to even those who were initially suspicious of communism, such as Chief Albert Luthuli and Nelson Mandela, that the communists were a useful ally.76 As David Everatt has argued, the bridge between these competing tensions would be found in the adoption of the “colonialism of a special type” ideology at the beginning of the 1960s. This “posited national liberation as the correct first stage of a broader social revolution in South Africa”. This enabled a compromise between die-hard class struggle communists and nationalists in the SACP and the ANC which set the basis for cooperation between the two organisations for the next four decades at least. Those who could not accept this, fearing the dilution of class struggle by “bourgeois nationalism” did not join the SACP after it was launched underground.77 In addition, as Paul Landau has shown, after Nelson Mandela joined the Communist Party in the 1950s, he played a major role in driving a group of African communists in the Transvaal in a direction which culminated in the formation of MK and the adoption of the armed struggle.78 Africans within the ANC who could not accept the growing alliance and working relationships with white activists split from the ANC to form the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) on 6 April 1959. Recognising the history of close cooperation, the ANC opened its membership to all “races” in 1969. It will be argued that these developments contributed to drawing Ivan and Lesley to a more nationalist, rather than internationalist or transnationalist, interpretation of the struggle.79 Political tensions and growing surveillance and repression were accompanied by an improvement in the Schermbruckers’ material circumstances. Lesley’s exercise “business grew and flourished”. The family moved from Eltruda Court to a more spacious rented house in the same street, 78 Yeo Street. The classes were held in the combined

114

A. KIRKALDY

lounge/dining room. For the first time, Lesley and Ivan had a bedroom to themselves, while the children shared a room. Lesley recalled their changed circumstances: We were living in what seemed to me ‘luxury’, earning more money was a dizzy feeling and while trying to keep a sensible feet on the ground attitude, I found myself slipping into a ‘frivolous phase’; one hand was putting money aside for a deposit on a house, the other hand was spending madly. A party? Run out and buy a new dress and shoes – going on holiday? Buy bathing costumes, skirts, more dresses, sandals, hats etc (Fig. 3.3). Now we did have money for holidays and from 1955 to 1959 spent five consecutive Xmas holidays at Coffee Bay on the Transkei wild coast, Ivan’s old haunts – often driving to Zululand to see mum and the family on the way (Fig. 3.4).80

The Schermbruckers travelled all over South Africa by car: “up to Messina and Beit Bridge, the Drakensberg, Zululand, Kruger Park, Eastern Tvl and up and down the Eastern Cape”.81 This was not a luxury available to their black comrades. Ivan loved South Africa “with all its diversity”. They often took friends whose company he particularly enjoyed, or who he felt needed a break, along. Among others, Doreen Tucker, Phillipa Lutz, Minnie Goldsmith, Winnie Kramer or Rebecca Bunting accompanied them. Lesley noted that “Stella and Davey Leigh remained good friends”. All through this time, her “dearest and best friend was Ruth Levy”. She was also close to her husband, Maish. The couple left to live in London in 1984 and they still keep in touch.82 Between 1960 and 1963 the family went to Plettenberg Bay for their annual holiday. They were accompanied, among others, by Molly and Bram Fischer, Hilda and Rusty Bernstein, Jack and Rica Hodgson and Bertha and Izzy Rosenberg.83 Lesley would recall that: We shared houses and flats and all the children flopped down on mattresses – heady wonderful days when the house was a half-way station for other travellers on their way to and from Cape Town. A lot of drinking went on, maybe to temporarily blot out the looming difficulties ahead which none of us underestimated. Matters were discussed in solto (sic. – sotto) voice; Ivan told me enough to keep me in the picture but not enough to put me in danger, at this time.84

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

115

Fig. 3.3 Ivan and Lesley at Margate c.1955 (Schermbrucker family)

Jill too remembered that family times and politics were “inseparable” on these holidays.85 Half a century later, Rica Hodgson still had vivid memories of one of the holidays at Plett with Ivan and Lesley, the Rosenbergs, Bram and Molly Fischer: “Ivan loved fishing, all those people who came down did. The Rosenbergs were mad – Issie nearly got killed on the rocks.” At Plett,

116

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 3.4 Jill and Peter on the same holiday (Schermbrucker family)

there was a place called the fishermen’s hut. “It was a long schlepp, you walked like some miles to get to this hut […] and there we walked with the kids, the obstreperous kids, the Rosenberg kids were very obstreperous.” On this trip, she caught her first and only fish while fishing of the rocks with Ivan (Fig. 3.5).86

By July 1957, Ivan and Lesley had saved £450 for a deposit on a house at 175 Francis St Observatory. It had a large room facing north which was

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

117

Fig. 3.5 Harold Wolpe and Ivan fishing at Plettenburg Bay in 1961 or 1962 (Schermbrucker family)

“ideal” for Lesley’s “small classes of 6 – 8 clients at one time. To add to our pleasure this house had the same back fence as Hilda and Rusty [Bernstein] where we shared many a happy picnic lunch around their swimming pool”. Most weekends, they would also play tennis on a court which they had uncovered while clearing the rubbish in the backyard. Parties were held at the new house and at the Slovos and Fischers: “fun and dancing as though we could somehow forget for a while all the brutality happening in the country”. The annual holidays also continued. Lesley reminisced that: “We were sinking into a typical middle class life – to myself I said that dreaded swear word shunned by the Communist party – B[ourgeois]”. She nevertheless recollects that: “every now and again I’d pause and sit quietly savouring this time and knowing it wouldn’t last – we were committed to the larger picture in the country and it didn’t look good” (Fig. 3.6).87 While they tried to share what they had, Lesley “could see that the more one had the more one wanted, not needed, wanted”. Peter was

118

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 3.6 Tennis Playing Comrades. (Standing, left to right) Harold Wolpe, Ivan, Ben Turok, Wilf East, Julius Baker, Ben Arenstein. (Kneeling) Joe Slovo, Rusty Bernstein. With the exception of East, all would later be imprisoned (Schermbrucker family)

moved from Yeoville Boys’ School to St. John’s College88 and Jill to Rhodean, both exclusive private schools. For Lesley, The biggest laugh was our children landing up in private schools – this life was the life of most of the comrades we mixed with – big houses, swimming pools, cars, music centres, useless but beautiful decorative ornaments – pottery, Khelim and Persian carpets. The in place to buy this was the Helen de Leeu shop. And servants – call them domestics if you like but they were servants. We paid them a fairly good wage and looked after their children where we could and were always aware of the miserable life they led bounded by laws which shifted all innovation and attempts to live a normal life as we knew it – and yet our lives weren’t normal either in a different way – looking over our shoulder to see who was watching our

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

119

moves, careful what you said and where we stored documents of an incriminating nature – at the same time defying the laws where possible – joining protest marches and stay away campaigns.89

At this time, Ivan was away a lot on trips to raise funds for the paper. When at home, he was very involved in family activities. A romantic at heart, he often brought “flowers and little bits of jewellery” and was “always ready to go out and eat, to dance or to the movies”. He was “full of ideas” of things to do with the children and regaled the family with stories of his trips and things that he had read.90 Having a communist for father also meant that the children were exposed to a fair degree of boasting about the achievements of the Soviet Union. Peter recalls Ivan getting the whole family up in their pyjamas and hauling them all off to the Yeoville water tower to look at the orbiting Sputnik. He would frequently state that the Russians were “better than the Americans”—not only ideologically but technologically as well. He also argued that “the Russians won the Second World War”. Without Soviet technology and industry, the Allies would have lost.91 From a non-family member’s perspective, Ivan could go overboard with his analysis of Russia and international politics in general. Elizabeth Franklin recalled that Ivan: could be dogmatic and rigid about his political beliefs, the role of Russia in the 20th century. I remember many late afternoons and weekend days, standing in the garden while he watered the plants, with us both arguing fiercely about issues such as Russia’s pact with Germany, the betrayal by the British of the Greek partisans after the war. We had some knock-down drag-out arguments about these things.92

It wasn’t only Soviet politics but the political situation at large that interested Ivan. According to Peter, he would discuss: “politics at large around the dinner table, he would offer opinions, especially he was very interested in the Vietnam War and how wrong the Americans were and what a mistake they were making and how they were going to [lose]”. For Ivan, politics was nevertheless more than an ideology—it was a way of life and practical politics were more important than ideology.93 At his funeral, Denis Kuny would say that: Some people will remember Ivan in the context of his political commitment and, of course, this was central to his life, but one must, to do Ivan justice, look further than the political concerns themselves and understand

120

A. KIRKALDY

what motivated him in these concerns. They were, I believe, the product of three things – (1) a deep and enduring love for South Africa, (2) a humanitarian concern for the welfare of all the people of South Africa, (3) an unshakeable belief in the establishment of a society that would be just and fair and equitable for all its people. He pursued these concerns with an integrity and a courage which never flagged.94

Arising from these roots, Ivan never really encouraged Peter or Jill to become involved in formal political structures: “he sort of made it like it was part of your life, the way you lived, you lived your politics” rather than intellectualised about it. Later, after his release from prison, Ivan would say to Peter that, while he was still a communist, on a practical level, he thought that: “it’s too late for socialism, […] the time has come and gone for socialism”. One just had to look at the number of black people who were by then driving their own cars to see that what was going to come was a “bourgeois” society where this class would no longer only be white. According to Peter, Ivan had “an unerring instinct for what was right”. This meant that he could be flexible and did not become bogged down in ideology, especially once it had become outdated. Thus Peter felt that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was unlikely that “he would have got stuck with being for Russia like he was” in the 1950s and early 1960s.95 Peter went further, noting that even before his arrest, Ivan and Lesley were already realising that, on some levels, “it was all a hoax, you know, Russia and Communism and all that”.96 His father would not “commit to a lie”. In his opinion, what Ivan was really about was “frontline politics”. He was “a practical politician, very practical”. He wanted to make a real difference in people’s lives. After his release from prison “he wanted to see that the other prisoners in jail were not forgotten and he wanted people to know that the people overseas were just useless”.97 According to Peter, politics was never his only passion and he had “too many other interests” to be a narrow political bigot. He would buy the latest records, especially those of Joan Baez and other activist singers. “He brought home Bob Dylan which he only played once!” He also bought the family records with both music and narrative, such as the Greek Myth of Diana of the Golden Apples, and the dramatic poem Peer Gynt set to music. He was also “interested in gadgets – potato peelers and” all sorts of things.98

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

121

Elizabeth Franklin, such a close friend that she was almost a family member, draws attention to another side of him: “Ivan also loved the good things of life. He always had loved the idea of travelling but [except during the war] was never able to leave the country”. He had long wanted to visit Greece “and planned to do so after the revolution. It was an escape fantasy for us in the family, when the political pressure got tough”. The summer holidays at Plett “were a highlight in the year”—after he was banned, they would “spend evenings going through the slides of those vacations, as a way to ‘go there’”. He spent many hours gardening and loved books, movies and music—“there was always music in the house”. Ivan also enjoyed interacting with: people. I think some of the happiest days in the period just prior to imprisonment, were the Sundays when people would come and play tennis and swim and bring good food to share. He loved the comradeship, the food the talking and laughter.99

According to Peter, for Ivan, everything was “very much larger than life” and “there was always something happening”. For the children, this was all “very exciting”.100 Adding to this picture, Jill recalled her father’s tempers as an essential part of who he was: he was a very intelligent man [...] very honest, very straightforward, very direct. He was a fun-loving guy, he loved fishing, he was very sociable […] He had a huge temper, he was forever chasing us to the bottom of the garden […] ‘Jesus Christ, Lesley, [...] I’m going to murder these bloody children’, and you had to get up and run! [Laughs]101

When he “wasn’t collecting money from donors on his own in and around Johannesburg”, Ivan would go away on collecting trips in the outlying areas, most frequently with Rica Hodgson. Many of these targeted Indian businesspeople.102 Recalling one tip to Schwarzer Reinicke, where Ahmed Kathrada came from, Rica said that they decided that they would stay with a family who were known to Ivan but not to her. They were not party members but had contributed to New Age in the past. Ivan would sleep with the sons and Rica with the daughters. On the first evening, a man seemed to tag on to them. Rica didn’t trust him but Ivan said she should ignore him “and get on with what we are doing”. In her analysis, Ivan “was more complicated than he let on” for instance

122

A. KIRKALDY

staying unknown to Special Branch. “You have to have some kind of a complicated mind to work out how to hide it, you know, because most of us couldn’t hide it”.103 As they were on their way back that night, a group of children were waiting alongside the road for them. They said that Ivan and Rica should not go to the house where they had been intending to sleep as the Special Branch were waiting for them there—the most likely explanation was that the strange man had been an informer.104 So, at Ivan’s recommendation, they went into town and booked two rooms in the hotel. The next morning, just before they went in for breakfast, Rica went out for a short walk. She saw two people who were obviously Special Branch standing at Ivan’s New Age car. They were wearing hats and striped blazers. She went back in and told Ivan. He said: “You people who have been in prison see Special Branch people under every bed, let’s go in for breakfast”. After breakfast, they went out to the car. One of the men asked Ivan if it was his. He replied that it was. He said that Ivan and Rica were to accompany him back to the police station and the other man would drive the car.105 On arrival at the police station, the police searched the car. Pushed down behind one of the seats, they found a crumpled version of Ruth First’s report on the conditions on the potato farms.106 This was banned. Ivan and Rica were told that they had to wait for the arrival of the Commissioner of Police, who was holidaying in the area at the time. They were left alone for quite some time without even being offered water.107 The commissioner and another SB policeman soon arrived. On ascertaining that they had been there to collect money, they demanded the receipt books. Rica produced these. Depending on how much money each person had given, the receipts were made out to “A Friend” or “A Good Friend”. The commissioner threw the books on the floor. After ranting and raving, unsuccessfully attempting to get more information out of them, he told Ivan and Rica that they could leave and go home. They were not to show their faces in the area again. They told him that they had no intention of doing so! One of the other collecting trips was equally memorable. Rica would recall that it was to a woman who owned a citrus farm in Rustenburg. Calling herself Madam Raymond, she was “such a character”—Jewish, she had come back to South Africa from Palestine after the formation of the State of Israel. She was in fact Mrs. R. Milindton.108 What nobody could know at the time was that it would be on this farm that Bram

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

123

Fischer would subsequently change his appearance when going underground. Milindton would be detained under the 180 Day law. At Fischer’s trial, she claimed that she had never heard of him and couldn’t identify him. After this, she would be imprisoned.109 Ivan had reportedly only told Rica: “I’m taking you to meet this woman, she has lots of money, she’s got a citrus farm and we’ll go and visit her and have a day and see what she’s got to say”. The name sounded exotic and she didn’t know what to expect. She found a woman who lived by herself and “hated everybody, she hated Jews, she hated Kaffirs, she hated Coolies” and only loved communists. She refused to belong to the co-op as she “wasn’t belonging to anything anymore”. Although there were beautiful oranges growing on the farm, these were not being harvested because nobody was working for her—she couldn’t afford to pay them and didn’t trust anybody anyway. She was vegetarian and grew everything that she ate, with the exception of rice and potatoes. Rica remembered that “she had blue eyebrows […] and a doek on her head”. She said: “You can smoke because I like communists, so I’ll trust you”. Rica’s summation was that it was: “Nice to be trusted because you’re a communist – usually you’re not trusted because you’re a communist”. Although Madam Raymond had no money to give to the cause, Ivan persuaded her to donate the oranges to be used for fundraising. Rica’s brothers were wholesale marketeers. They agreed to collect and buy the entire crop. “So we got money in the end”.110 Other partners on collecting trips included Fred Carneson and Ruth First.111 Ivan also had a close relationship with Mac Maharaj, assisted in recruiting Walter Sisulu to the Communist Party and went on collecting trips with him.112 Ivan and Fred Carneson also persuaded Govan Mbeki to join the staff of the Guardian.113 Lesley remembered that the closing years of the 1950s were characterised by: “draconian laws, arrests, detention, banning orders, 90 days, house arrest and trials”. She particularly referred to the “Immorality Act prohibiting sex across the colour line”, the labour laws designed to control black labour and the Bantu Education Act, which provided “inferior education to keep people from advancing and only fitting them for unskilled labour”. Then, on 21 March 1960, came to the Sharpeville Massacre. The police opened fire on a protest against the pass system organised by the PAC. Official figures stated that 69 people were killed and 180 were wounded trying to escape the police gunfire. Actual figures were presumably higher. The people responded with mass stay-aways and

124

A. KIRKALDY

a march on parliament. In response, the government declared a State of Emergency. The ANC and PAC were both banned. In Lesley’s opinion, this “overruled all so called normal laws”. The Special Branch “had watched and waited for this and except for a few comrades knew those involved and kept up constant harassment”. Some 20,000 people were detained. “We now realized that the govt would stop at nothing to crush all signs of rebellion against its rule”.114 “Many activists vanished, fleeing to safe houses inside the country or across the border”.115 Hilda and Rusty Bernstein were two of the Schermbruckers’ friends to be arrested. Lesley and Ivan turned their “lounge into a dormitory” and had the Bernstein children to stay.116 The Treason Trial ended on 29 March 1961. All of the accused were acquitted because the evidence had not proved that the Freedom Charter had sought to introduce a communist state or that the liberation movement had used violence in attempting to achieve its aims. That night, there was a massive party at Bram and Molly Fischer’s house in Oaklands. The Schermbruckers did not go as “Ivan was instructed to keep a low profile”. They were nevertheless told that “it was a party to top all other parties”.117 This “low profile” was necessary as he was beginning to cement his role in the leadership of the underground Communist Party. So successful were he and Lesley in keeping their role hidden that they were never imprisoned before their final detention and jailing in 1964/1965.118 Rica Hodgson recalled that: “Ivan was an unknown character […] He was unknown originally by the Special Branch who were looking for party members to list us. His name didn’t feature anywhere, he was quite cunning”.119 Lesley’s mother died suddenly of a heart attack in November 1961. The will had given her son, Maurice, first option to buy and he persuaded his sisters to sell it to him “for a song” at R28,000. Lesley stated that: “We shared our good fortune with as many as possible and kept open house over weekends”. They had a swimming pool built with a portion of her share of the money (Fig. 3.7).120

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

125

Fig. 3.7 The sugar cane farm (Schermbrucker family)

Notes 1. John Pampallis, Foundations of the New South Africa, Cape Town, Maskew Miller Longman, 1991, pp. 166–174; South African History Online, “1946 African Mineworkers Strike”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/1946-african-mine-workersstrike, accessed 14 April 2016 (quotations). 2. Thula Simpson, “The ANC at 100”, South African Historical Journal, 64, 2013, 382. 3. Lucien van der Walt, “The First Globalisation and Transnational Labour Activism in Southern Africa: White Labourism, the IWW, and the ICU, 1904–1934”, African Studies, 66, 2–3, 2007, 223– 251. 4. Simpson, “The ANC”, 385. 5. T.R.H. Davenport, South Africa: A Modern History, Bergvlei, Southern Books, 1988, p. 367; Wouter Goedertier, “The Quest for Transnational Authority, the Anti-apartheid Movements of the

126

A. KIRKALDY

European Community”, Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, Année 2011, 89, 3–4, 2011, 1253. 6. David Everatt, “Alliance Politics of a Special Type: The Roots of the ANC/SACP Alliance, 1950–1954”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 18, 1, 1991”, 19–39; Paul S. Landau, “The ANC, MK and ‘The Turn to Violence’ (1960–1962)”, South African Historical Journal, 64, 3, 2012, 538–563; Tom Lodge, “Secret Party: South African Communists Between 1950 and 1960”, South African Historical Journal, 67, 4, 2015, 433–464. 7. Moses Kotane was born at Tamposstad in the Western Transvaal (today North West Province) in 1905. Growing up as a herd boy, he only started school at the age of 15. After two years of schooling, he worked on a farm for two years. In 1922 he went to Krugersdorp. He worked as a photographer’s assistant, a domestic servant, a miner and a bakery worker. He joined the ANC in 1928 and the African Bakers Union later in the same year. Kotane joined the CPSA in 1929, becoming vice-chairperson of the Union and a member of the CPSA’s politburo. He was also a student at the communist-run night school in Ferreirastown, Johannesburg. In 1931, he became a full-time Party worker. Kotane was sent to study Marxism-Leninism at the International Lenin School in Moscow in the early 1930s. In 1935, he became involved in an intellectual dispute with Lazar Bach, then Chairperson of the CPSA, and was expelled from the politburo. This decision was nevertheless soon rescinded and he became General Secretary of the CPSA in 1939, holding this post until his death. Kotane combined his membership of the CPSA with that of the ANC. In 1946, he was elected to the ANC National Executive Committee, holding this position until his banning orders forced his nominal resignation in 1952. He was held in high regard by both organisations, even appealing to staunch anti-communists in the ANC. In the aftermath of the 1946 Miners’ Strike, the Smuts government attempted to demonstrate that it was taking a hard line against the “Red Menace”. Leading communists, including Kotane, were subjected to two years of legal proceedings. As in the later Treason Trial, the State nevertheless failed to prove its case. This was followed by the banning of the Communist Party

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

127

in 1950 and the closing of its headquarters in Cape Town. Kotane moved back to Johannesburg. He opened a furniture business in Alexandria Township but continued to work underground as an activist. Kotane was one of the first people banned under the Suppression of Communism Act. Ignoring his banning order, he publically supported the Defiance Campaign of 1952, being arrested with one of the first groups of defiers. This resulted in him being given a nine month suspended sentence in December 1952. After attending the Bandung conference of Third World leaders as an observer in 1955, Kotane remained abroad for most of the year. During this time, he travelled extensively in Asia and Eastern Europe. In December 1956, he was charged in the Treason Trial. Charges against him were dropped in November 1958. He was subsequently detained for four months during the 1960 State of Emergency and placed under 24-h house arrest in late 1962. Early in 1963, he left South Africa for Tanzania. There he became the treasurer-general of the ANC in exile, and was re-elected to the NEC. Having suffered a stroke in 1968, he went to Moscow for treatment. He remained there until his death in May 1978. [Brian Bunting, Moses Kotane, South African Revolutionary, A Political Biography, London, Inkululeko Publications, 1975; North West Provincial Government, “Profile of Mr Moses Mauane Kotane, 9 August 1905–19 May 1978”, at http://www.nwpg.gov.za/Documents/Speeches/Kot ane%20Profile%20Leaflet.pdf, accessed 20 February 2019; Moses Kotane Institute, “The Origins of Our Name”, at http://www. moseskotaneinstitute.com/our-name.html, accessed 20 February 2019. 8. Pampallis Foundations, p. 172. 9. Untitled, unpublished attempt at writing a personal biography by Lesley Schermbrucker in her possession, handwritten insertion on the back of p. 14. 10. Ibid., pp. 14–15. 11. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, pp. 6–7. 12. Ibid., p. 7. 13. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 15, 19.

128

A. KIRKALDY

14. Lewis Baker was the husband and political partner of Villa Baker, who was born in 1917. A month before, her father, a miner, had been killed in an attempt to save the life of one of his co-workers in an underground accident. Shortly thereafter, her mother met and married Robert Jefferson Webster, who adopted Villa. They subsequently had three other children. Villa’s early years were spent in Brakpan. Her stepfather was one of the strikers in the 1922 white Miners’ Strike and her political ideologies developed out of the events surrounding this. Politically active from her early adulthood, she became a shop steward for the National Garment Workers Union (GWU). Her short first marriage ended in divorce. This was handled by Lewis Baker, a Brakpan civil rights lawyer and SACP member, who served as secretary of the East Rand Branch of the Communist Party until it was banned. They continued their political activities after their marriage. During the Second World War, they campaigned against the pro-Nazi Ossewa-Brandwag. After the arrival of their first child in 1949, they agreed that Lewis would continue to be politically active, but she would concentrate on the family. She nevertheless remained active in the Black Sash and took part in the 1956 Women’s March. In the leadup to South Africa becoming a Republic in 1961, a State of Emergency was declared. For a time, Lewis went underground. Arrested in the ninety-days roundups, he was subsequently charged and tried in the Bram Fischer/Schermbrucker trial. Found guilty, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. After his release, he would be placed under house arrest. In 1967, Lewis was struck off the roll of attorneys because of his membership of the CPSA and his conviction under the Suppression of Communism Act. The family went into exile in Britain in 1970. Lewis went first. Villa and Beryl, their daughter, left at the end of the year once she had completed her matric. Stephen, their son, was already married and remained behind. Lewis continued his political involvement, now as a member of the exiled SACP-ANC alliance. He died in 1979. In 1984, Villa visited Stephen and his family in South Africa. In 1990, both the Iron Curtain and Apartheid fell. Villa returned to South Africa in 1992, moved back to Benoni and joined the

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

129

SACP local branch. Attacked in her home in 2000, she was left confined to a wheelchair. After the arrest of the alleged attackers, she dropped all charges. Villa died in 2004. In recognition of his contribution to the struggle, Lewis was posthumously reinstated on the roll of Attorneys and Notaries by the Pretoria High Court in September 2005. [African National Congress, “Statement on reinstatement of Lewis Baker”, 7 September 2005, at http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=5374, accessed 17 March 2012; Steven Baker, “Villa Baker – Eulogy to a Fallen Comrade”, South African Communist Party, http://www.sacp.org.za/main. php?ID=2354, accessed 17 March 2012 (quotations); Z. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’ Trial”, The African Communist, 22, 1965, 46, 55. Z. Nkosi was the pseudonym for Brian Bunting.]. 15. Anonymous [Lewis Baker], Untitled, undated reminiscences beginning “Don’t remember where I 1st met him” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, pp. 1–2. 16. Elleke Boehmer, Nelson Mandela: A Brief Insight, New York, Sterling, 2008, p. 151; Aida Edemariam, “The Cost of Survival”, The Guardian, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/ mar/05/southafrica.bookst, accessed 31 January 2021; Jack Geiger, “The Cause Came First”, The New York Times on the Web, 25 May 1997, at https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt imes.com/books/97/05/25/reviews/970525.25geigert.html, accessed 16 February 2021; Gillian Slovo, (a) “Daughter of the Struggle”, Salon Magazine, 30 June 1997, at https://www. salon.com/1997/06/30/slovo970630/, accessed 16 February 2021; (b) Every Secret Thing, My Family, My Country, London, Little Brown, 1997. 17. Denis Kuny, untitled address at Ivan’s funeral, 1981, p. 8. 18. “Lesley and Ivan”, e-mail, Jeanne Daly to Alan Kirkaldy, 12 May 2020. 19. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 17. 20. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “No more liberation politics” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. (p. 4). 21. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “Would billet us in houses/buildings” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. (p. 5).

130

A. KIRKALDY

22. It was actually the Guardian at this stage. 23. “Don’t remember”, p. 1. 24. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 7; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 17–18 (quotation). 25. The Guardian leagues were spread all over the country, for example in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, East London, King William’s Town, Mossel Bay, Worcester, Queenstown, Uitenhage, George, Kimberley, Paarl and Bloemfontein. They ran activities and campaigns to raise funds for the newspaper. Trudy Gelb was one of the leaders of the Johannesburg league. [Ruth First Papers Project, “Interview with Ismael Meer Part 2” at http://sas-space. sas.ac.uk/4580/2/Ismael_MEER_2.pdf, accessed 3 December 2013, p. 35; James Zug, The Guardian: The History of South Africa’s Extraordinary Anti-apartheid Newspaper, Michigan, Michigan State University Press and Pretoria, UNISA Press, pp. 46, 52, 54, 55, 56, 77, 98, 130, 252–253 n. 53, 256 n. 88, 256 n. 89, 256–257 n. 90, 332 n. 25.] 26. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 18–19. 27. Ibid., pp. 21–22. 28. Ibid., pp. 24–25. 29. Ibid., pp. 25–26. 30. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 8. Much later on, the Leighs would emigrate to Australia and the families would lose touch. 31. Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010, pp. 3–4. 32. Lesley said that Rebecca and she “were good friends and comrades”. They had been in the same cell when the CPSA was still legal. “A staunch character full of love and laughter”, Lesley “only saw her waver once”. That was in 1963, when Brian “had to tell her he was leaving SA, after being in detention in Cape Town, and going into exile. She found it hard to believe and cried in Ivan’s arms”. [Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 28.] Lesley also stated that both she and Ivan were equally surprised when Brian left. They “just couldn’t imagine it”. [Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 11.]

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

131

33. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 7; Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 28, 32–34. See also Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014, n.p. (I had sound problems with recording this interview. As a result, I did not transcribe it but worked directly from the tape.) 34. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 33. 35. Ibid., p. 31. 36. Suppression of Communism Act, Act No. 44 of 1950, at http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc& recordID=leg19500717.028.020.044, accessed 29 September 2014; Muriel Horrell, Laws Affecting Race Relations in South Africa: (To the End of 1976), Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations, 1978, p. 414. 37. Jonathan Cohen (SAHO Public History Internship), “1967 Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/topic/1967-terrorism-act-no-83-1967, accessed 25 February 2013, 431; Horrell, Laws Affecting, p. 414; The Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. 8 of 1953, at http://www.disa.ukzn.ac. za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19530304. 028.023.008, accessed 29 September 2014. 38. Horrell, Laws Affecting, p. 434. 39. O’Malley archives, “The Riotous Assemblies Act No. 17 of 1956”, at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/ site/q/03lv01538/04lv01828/05lv01829/06lv01875.htm, accessed 2 October 2014; South African History Online, “The Riotous Assemblies Act Commences”, at http://www.sahistory. org.za/dated-event/riotous-assemblies-act-commences, accessed 2 October 2014 (quotation). 40. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964– 1965/Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 2, Record of Evidence of the Accused, pp. 1953–1955 (quotation, p. 1953). 41. Born in Krugersdorp in 1909, Yusuf Dadoo went to school in South Africa and India. He then qualified as a doctor in Britain. Returning to South Africa in 1936, he joined the CPSA in 1939.

132

A. KIRKALDY

For many years, he served on its leadership. In 1945, he was elected as president of the Transvaal Indian Congress. Five years later, he became president of the SAIC. Popularly known as “Mota” or “Doc”, he died in exile in London in 1983. [Joe Slovo, “A Tribute to Yusuf Dadoo”, at http://www.sacp.org.za/ docs/history/dadoojs.html, accessed 24 April 2014.] Rica Hodgson was born in 1920 and had a long history in the liberation struggle. In 1943, she became a fundraiser for the Springbok Legion. Two years later, she married Jack Hodgson, who would become one of the founders of MK and one of its earliest bomb-makers and saboteurs. She joined the CPSA in 1946 and became a founder member of the COD in 1953. Travelling around the country with other members of the Congress Alliance, she raised funds and built support networks. She was national secretary of the COD until being banned in August 1954. In 1954, Rica served on the National Action Council which would plan for the Congress of the People. In 1957 she became secretary and fundraiser for the Treason Trial Defence Fund. Two years later, she also served as secretary for the musical production of King Kong, “the first All African Jazz opera”. Portraying the life and times of the boxer Ezekiel Dhlamini, this sought to promote non-racial performances and black South African Jazz musicians. Opening at the Wits University Great Hall in February 1959, it had packed runs for the next two years. It then left for London in 1961, launching the international careers of, among others, Nathan Mdeledle, Miriam Makeba, Kippie Moketsi and Hugh Masekela. Detained in the 1960 State of Emergency, Rica became the fundraiser and Secretary for the Johannesburg branch of the Defence and Aid Fund. She delighted in telling me how, in the build-up to the launch of MK and the 1961 sabotage campaign, she and Jack had cooked up bombs in the kitchen of their flat in Hillbrow—they used a mortar and pestle which she had been given by her mother. They were placed under house arrest in 1962. The couple left South Africa illegally in mid-1963 to set up a transit centre outside Lobatsi in Bechuanaland (Botswana) to

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

133

cater for MK cadres en-route to training abroad. Declared prohibited immigrants by the British Government, they were deported to London in September 1963. From 1964 to 1981, Rica worked full-time for the British Defence and Aid Fund. She also headed the Welfare Section of the IDAF, channelling funds covertly to South Africa. In pursuit of this goal, she established a network of sympathetic people and churches in various countries. At the same time, she and Jack continued their clandestine activities, and produced underground political material, on behalf of the ANC. Hodgson also worked in the development and administration of Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College in Tanzania—the ANC institution established there in the wake of the Soweto uprising—and as secretary to ANC leaders Tim Maseko and Henry Makgothi. Returning to South Africa in 1991, she retired from struggle politics as Secretary to Walter Sisulu in 1996. She died in 2018. [Chris Barron, “Rica Hodgson, Firebrand Who Dedicated Her Life to the Freedom Struggle 1920–1928”, Obituary, Sunday Times, 21 January 2018, 19; Informal conversation with Rica Hodgson at the time of the interview with her, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014; “King Kong, The First All African Jazz Opera 1956”, at http://soulsafari.wordpress.com/2009/08/ 10/king-kong-the-first-all-african-jazz-opera-1959/, accessed 28 September 2014; The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, National Orders, The Order of Luthuli in Bronze, “Rica Hodgson (1920–)”, at http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/peb ble.asp?relid=7936, accessed 28 September 2014. See also Rica Hodgson, Foot Soldier for Freedom: A Life in South Africa’s Liberation Movement, Johannesburg, Picador Africa, 2010.] 42. “No More Liberation”, n.d., n.p. (pp.4–5). 43. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 2 & 3; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 20 January 2014, n.p.; Kuny, untitled address, p. 3; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1956; “No more”, n.p. (p.5). 44. Zug, The Guardian, p. 132. 45. At the time of his banning, Selby was on the executive of the Transvaal Council of Non-European Trade Unions. [Ibid., p. 300 n. 173.] 46. Ibid., pp. 133, 300 n. 174.

134

A. KIRKALDY

47. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 2066–2071. 48. Ibid., p. 1957; Zug, The Guardian, p. 133. 49. Zug, The Guardian, pp. xii, 84 (quotation, p. 84). 50. ANC Archives, “Sadie Forman”, at http://ancarchives.org.za/ sadie-forman-2/, accessed 29 April 2014. 51. Zug, The Guardian, pp. 183, 193, 275 n. 74 (quotation). 52. Ibid., p. 133. 53. Ibid., p. 301 n. 177. 54. Ibid., p. 300 n. 175. 55. Ibid., pp. 193, 300–301 n. 175. 56. Gerald Shaw, Obituary “Wolfie Kodesh”, in The Guardian, 13 November 2002, at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/ nov/13/guardianobituaries, accessed 1 May 2014; South African History Online, “Wolfie Kodesh”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/wolfie-kodesh, accessed 1 May 2014; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1957. 57. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1957; Zug, The Guardian, pp. xii, 40, 153–154, 253 n. 59, 294 n. 123. 58. Kuny, untitled address, p. 3; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 20 January 2014, n.p.; “The State versus Abram Fischer”, pp. 1956, 1958; “Would Billet”, n.p. (p. 5). 59. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 2066–2071. 60. After her eventual arrest and release under the 90-days legislation, Joyce would leave the country and settle in Maputo. She returned to South Africa in 1992. [Zug, The Guardian, p. 226.] 61. Zug, The Guardian, p. 133. 62. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 8. 63. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 31–32. 64. Interview with Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 2. See also “Lesley Schernmbrucker, Jill Murray & Mildred Holo, Of Toy Boxes and Meetings”, excerpt of an interview by Jim [James] Zug with Lesley Schermbrucker and her daughter Jill Murray, Johannesburg, 22 January 1994, p. 4, in Voices of liberation Project: Kasigo Publishers, communication from Hildegarde Fast and Bastienne Klein (editor) to Jill Murray, 23 December 1997 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 65. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 2. 66. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 34.

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

135

67. Ibid., p. 35. 68. Norman Flegg was the Cape Town business manager of the Guardian from 1937 to 1951. [Zug, The Guardian, p. xi.]. 69. Zug, The Guardian, p. 98. 70. Ibid. 71. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 35. 72. Kuny, untitled address, p. 4. 73. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 35–36 (quotation, p. 36). 74. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 10. 75. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 8. 76. Ibid., pp. 8–9. 77. Everatt, “Alliance Politics” (quotation, 20). 78. Landau, “The ANC”. 79. Letepe Maisela, “The ANC was Never About Race”, in City Press, 17 August 2016, at https://city-press.news24. com/Voices/the-anc-was-never-about-race-20160812, accessed 26 February 2019. 80. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 37–38. 81. Ibid., p. 38. 82. Ibid., pp. 38–39. 83. Izzy and Bertha were not party members but were sympathisers/fellow-travellers. [Informal conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014.]. 84. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 39. 85. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 1. 86. Interview with Rica Hodgson, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014, p. 3. 87. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 40, 42–43. 88. St. John’s was founded by the Reverend John Darragh, Rector of St. Mary’s Church (now Cathedral) in 1898. In 1906, the school was taken over by the Community of the Resurrection. The CR handed the school back to the Diocese of Johannesburg in 1934 and the Reverend “Nobby” Clarke was appointed headmaster. In 1954, Deane Yates—a lay minister— became the first headmaster who was not a priest. The school is still owned by the Diocese. [“Rugby 365, School

136

A. KIRKALDY

Profiles, St. John’s College”, at http://www.rugby365.com/ article/39118-st-john-s-college, accessed 5 December 2013; St. John’s Preparatory School, “Newsletter Number 1”, 1 February 2013, at http://www.stjohnscollege.co.za/pdfs/newsletters/pre paratory/2013_prepnews01.pdf, accessed 5 December 2013, p. 1.] 89. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 43–44. 90. Ibid., p. 44. 91. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 3. 92. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger [Elizabeth Franklin (formerly Lewin) to Hilary Hamburger], Sunday 19 April 1998 in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 2. 93. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 3–4. 94. Kuny, untitled address, p. 4. 95. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 3–4. 96. Ibid., p. 15. 97. Ibid., p. 4. 98. Ibid. 99. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, pp. 2–3. 100. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 3–4, 15. 101. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 9. 102. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 45–46. 103. Interview with Rica Hodgson, 20 January 2014, p. 1. 104. Ibid. 105. Ibid., p. 2. 106. See index of Zug, The Guardian. 107. Interview with Rica Hodgson, 20 January 2014, p. 2. 108. Ibid. She also appears as Milington in various sources. I use the correct spelling throughout. 109. Anti-Apartheid News, published by the Anti-apartheid Movement, February 1966, at http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/ t0/10.5555/al.sff.document.aamp2b2400002.pdf, accessed 30 January 2018, n.p. (p. 5); Stephen Clingman, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner Revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998, pp. 364–365 & 403–404. 110. Interview with Rica Hodgson, 20 January 2014, pp. 2–3.

3

PARTNERS IN ACTIVISM—IVAN AND LESLEY

137

111. Lynn Carneson, Red in the Rainbow: The Life and Times of Fred and Sarah Carneson, Cape Town, Zebra Press, 2010, p. 141; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 112. See, for example, Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 113. Zug, The Guardian, p. 144. 114. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 46 (quotations); Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 66; Glenn Frankel, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999, pp. 66 & 290. 115. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 66. 116. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 46–47 (quotations); Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 68. 117. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 47. 118. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 3. 119. Interview with Rica Hodgson, 20 January 2014, p. 3. 120. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 16–17 & 41–42.

CHAPTER 4

Tightening Repression: Increasing Involvement, Surveillance and Detention

Security Legislation in the 1960S in Context In describing the 1960s in her autobiography, Helen Joseph wrote that while she was living under house arrest, this became a disgraceful decade of repressive legislation. “Sadistic incarceration, even torture by the security police to extract information from helpless victims, was the order of the day. South Africa was following the barbaric example of Nazi Germany and had learnt its lessons well”.1 With Verwoerd as Prime Minister, Vorster as Minister of Police and Hendrik van den Bergh as Head of the Special Branch, South Africa was being governed by a triumvirate of evil. MK launched a sabotage campaign. Given the deeply segregated nature of South African society, it would have been easy for MK operatives to target random whites. Oliver Tambo’s view that “a Christian like himself could not condone a single unnecessary death” was nevertheless widely accepted. It also ensured that the organisation managed to claim a great deal of the moral high ground by targeting buildings and installations, rather than people, throughout its period of operation. The PAC formed Poqo as its underground military wing in 1961.2 In Helen Joseph’s opinion, Unlike Umkhonto, it did not confine its violence to attacks on installations but also planned and carried out violent physical reprisals on individuals, black and white, leading to injuries and death, sometimes in a kind of mindless violence.3

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_4

139

140

A. KIRKALDY

At this time, in an effort to combat growing opposition to their rule, the apartheid government began tightening up on, and expanding, its already-existing security legislation. In addition to laws which reinforced the Suppression of Communism Act, the government passed legislation which provided for increasing periods of detention without access to legal representation, the awarding of bail, or the necessity of charges being brought against the prisoner. The Unlawful Organisations Act, No. 34 of 1960 allowed the apartheid government to declare unlawful any organisations which it deemed threatened public order or the safety of the public. It also amended the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 and the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956 to tighten up any loopholes in their application. The ANC and the PAC were immediately declared unlawful.4 The General Law Amendment Act, No. 39 of 1961 was an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, No. 56 of 1955. It allowed for twelve day detention without the “opportunity of bail or the right to habeas corpus”.5 The Indemnity Act, No. 61 of 1961 was applied retrospectively from March 1960. This indemnified the government, its officials and any person acting under its authority from prosecution for any acts performed “in good faith for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder, the maintenance or restoration of good order, public safety or essential services, or the preservation of life or property in any part of the Republic”.6 The state also set out to fill any remaining gaps in legislation preventing it from acting against the liberation movements (or the communist pawns, as they saw it). The General Law Amendment Act (Sabotage Act), No. 76 of 1962 granted the authorities increased powers “to declare organisations unlawful and to add further restrictions to banning orders”. People could now be banned from attending social gatherings, and from “having more than one visitor at a time”. Banned persons were listed in the Government Gazette.7 The Act also “defined sabotage and made provision for a minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of death”.8 Sabotage was defined as “any act that endangered law and order, public safety, health or the free movement of traffic; which jeopardised the supply of fuel, food, water, light and power; or which hindered medical and municipal services. Anyone who trespassed on any land or building or who destroyed private and public property could also be penalised under the Act”. Sabotage was also defined so broadly that strike action could be penalised. It came into effect from 27 June 1962.9

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

141

In an effort to secure even wider powers to prohibit dissenting voices, the state passed the General Law Amendment Act No. 37 of 1963. Section 17, commonly referred to as the “ninety-day detention law”, gave any commissioned officer the right to detain any person suspected of a political crime without securing a warrant. They could be held “totally incommunicado” for ninety days without any access to a lawyer and with no right to visitors. This obviated the need for the declaration of a State of Emergency in order to detain people without trial. In practice, people were frequently released from detention after ninety days only to be immediately re-detained for a further ninety days. The socalled “Sobukwe clause”—named after Robert Sobukwe, the founder of the PAC—allowed for the imposition of a further twelve months detention for a person convicted of a political offence. The Act also provided for further new declarations of unlawful organisations. “The State President could declare any organisation or group of persons which had come into existence since 7 April 1960 to be unlawful”. Using this clause, the state extended the restrictions already in force against the ANC and the PAC to MK and Poqo.10 According to Helen Joseph, “These were frightening provisions, opening wide the door for ill treatment of detainees in order to obtain information”.11 Commenting further on this legislation in 2008, the political activist Phyllis Naidoo would argue that detention under the ninety-day law “usually preceded a trial in which the detainee after months in isolation, interrogation and torture, could end up charged, a state witness or a corpse”.12 Lesley commented that excuses given for the death in detention of detainees contained blatant lies such as “he slipped on the soap in the shower”, “he voluntarily leapt out of the window”, or “he hanged himself”. Many comrades cracked under interrogation and gave statements to the police. Some tried hard to limit the damage of their confessions to their comrades and their organisations but the ruthlessness of the torture usually exacted full confessions. At the end of the 90-day period, many took exile permits. They were deported from South Africa, mainly to the United Kingdom. “Others more resolute stuck it out – either going on trial, going to jail then on release trying to make a life under house arrest and banning orders. This is what Ivan and I faced and did for many years”.13 The General Law Amendment Act No. 80 of 1964 amended the 1963 General Law Amendment Act, giving the Minister of Justice the power to “extend the operation of the Sobukwe clause in individual cases”. This

142

A. KIRKALDY

was used to keep Sobukwe “imprisoned until 1969. This clause was reenacted in amended form in 1976”.14 The Criminal Procedure Amendment Act No. 96 (180-Day Detention Law) of 1965 made provision for 180-day detention and re-detention thereafter. “The Attorney-General was empowered to order the detention of persons likely to give evidence for the state in any criminal proceedings relating to certain political or common-law offences”. Detainees could be held in solitary confinement for six months. Only “state officials were permitted access. No court had the jurisdiction to order the release of prisoners or to rule on the validity of the regulations under the Act”.15 The General Law Amendment Act, No. 62 of 1966 was designed to respond to guerilla activities on the northern borders of the area then called South West Africa (Namibia today). It amended the Suppression of Communism Act to allow for people whom the police suspected of being so-called “terrorists” to be detained without a warrant for 14 days “for purposes of interrogation” The arrest could be ordered by a policeman above the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. Although detainees could not be held for longer than 14 days, the Commissioner of Police could request a judge to extend this. According to figures provided by the Minister of Police, within two months of its enactment, 91 people had been detained under this Act. Thirty-eight of these had been detained for longer than 14 days. Essentially, this was “a forerunner of the 1967 Terrorism Act”.16 The Suppression of Communism Act No. 24 of 1967 “Prohibited certain persons from making or receiving donations for the benefit of certain organisations; prohibited others from practising as advocates, attorneys, notaries and conveyances, and extended the grounds for deporting people from the Republic”.17 The piece de resistance of the draconian security legislation of the 1960s was the Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967. This was arguably one of the most important pieces of repressive legislation passed by the apartheid regime. Although the Act was purportedly designed to enable the state to act against “terrorists” it was worded in such a manner that it could be used to harass and prosecute “organisations and individuals who resisted state control”. It enabled “almost unchecked control by security forces over detainees”, leading to their abuse, torture and deaths in detention. In 1978, the law professor John Dugard wrote: “Although designed to combat terrorism, the Terrorism Act has itself become an instrument of terror”. Participation in “terroristic activities” was defined as acting “with intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order” or inciting,

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

143

commanding, encouraging another person to do so (Section 2.1.a). This definition was so broad that it could be (and was) applied to any opponents of the apartheid regime. The minimum sentence for those found guilty under the provisions of the Act was five years imprisonment. The death penalty could also be imposed (Section 2.1). Anyone found guilty of hiding or “indirectly” assisting a person suspected of being a terrorist faced the same penalties (Section 3).18 The most notorious features of the Terrorism Act were contained in Section Six, which dealt “with the detention of alleged terrorists”. In terms of this section, any police officer of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or above could order the arrest and detention, without warrant, of any person they believed to be a terrorist or to be withholding information on terrorists or terroristic activity. They could be held under conditions specified by the Commissioner of Police until he believed that that had provided all information known to them (Section 6.1). “As soon as possible” after the arrest of an alleged terrorist, the Commissioner was required to provide the Minister of Justice with their name and address. Once a month after this, he had to supply the Minister with reasons why the detainee should not be released (Section 6.2).19 Detainees under the Terrorism Act were essentially at the mercy of the Minister of Justice and the Commissioner of Police. The Minister could “order the release of any detainee ‘at any time’” (Section 6.4). “No ‘court of law’ could order the release of someone arrested under the Act” (Section 6.5). Detainees (at least theoretically) had “the right to write to the Minister ‘at any time’ with regard to their ‘detention or release’” (Section 6.3). Besides “the Minister or an ‘officer in the service of the State acting in the performance of [their] official duties,’ no one could visit an individual detained under the Terrorism Act”. In addition, “‘no person’ was ‘entitled’ to official information about the prisoner” (Section 6.6). The final clause of Section Six read that “If circumstances so permit […] a detainee shall be visited in private by a magistrate at least once a fortnight”20 (Section 6.7).21 The Terrorism Act differed from preceding security laws in a number of significant ways. Under the 90 and 180-day detention laws, public access to information regarding detainees was allowed. There was no such provision in the Terrorism Act.22 This was also the first security legislation which allowed for unlimited detention of suspected “terrorists” or those having information which may be of use to the Special Branch. Section Two was so vaguely worded that the “Act could be to arrest someone

144

A. KIRKALDY

for almost any crime”. In addition, the arresting officer had no burden of proof—rather it was the task of the detainee to prove their innocence. Denis Herbstein wrote in 1978 that, because of the Act’s ban on the purposeful obstruction of traffic (Section 2.2.k), in theory, someone “who was pushing [their] broken down car along the highway could be hanged if [they] could not show that [they] had simply run out of petrol”.23 However, the Act also bore many similarities to those which preceded it. Both the 180 and 14-day detention laws had also removed detainees’ rights to seek access to a legal representative. Like the Terrorism Act, the Sabotage Act had not protected the accused from “double jeopardy”— someone accused under either of these pieces of legislation could be tried for the same offence separately under different pieces of security legislation. For example, a number of defendants were tried on similar charges under both the Suppression of Communism Act and the Terrorism Act. Both of these acts could also be applied against individuals and the organisations of which they were members.24 In addition to this legislation, the Dangerous Weapons Act, No. 71 of 1968 “Prohibited the possession of weapons which could cause bodily injury if used in an assault. The Minister of Justice could prohibit the possession or manufacture or supply of such objects”.25 More chillingly, the Public Service Amendment Act No. 86 of 1969 “Established the Bureau of State Security (BOSS)”.26 The Terrorism Act in particular was ruthlessly used by the security forces to crack down on dissent against the apartheid social formation. Torture and other forms of abuse of detainees were common.27 In May 1997, the Human Rights Committee (successor to the Detainee Parents’ Support Committee) reported to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that there had been “80,000 detentions without trial for periods of up to three years” under the provisions of the various pieces of apartheid security legislation. Included in these were “about 10,000 women and at least 15,000 children under the age of 18”. There were 73 recorded cases of deaths in detention “while in the hands of the security police”. There were also at least 37 others “who died while in custody of the uniformed police under politically-related circumstances”. Three thousand people had been served with banning or restriction orders. Since 1950, 15,000 people had been charged under security legislation. Forty-nine of these had been executed.28 If anything, figures of detentions without trial and deaths in detention were under-reported. Security force representatives were notoriously

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

145

loath to release any details, citing “security concerns” as the reason.29 The functions of the Terrorism Act and the Suppression of Communism Act were subsumed by the Internal Security Act of 1982. This, in turn, was repealed on 11 November 1993.30

On the Central Committee On 26 June 1963 Radio Liberation, the “Radio of the African National Congress” made its first broadcast from the home of Left-wing lawyer Jack Levitan in Empire Road, Johannesburg.31 Lionel Gay, a 23 year old Physics lecturer at Wits University provided the technical skills. Ivan patrolled the grounds with a walkie-talkie retaining contact with Denis Goldberg who broadcast a recorded message from Walter Sisulu, working underground “somewhere in South Africa”. Sisulu concluded his message by warning “the government that we will not stop our struggle for liberation”, that violence would be met with violence and that “We must succeed. We will succeed! AMANDLA!”32 This strongly suggests that Ivan supported the aims of the ANC and MK at this time. It also provides evidence of a continuance of the non-racial partnerships and strategies that characterised the Party at a time when growing state repression and successes against activists were, to some degree, leading to a “whitening” of top Party structures within the country. This resulted from the greater number of black activists detained and imprisoned, and the more overt risks of exposure that they faced than their white comrades. In this particular case, it also further reflects the close relationship of trust and friendship between Ivan and Sisulu which had grown because of their shared language and youthful background. While he was good at “flying under the radar”, Ivan’s increasing profile did not go entirely unnoticed by the Special Branch. He was served with banning orders in October 1963, when he was manager of Arnold’s Christmas Club.33 Lewis Baker cynically argues that the worsening political situation, the flight of comrades overseas, the detentions and the Riviona Trial (1963–1964) cleared the way for Bram Fischer and Ivan Schermbrucker to seize the effective leadership of the Party to a degree that would never have been conceivable before: “Bram and Ivan took charge when everyone went after Rivonia. Entirely self-indulgent process”.34 Hilary Hamburger adds Eli Weinberg35 to this list (without the pejorative comment).36 From a less salubrious source, police spy Gerald Ludi noted that the SACP was restructured after Rivonia, and Ivan was placed on

146

A. KIRKALDY

the Central Committee.37 In evidence at the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial in 1964–1965, Petrus [Piet] Beyleveld stated that Bram Fischer, Ivan Schermbrucker and Hilda Bernstein had come to act as the secretariat of the underground Party. The object was first of all that it was thought it was not a good idea to have too many meetings of the central committee as such, or rather to keep the meetings as small as possible, and to have a secretariate [sic.] who could carry out day-to-day activities and [illegible - deal with] correspondence, and the normal type of activities carried out by a secretariate [sic.] of a committee.38

Asked if it had “any function about anything outside South Africa?”, Beyleveld replied that one of its functions was “corresponding with say the overseas committee”.39 There was a further sign of Ivan’s increasing power and status within the Party at this stage. Despite the contempt which they reserved for those who fled South Africa into exile, the day after the Rivonia Raid, he and Bram Fischer met with Harold Wolpe to attempt to persuade him to leave the country. At the time, Wolpe was in hiding at Jimmy Kantor’s cottage at Hartebeespoort. Bram told Harold that: “We’ve taken a helluva beating. […] You must leave the country. There’s no way we can protect you underground. Our organizations are in total disarray. You’ll have to find your own way out”. Harold was arrested on his way to Bechuanaland.40 Ivan played a crucial role in planning Wolpe and Arthur Goldreich’s subsequent successful escape, hiding them after this and arranging their flight from the country.41 Elizabeth Lewin (as she was then) clearly remembered Ivan’s growing importance in the underground structures of the Party at this time: As times became more threatening, as more and more people were picked off by banning, house arrest and imprisonment, more and more of the every day work of the underground opposition fell on Ivan’s shoulders. He became (or was?) the main contact point for the underground, because of his position and location at the New Age and Christmas catalogue offices (?).42 He also organised the get-away for many people forced to leave the country. He was the person most responsible for finding money (another illegal activity) so that we could buy food and clothing for people in prison. And while he could become impatient and very angry if people didn’t do

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

147

their job or were irresponsible, he never let it get in the way of the work of caring for the needs of those in prison, on the run, or their families.43

Funding the Revolution and Supporting Its Captured Cadres In addition to his activities on the Central Committee, his fundraising activities and his financial management of the Guardian and its successors (both as newspapers and as secret contributors to Party funds), Ivan continued to act in other ways as underground fund-raiser for the Party, raising bail or helping to provide for the families of detainees who were struggling. He and Rica Hodgson managed a bail fund. A significant number of ordinary South Africans, including small-scale business people and workers, contributed. Among the more overt sources of funding that Ivan tapped were Defence and Aid, Christians in Action (run by the British cleric Canon Collins) and a Quaker Service. There were also more covert funders. Some of these were local. For example, Jimmy Kantor, a flamboyant lawyer and AnnMarie Wolpe’s brother, secretly contributed to the movement and Ivan knew that he could count on him “when someone needed to make bail or when relatives of a detainee ran short”.44 At Ivan’s request, Doreen Tucker, a friend of Ivan and Lesley opened a savings account at a building society in Johannesburg. Compelled to give evidence at Bram Fischer’s preliminary hearing in 1966 while she was in 180-day detention, she stated that “from time to time” Ivan would give her money which she deposited into the account. “The first amount, I think, was about £1500 (R3000). I later returned the money to him in various amounts. This went on until shortly before his arrest in July 1964”. She claimed that she did not know where this money had come from. Several meetings, which Bram Fischer, Rusty Bernstein and Ivan had attended, had taken place at her home in Norwood, Johannesburg. While she had given permission for this, she was not present when they were held.45 Neither the Party nor the various support groups were funded to any significant extent by Moscow. Also, the amounts collected were not large. It was newspaper sales and Ivan and Rica’s collecting trips that basically funded the Party at this stage. Tales of “Moscow gold” were largely a figment of the imagination of the apartheid regime and its security services. There were those who had their own axes to grind who were more than prepared to support these myths. Stanley Lollard, chairman of

148

A. KIRKALDY

the Coloured People’s Congress who had become disillusioned with the growing influence of Communists in the Congress Alliance, told police spy Gerald Ludi that Ivan regularly flew to Moscow to pick up gold: ‘Look at how they live, the Schermbruckers, the Harmels, the Bernsteins, the Levys, the Turoks, the Weinbergs, the lot of them? They have luxury houses in luxury suburbs, drive fancy cars. Where does the money come from? And their newspaper, New Age? It does not carry a single advertisement. It is printed on good paper and they have to pay the vendors a lot of money. Only a fool wouldn’t recognise the old communist Guardian in new fancy dress.’ [...] ‘Some of it comes from the lousy half crowns (25 cents) they collect from loyal workers living on the breadline. But most of it is Moscow Gold’, Stanley said dropping his voice to a whisper.46

When Ludi asked him how this was possible, given the fact that most of them were banned and their passports had been seized by the Suppression of Communism Act, Lollard replied: They are way ahead of the Special Branch. Ivan, Eli, Rusty, Jack, the lot of them, visit Moscow regularly. They take an East African Airways flight out of Durban using fake passports the Soviets have made for them. From there they fly to Germany and cross into East Berlin through Checkpoint Charlie, so that the Brits and American’s don’t notice them. From there they take a flight to Moscow and they return the same way, their pockets stuffed with Moscow gold.47

Far-fetched thinking indeed. Ivan’s fellow prisoner and sometimes cell-mate, Raymond Eisenstein, laid the myth of “Moscow Gold” to rest: I always assumed that there was Moscow gold [...] I didn’t use that word [because it was used by the Right wing] but I always assumed that some money came from the Left. Ivan was at the centre of the whole administration of the CP and the money side of it as well, you know, he was in charge of that. [...] And he said to me: ‘No, no, no, no, not at all, we had no money in those days from abroad. He said the money came from some of the rich Jewish merchants and business people and professionals who in their youth had been very Left Wing and, you know, for old times’ sakes they gave money, from Indian shopkeepers using it as an insurance policy, and you know, people like that. And Andrew (sic. Arnold’s)

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

149

Christmas Parcels, that made money, and on one occasion they were short of money for New Age and they went to Mary Turok who, you know, she’s a Butcher, Mary, that’s Barlow Rand, you know, and so she gave them money. […] Look, lots of the CP also were not poor, I mean Bram, I’m sure he gave, somebody with Bram’s kind of income could have kept quite a few people in business full time. Ruth Slovo’s father could certainly do that, a rich furniture manufacturer, and he was financing a paper called Fighting Talk which Ruth used to edit.48

Beyond the financial support which he organised, Ivan regularly provided Amnesty International with details of those arrested, detained and sentenced.49 On 13 June 1964 Molly Fischer was killed at Koolspruit, just south of Ventersburg in the Free State. On their way to Cape Town to celebrate Ilse’s 21st, Bram accidentally skidded his car avoiding both a cow and a motorcyclist in the road. He and Liz Lewin were sitting in the front and Molly was in the back. The car landed in a pool of water some twenty or thirty feet deep. While Bram and Liz escaped, Molly drowned. Bram immediately thought of phoning the Bernsteins. He nevertheless hesitated because Rusty had been released on a technicality and this was his first night home. Instead, he called Ivan, who in turn phoned Eli Weinberg at three in the morning. Despite his banning order, Eli put on his dressing gown and went to the Fischer house to inform the children. Ivan “went to tell the Bernsteins early the next morning and sat in their bedroom and cried”.50 After the sentencing of the Rivonia trialists, Bram gathered Ruth and Ilse, his children, and Sholto Cross (Ilse’s fiancé) together for a short holiday. They borrowed Ivan’s sedan, but were stopped by police while travelling on the Garden Route on 4 July. Bram was told to accompany the police back to the police station at George. He managed to slip incriminating documents to Ruth and Ilse, which they tucked into their bras and panties. While the car was being searched, and he was being questioned, he received permission for the children to go for a meal. They dumped the documents. A piece of paper containing a plan of how to make a bomb had nevertheless been left in the car. Because the car was Ivan’s, and since Sholto had also been a passenger, it could not be proved conclusively that it had been Bram’s. Possibly unwilling to resort to torture to extract a confession, given that he was a senior advocate and that his wife had just died, the police did not pursue the matter any further.51

150

A. KIRKALDY

The State Cracks Down---Becoming a Target, Detention and Torture Ivan too began to become more of a target for the Special Branch. Interrogating Ruth First, Theuns “Rooi Rus” Swanepoel, arguably one of the most violent and frightening Special Branch interrogators: “rattled off the names of the comrades whom she knew and had worked closely with. ‘What about Schermbrucker?’ he demanded. ‘What about Beyleveld? What about Fischer?” He then reportedly declared that: “I know you communists by now, […] I’ve dealt with dozens of your kind. And I’ve learned that they have to be put against a wall and squeezed, into a corner. Then they change and talk”.52 This was just what was happening to activists at the time. By May/June of 1964, it was clear that Ivan was facing imminent arrest. Some days before his arrest, Ivan was visiting their friends Izzy and Bertha Rosenberg when the police came looking for him. Ivan and Izzy hid themselves in the small room housing the filter for the swimming pool while the Special Branch searched the house and garden. They could hear the police walking around and talking in the garden and Bertha saying: “No, there’s nobody here, there’s nobody here”. They were not discovered but “It was the closest he got to being taken in before he was actually arrested”.53 Ivan was working closely underground with Hilda Bernstein, who was mainly in hiding. One night in July, when Hilda was at home, the police raided the Bernsteins’ house. Rusty “turned to Hilda. ‘Quick, go!’ he said. ‘They’re here’”.54 Implementing a drill they had previously planned, she ran down to the basement. There was a side window that opened onto the garden at a spot concealed from both the front and back doors. Rusty had cut the bolts holding the security bars in place and they could easily be pushed out by standing on the table which had been placed below the window. Hilda “climbed up, pushed out the window and the bars and pulled herself through, then headed through the thick wet grass to the next-door yard. As she ran off she could hear the doorbell ringing behind her”. Knowing that the Schermbruckers’ house would most likely also be raided, she headed instead to an apolitical acquaintance a few blocks away and persuaded “him to drive her to friends in another part of town. Rusty phoned her later to say the police had seized two typewriters and left. Although her friends warned her not to go back, she returned home that evening”.55

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

151

Shortly after this, Hilda and Ivan met each other in the Bernsteins’ back garden. Hilda knew that, like Bram, Ivan was “totally opposed to anyone leaving the country”. She was thinking of skipping the country, and knew that Ivan knew this. She tried to persuade him to consider this too: “You know you are going to be arrested soon”, she told him: “You know it’s only a matter of days”. Ivan nevertheless remained steadfast in his refusal to contemplate leaving: Hilda, I can’t go […] I can’t bloody well go. I can’t run away and leave L. and M. and N. stuck in under ninety days. I can’t go and leave Helen [Joseph] shut up for five years alone in her house. I can’t go. But what Hilda remembers most painfully from that discussion was her sense of a growing divide between her and Ivan, one of her dearest friends. She was leaving and he was not. As far as he was concerned, she was giving up.

The next morning, Ivan was arrested under the 90 days detention law.56 Lesley remembers what happened: “They came for Ivan on July 24 1964 – a cold blustery day”. She was given a detailed account of events by “Perry, little Joyce Moodley [Mohamed] and Big Joyce Epstein [Exsteen]”—all employees of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers—the next day when she and Ruth Levy went in to take control of the running of this enterprise.57 They told her that, when Ivan had arrived at the New Age office in downtown Johannesburg, the Special Branch were waiting for him. Having shown him the paperwork authorising his arrest and a search of the premises, Ivan reportedly “stood by seething with anger”. They began to go: “through every bit of paper, letters, accounts, desk draws (sic.), files, boxes and bags removing this and that into a pile to be taken away with them”. The office staff, paper-sellers and Arnold’s staff: “never said a word and just went about their office business as though they were invisible; Ivan answered questions curtly with a yes or no”. Effectively, this was the closing of New Age as the offices in Cape Town had also been searched and documents seized.58 Ivan then drove home, the Special Branch trailing him by car. As he pulled into the drive, he jumped out to warn Lesley. Having just finished her last exercise class for the day, she was at home at the time:

152

A. KIRKALDY

The police rushed in thinking they would catch us hiding incriminating material – however we had tried to be one jump ahead and had all sorts of secret places known only to the two of us – the hem of curtains, behind the bathroom mirror, inside books, under flooring boards, in the cellar; the S.B. didn’t discover any of these. They spent over three hours pawing through the whole house – it was awful, we watched stoney faced, not letting them out of our sight in case they planted something on us.59

As a result, there was very little that they found to take away—a few New Age publications, a few books, all of Lesley’s newspaper cuttings from the 1960s (a loss that she continued to resent long after) “and some letters that didn’t mean anything. Ivan packed a small bag and out of sight of the police we held each other closely – it would be a long time before we touched again”. He then: “went out of the door, got into the car looking b[ac]k just once with a glimmer of a smile. I went into the house, on to our bed and cried”.60 Peter was at home that day and remembered it all: they brought him home, they always came and had a look around, they always came, three or four of them in their suits, the Special Branch, and then I was sort of hanging about and I remember coming round the corner, the tennis court was here, the house was here, the cellar was here and as I came round the corner one of the Special Branch came out from under the cellar […] he’d been poking into the cellar, and then I sort of wandered up to the front gate and I sort of watched them but my main concern was ‘God, what’s going to happen at school tomorrow’.61

He had no idea that he would not see his father for a long time, thinking instead that he would be detained and then released rather than tried and imprisoned.62 Peter recalled that Ivan was “very focused” while the search was in progress. His father did not say anything to him—he was “just an onlooker”. Ivan “came in and I knew something serious was happening so you didn’t want to interrupt […] you didn’t dare to interfere with what was going on in case you did something that would jeopardise him”. So he watched while his father came out with his “little suitcase”, packed with the bare essentials in readiness for possible arrest.63 Jill was fetched from school by Liz Lewin.64 Lesley continued her account:

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

153

Although [we] knew this would happen, the actuality was a terrible blow to the three of us – we tried to hold b[ac]k our tears – the house felt so empty. Somehow we went on with the ordinary things, cooking and eating, William [Manika, the gardener,] in the kitchen shaking his head and sounding off about the ‘wild dogs’ who come and destroy our house and family: in short he swore in Zulu calling them the excreta of dogs and asking NkulumKulu (god) to vent his wrath upon them. We smiled and felt a little better.65

Conditions in detention were bleak: 90 Days – No books – Nothing to do all day – dark painted cell only light from small high window only 1 hr out per day to walk in the yard, bath, wash clothes, eat etc. + empty slops + sewage – slept on floor – filthy blankets.66

On 6 August Ivan managed to smuggle a note out of prison in the inner lining of a thermos flask that he was returning to Lesley.67 It read as follows: I was taken for questioning to the Greys yesterday at lunch time. When I refused to make any statement I was to stand in one place and then the questioning started. Anything between two to six of them around you all the time. I stood for 28 hours without moving an inch from 12 p.m. yesterday till 4 p.m. this afternoon. It is quite clear that many, many people have made full statements. I fell twice, had cold water thrown over me and pulled to my feet. It seems that most of the men detainees here have been kept standing on their feet continuously for anything between 12 hours to 36 hours and that most have broken at one stage. I nearly committed bloody suicide by jumping out of the window, but instead I have made a short statement. Questioning under these conditions is the most terrible and cruel form of torture. The language, curses, threats are too horrible. But the main thing is that I don’t think that anyone can stand on their feet for more than 36 continuous hours and not break down. This is torture good and solid. They laugh and almost bump you about when you complain. You must see (portion blotted out)68 what can be done. An almighty row should be kicked up but how? I doubt if many will be able to take the standing - one has got to collapse. They threatened to keep me standing for days and nights or even longer. They are at their most savage, make no mistake about it. What a terrible

154

A. KIRKALDY

thing to fall down senseless after 20 hours continuous - get water thrown over you and up for another session. I can hardly move, I am so stiff and sore. By Christ, it’s just about the end of the road. My fondest love to all of you, my darlings, and don’t judge people too quickly or harshly. This is real terror - I am convinced that shortly even whites will be assaulted by the SB’s and the officers are the worst. If I am not here tomorrow I will be bloody standing again.69

According to Elizabeth Lewin, this was the first note to be smuggled out detailing the use of torture against detainees. It played a major role in prompting Lawrence Gandar, the editor of the Rand Daily Mail, to investigate the plight of prisoners in solitary confinement more fully.70 During his trial under the Suppression of Communism Act, Ivan commented further on his being forced to endure “standing torture” and how, in conjunction with the isolation of solitary confinement, this broke down the resilience of detainees: I think that [...] some people would do almost anything to get out of the clutches of the police, […] The police put all sorts of names to me. They asked me to give them information about various people, and in return for that information they offered me money. they offered me a free trip out of South Africa myself and my family. They offered to protect me if I would give them this information.71

Ivan eventually “had a statement forced out of me. I did not voluntarily make any statement”. When he couldn’t stand on his “feet any longer, the police told me that unless I gave them some sort of statement which they would dictate to me, and which they did, I would be kept standing there for ever and ever. […] I merely wrote down what they told me to write down”.72 Lesley brought an urgent application in the Rand Supreme Court, seeking an interdict against the police preventing them from continuing maltreatment of Ivan and ordering that he be brought before the court to give evidence about his treatment.73 She stated that she had visited Ivan the day after he had received the message. He: “appeared pale, depressed and exhausted. His hand was trembling and his eyes were bloodshot”.74 This was widely covered in the South African and overseas press. Col. George Klindt, the police chief, denied that any torture had occurred and the application failed.75 On 14 August 1964, Mr. Justice Snyman

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

155

of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court ruled that no court could “order that a detainee be brought before it for any purpose”. Interrupting detention in this way “would ‘frustrate’ the purpose of the 90-day provision”, which was designed “to protect the safety of the State” by isolating those who sought to undermine it.76 The matter was subsequently taken on appeal, and heard on 26 August 1965. During the appeal, C.S. Margo QC, Counsel for Col. Klindt (who had died the previous week) argued that: the 90-Day Law was “designed to give executive power in what could be described as a cold war” and was “a drastic law with grave interference in the private life and liberty of individuals – but it serves its purpose”.77 Judgement was given on 28 September. Justices Botha, Steyn, Trollip, with Justices Rumpff and Williamson dissenting, upheld the decision of the lower court.78 These decisions, taken together with Ogilvie Thompson’s decision in Rossouw v Sachs , may together be regarded as infamous judgements in South African legal history. They established the precedent – which continued to be used in apartheid South Africa and its Bantustans right until the collapse of the apartheid regime – that the courts would continue to refuse to act in matters concerning the conditions of, and torture of, detainees.79 Not all agreed with the interpretation of how horrific the judgement was. The anonymous author of a “poisonous pen letter” received in the post by Lesley informed her that she: was “audacious” in making the allegations in her petition and that she “had the gall to complain” when her husband “was given a bit of interrogation”. The author of the letter concluded that: “We have no sympathy whatsoever when you plead to the courts that your husband is being unfairly treated. Let your husband take his medicine like a man”.80 This period marked a turning point in the treatment of detainees – the police were increasingly prepared to use torture on political prisoners, irrespective of “race” or gender. Jill remembers that: “I suppose that people didn’t really get particularly picked up and thrown into jail until the early sixties”. Before this, “in some ways it was a big adventure”, with “secret files” and secret meetings. There were nevertheless some ground rules: the terrible police brutality actually started in the mid-sixties and after that. I think that it was a big shock to people on the Left when they landed up in jail and they realised that you could be killed, you were made to

156

A. KIRKALDY

stand for hours on end, driven to such and end that you might want to kill yourself.81

Jill felt that the standing torture and accompanying sleep deprivation were the most effective weapons used by the Special Branch. “Like even when my parents were detained and you went to go and visit them under detention, it was always sort of politely cold, polite and they didn’t really try and use you to do anything” because the methods they were using were far superior. Even when they “electrocuted” or “klapped” you, it was usually just because their “temper had got the better of them”. They didn’t need these methods to extract information because: at that point, when people were detained, they were basically isolated, they were made to stand, that was the big weapon that the police had learned to break people. [...] So people were detained and then, after a while, I think that everybody broke down and told them what they wanted to know. I don’t think that anybody didn’t break. And that was very much my understanding, that if you were detained you would try to keep your mouth shut for forty-eight hours or however long but after that the assumption was that everyone would have broken down but you shouldn’t give state evidence. That was the big thing, that you shouldn’t give state evidence.82

Mac Maharaj83 has argued that all constraints on the torture of white detainees were removed after John Harris of the ARM planted a bomb at Park Station in Johannesburg, killing an elderly white woman and injuring 23 other people. The “SA security forces were relatively a benign force when the NP came into power in 1948 and their sophistication in interrogation techniques, their incorporation of a systematic form of psychological plus physical brutality”, was “something that developed”. Black detainees had routinely been assaulted and tortured from the beginning but, inhibited “by their racism”, the Special Branch did not contemplate treating whites in the same way. That night, “the security police interrogators simply went berserk” and the majority of detainees were severely assaulted. Maharaj, who was in detention at the time, heard a scream from one of the neighbouring rooms and I came to realise that was Ivan Schermbrucker screaming. So I am saying that that night all the barriers to the use of physical force just vanished from the mind of the Security Branch against whites. Also they came to me in my room and they were certainly almost out of control in the way they were conducting

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

157

the interrogation. To them it was open war now, anything, any form of assault on you was legitimate. You were going to talk, you were going to pay. It was revenge time. White civilians, a woman has been killed.84

Women Filling the Gap Arrests and detentions had left a serious gap in the leadership structures of the CPSA. Eli Weinberg had also been arrested. In terms of a prior agreement made with Bram Fischer, with the arrest of their husbands, Lesley and Violet Weinberg had begun to serve on the Central Committee.85 As with Violet, this signified a new burst of Communist Party activity on Lesley’s part. Believing that she had no alternative but to take up where Ivan had left off, she took over the running of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, was a major organiser of Communist Party funds at this time, and later played a crucial role in co-ordinating Bram Fischer’s movements and in opening fake bank accounts so that he would be able to survive while in hiding.86 In order to evade the attentions of the Special Branch, Lesley also drew in sympathetic friends like Doreen Tucker, Luli Zampetakis (Callinicos) and others, who were not as well known to the authorities, to assist Violet Weinberg and herself in their underground activities.87 This was a crucial development which has been largely ignored in the existing historiography of the Party—women stepping up to the plate and assuming new roles in addition to those they were already performing when the men were prevented from doing so. Even Jill and Peter did not realise how actively involved Lesley was in the underground at this stage. In Peter’s words, “No, it was just him, she was just there as support”.88 The plush restroom of the John Orr’s Department store in Pritchard Street provided a convenient place for Lesley and other women of the underground to contact and keep in touch with each other.89 Writer, editor and musician Jean Collen, who moved to Johannesburg in 1957, has described the world of the upmarket department stores at this time: Upmarket ladies of leisure from the suburbs, complete with matching hats, gloves, seamed stockings and hair newly set (sometimes blue-rinsed) whiled away their time, while their maids, gardeners and nannies kept their homes, gardens and offspring in pristine condition. These matrons met their friends for morning tea in one of the big department stores. Starched tablecloths, silver cutlery, pleasing crockery

158

A. KIRKALDY

and an attentive waiter who probably knew his clientele by name served them. They drank tea or coffee and selected fancy cakes from three-tiered revolving plates to the strains of a discreet pianist or Hammond/Lowry organist playing popular tunes of the day. They were further entertained with a dress show of the latest fashions on sale in the shop. The mannequins paraded round the tearoom, discreetly informing each table of the cost of these creations, which could be purchased in the dress department of the store.90

Against this genteel backdrop, Lesley and her comrades, almost invariably bedecked in hats, were planning smuggling activists out of the country, organising other underground activities and, later, securing new hiding places for Bram Fischer.91 The Johannesburg Planetarium, behind the University of the Witwatersrand was another secret spot. It provided the first drop-off point for people being smuggled out of the country. Rusty Bernstein was one of the people that Lesley helped in this way. At dusk, he made his way to the Schermbruckers’ house through the back garden. Lesley hid him in the back of her and Ivan’s station wagon and covered him with blankets. She drove to the planetarium and parked next to the tall gum trees. She then “left the car open” and “went in to look at the stars, whatever it was, and he got out”. Joined by Hilda, the Bernsteins then proceeded in Arthur “McClipper” Magladela’s 1949 Chevrolet Impala. This had 200,000 miles on the clock—called “‘the Mysterious Impala’ because how it kept running was a mystery”. He needed money to keep the car going and had previously made two successful runs across the border with ANC fugitives. Lesley “knew someone who knew someone else” and it was agreed that he would take the Bernsteins to the Bechuanaland border for R150 and petrol money. He dropped them within five miles of the border, which they then crossed on foot.92 Rusty claimed that Lesley endorsed his decision to go and “fight the good fight out there” and contemplated doing the same. Lesley hotly denies this. Ivan and her persistent refusal to leave the country—and their contempt for those who did—is a recurring theme of the Schermbruckers’ correspondence at the time.93 A number of friends and comrades also recalled Ivan and Lesley’s refusal to leave and the contempt that they held for those that did.94 Jill captures their reason for helping the Bernsteins escape:

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

159

I mean, some people went, like Rusty Bernstein went because they broke him. I mean, he was completely broken when he was arrested. And I remember it quite clearly that there was a thought that “if he doesn’t get out of the country maybe he will give state evidence”.95

Stayers vs Leavers in the Struggle The tensions between “stayers” and “leavers” continued throughout the struggle and beyond. Some would argue that they still persist today. Speaking at Ivan’s funeral, Denis Kuny stressed that Ivan was “was passionately devoted to this country – its geography, its history, its flora and fauna, all its people”. He always said that come what may he would never leave South Africa – he was born here, he grew up here, he would die here. And in this, as in all other things, Ivan was true to his word. Nothing – not the most difficult times nor the most severe restrictions or hardships – would have induced him to leave South Africa.96

Interviewed by Jim (James) Zug, Lesley would have much to say about those who left the country: [Ivan] never had any doubt about where he should be: always in this country. He never had any thoughts about leaving the country. Other people left pretty quickly. When they went into what you would call ‘90 Days’ […] I just think that people didn’t realise whether they could stand up to it or whether they couldn’t. A lot of them when they came out in 90 days, they had a banning order served on them. A lot of them were house-arrested completely. They couldn’t get work, couldn’t do anything. And they were not prepared to stay here. But Ivan never. There was never any hesitation with both of us. We would have to stay here. I think a lot of people didn’t realise the seriousness of the Nats. They actually meant to close us down completely, to put us into jail, to do their worst.

In a similar vein, Jill stated that: there was a hell of a lot of tension over people staying and leaving the country. The whites who had worked for the movement had basically been immune from the real force of the Nat government. […] They didn’t get death threats. They may have been harassed, but they weren’t beaten up or

160

A. KIRKALDY

anything like that. When the first inkling came that these Nats were really serious and that you were white didn’t mean that you were immune came when they went into 90 days. They were tortured and said, ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t handle this.’97

Lesley and Ivan’s attitude to the exiles emerges clearly in correspondence written while he was awaiting trial. Both of them had little time for those who had fled the country to escape prosecution and go into exile. At best, they regarded them as losing touch with the realities of the South African situation. At worst, they saw them as sell-outs, cowards and traitors. In November 1964, Lesley wrote in a letter to Ivan: Can just imagine how a postcard from overseas + some letters can sound – perhaps like those scrappy bits one sends home when one is away at school and so therefore living in an entirely different place – feeling + seeing everything so differently from each other – out of step, out of time and all a little futile.98

She picked up this theme again three days later: The letters you and I receive from overseas all seem to have that quality of remoteness – the feeling that they care for us all but somehow they miss the reality of the situation + take refuge in trivialities. Not really a criticism of them all but perhaps an understanding that they have begun a new life + must go on from there + inevitably the ties with the old are gradually weakened – This doesn’t speak for all of them as the papers have recently proved; a link with the outside world which is vital. We must not become the forgotten people + I have enough faith in mankind to know, that even if it takes a bit of time, eventually we will be heard.99

It would become a recurring theme. In January 1965, she wrote: “I also receive many letters from overseas but most of them are so trivial”.100 In February, she told Ivan that: I do now understand how you feel about letters from all those people overseas – perhaps it is inevitable that they loose [sic.] that closeness of thinking and feeling for us – am so sorry if my opinion sounded harsh, it is just that I can (or try to) understand, how they feel so far away from us all. Life moves forward + eventually the problems + hopes of those around them will take the place (with most of our friends overseas) of

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

161

ours. But it remains a fight for us all – we are all essentially fighting for the same things wherever we may be.101

Ivan and Lesley did though retain some degree of warmth towards some exiles, most particularly Hilda and Rusty Bernstein—albeit mixed with a strong sense that they had sold out their friends, their comrades, the struggle and the black majority. Lesley did not turn her back on the Bernsteins, and she had played a significant role in orchestrating their escape from South Africa. At the same time, her actions had been determined as much by pragmatism—the fear that Rusty could do harm to the movement and his fellow comrades if he turned state evidence.102 Lesley sympathised with the situation of the Bernsteins beginning their lives in exile. In October 1964, she wrote to Ivan: Read Hilda’s letter with such mixed feelings of love and sadness, it is indeed the passing of an eara [sic.] for her and many like her and perhaps in the future she will Know once again a certain happiness and security. She asks so humbly for forgiveness – here is where we have to think about that word ‘Understanding’ and all it implies. Let us not be in a hurry to condemn. I shall write to her within the next few days + pass on your messages – her letters are so lively one can just picture the whole depressing scene with her terrific sense of humour keeping everybody bright + cheery – sketching + painting with one hand + baking and eating with the other – A lovely big mess. And yet somewhere along the line something went wrong with her children; they seem to be so misplaced and displaced + NOT due only to the situation. Please keep this to yourself Ivan – I sincerely hope in a few years time they will all resolve their difficulties. I am sure if I had no one to love like I love you it would all be so much harder to bear; having someone to care for and being cared for in this special way is something I never cease to wonder at what do people do Ivan if they haven’t this strong foundation: this love and a firm belief in decent principals? Is the one enough without the other? What do you think?103

In January 1965, she compared Hilda’s letters to those of other exiles, stating that “I find her letters most stimulating + interesting compared to the wishy washy sentiment of most of the others”.104 However, by April, Lesley was writing to Ivan that even she was beginning to lose touch with the realities of South Africa and its politics: “Perhaps Hilda writes as she

162

A. KIRKALDY

does because she doesn’t know what is allowed by censors and what isn’t? Seems pretty silly all the same to waste her time on such topics”.105 For others, Ivan and Lesley had far less time. They could be scathing about those who left, feeling that they had run away and shirked their responsibilities, especially as most black activists did not have this choice. In December, Lesley had written to Ivan: “you will always get your group who will justify the running away by saying it was ‘politically the right thing to do’”.106 On 11 February 1965, she commented that: So glad to hear you affirm once again that you will never leave this country – I just couldn’t live anywhere else. Travel yes oh yes we simply must do that. Why didn’t we ever do so in the past? Darling Ivan I love you + love you + can do nothing but think about ‘us’ as I sit + daydream in court.107

Three days later, she wrote that she could: fully understand how you + me feel about people overseas – gradually they will fade out of our life altogether; it is inevitable. I wonder if they will come crowding b[ac]k when we have ultimately obtained a place in the sun? Some, naturally will always be dear to us but the majority will become simply names –108

For those like Ivan Strasburg and his wife, Toni Bernstein,109 who had expressed doubts about the future of South Africa and of whites in the liberation struggle, Lesley and Ivan had nothing but contempt. In March, Lesley wrote to Ivan that “people like Ivan Strasburg etc. have so little understanding of the real problem – we were quite disgusted with his remarks – and hers!110 Four days later, she again referred to Ivan Strasburg and Toni: It is odd how some people think that white S[outh] Africans have no place in this country; it is such an irresponsible attitude to take up; seems to be the result of a guilty complex. This is and was the attitude of many who have left to live elsewhere – again I think of that disgraceful statement made to the press by Ivan S[trasburg]. Haven’t heard from them since they left – but they know my attitude so they probably won’t write. Although I must say he expressed deep regret at going; seems to me he is completely under her thumb – she cracks the whip and he jumps –111

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

163

Ivan and Lesley’s anger at those who left is still evident today in my interviews and interactions with family members. Agnes, said that: The one thing he kept on repeating when he came out from serving his time was, even long before that, ‘I will never leave South Africa, I’m not like some of my friends who went to London and all over the place.’ He said: ‘Nothing will make me leave South Africa’, [...] A lot of them went away.112

With the benefit of hindsight, Lesley concedes that the situation was complex “And who knows, I mean if you’re facing an imprisonment for life, who knows how you would react then, who knows – people say, you know, you shouldn’t have done this and you shouldn’t have done that, but who knows”. Nevertheless, there was no real justification for leaving. Whites had the luxury of taking this option, the black majority did not. If this was a non-racial struggle for equality, then whites should stay and face the music with their black comrades: But, I don’t know whether fortunately or unfortunately, a lot of people had the idea that it is not a good idea to go to jail, that the best thing for you to do is to get out. There were no rules about it then, I don’t know what people were supposed to do. But it looked as though a lot of them were doing things to suit themselves at the end. It took a lot of courage to stay, a conviction, […] because, after all, staying here, you couldn’t really do very much except have a sort of feeling that you’d stayed, you know. Those who went overseas, I don’t know, maybe they did go round doing a lot of things, I don’t know. […] Because I helped to get Rusty Bernstein out of the country as well, you know. When he wrote his book, he didn’t really tell the truth, you know, he was absolutely gibbering with fright, he was, even Hilda said so.113

The situation was clearly also more complex than a belief that those who had fled were cowards, sell-outs or traitors. This is demonstrated by Ivan’s relationship with former close friends and comrades Ruth First, who had sadly disappointed him, Joe Slovo, who he saw as having fled without Party authorisation, and Ben and Mary Turok, with whom—as we will see—Ivan had a dramatic and vitriolic parting of the ways. The difference between open Party work in exile—whether in London, Lusaka or Dar es Salaam—and clandestine internal opposition was profound. Exiled party members proved to be far more Stalinist in orientation

164

A. KIRKALDY

than those who had remained behind. The exiles had the luxury of theoretical hairsplitting and frequently entered into deep—often acrimonious—debates with each other. Conversely, they were also subject to far greater pressure from Moscow and Party structures to toe the Party Line” and purged those who were seen as deviating from this. The internal leadership and rank and file cadres had to engage in the struggle on the ground, under extremely risky conditions. This forced them to be far more pragmatic than the exiles. Operating more overtly, and controlling the training of MK guerrillas, there was a distinct sense that the exiles saw themselves as controlling the “real struggle”, while the internal structures were seen as being ineffective and in disarray. Activists who had either chosen, or been forced, to remain behind were frequently incensed by this. Many, such as Ivan and Lesley, believed passionately that the exiles had lost touch with the struggle on the ground and, consumed by radical pilpul, had totally lost touch with the human element of the struggle, the very people that they were supposedly fighting to free. While he never entirely abandoned his hope that socialism would eventually be victorious on a world scale, Ivan began to concern himself far more with the plight of political prisoners still in jail, their families, and their situation after their release. Driven by the same thinking, Lesley was beginning to lose her faith in communism completely, seeing it as not really achievable in the real world.

Situation of the Left at This Time By this time, arrests, detentions, trials and sentences of activists had thrown the left into chaos. As Lesley’s deployment to the Central Committee had shown, there had been an attempt to re-structure underground and improve secrecy and counter-intelligence measures. Instructions were clearly laid out in a document called “A Time for ReAssessment”. This began by sketching the sorry state that the Congress movement and the broader liberation movement found themselves in due to mass arrests, torture, detention, political trials and the imprisonment, banning and house arrest of the leadership. The situation was likely to become dramatically worse as state repression was intensified. To prevent the complete collapse of the struggle, structures needed to be re-organised so that they were capable of operating underground and in secrecy. The number of meetings needed to be reduced and attendance limited to small numbers of people. This principle was to be extended

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

165

to all aspects of underground work. Loyal members should be used as lookouts. Meeting places needed to be changed frequently and personnel needed to be both far more discreet and more mobile than they had in the past. Underground operatives should be provided with effective covers, trained in the use of disguise and receive extensive education on how to operate underground and how to resist torture and interrogation. Written documents needed to be hidden where they could not be linked to individuals. Care had to be taken to avoid leaving fingerprints and other identifiers on documents, other objects or in venues. Principles of operation to be adopted included “rigid discipline and rigid security”, “detailed planning and split-second timing”, and “legal cover for all illegality”. Damage control measures needed to be put in place to limit fallout when operatives were detained by assuming that they would eventually “crack”. An effective programme of revitalisation had to be developed to replace the disruption, dislocation and inertia. This had nine main components. One of the prime tactics was to be the use of strike action and other methods to disrupt the economic boom being enjoyed by the country. Second, the government was then developing legislation which would culminate in the formulation of the homeland/Bantustan policies. This necessitated the development of a mass propaganda programme against these and other apartheid laws. Third, accompanying this, trained organisers needed to be deployed in the Transkei (where the Bantu Authorities Act was being trialled) to prepare the ground for a peasant revolt as a start to the “country’s liberation”. Fourth, with the increasing application of the Group Areas Act and other discriminatory legislation, the Indian minority were finding “themselves in a rapidly worsening situation”. This provided ample opportunities for intensified recruiting among this group. Fifth, strategies were also to be developed to make inroads among whites, utilising those who still had a “spark of decency or conscience left in them” to convince others of the unjustness of the then-current political and economic dispensation. Sixth, despite the catastrophic damage to the internal organisation of liberatory structures, there were still vestiges of Congress machinery operating “on various levels”, particularly in the Transvaal. These should form the foundations of a programme of rebuilding underground structures. Decentralisation of command structures and the encouragement of local initiatives (subject to central policy oversight) should form core features of this process. Seventh, an extensive education and training programme needed to be developed “to fill the gaps” and take the struggle forward.

166

A. KIRKALDY

For “every person banned or put out of action”, a new one had to be found. Eighth, an active programme to counter government misinformation and the falsification of documents purporting to come from liberatory structures needed to be developed. Last, the document noted that there were signs that the United Nations was becoming increasingly critical of the regime’s harsh handling of dissent and that international sporting organisations and codes were beginning to expel South Africa and introduce sports boycotts. This called for an increase in the provision of information to, and joint action with, bodies of this nature. This was “both possible and essential”. The “favourable international situation” needed to be used “in every possible way”. This may be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the importance of the form of transnational activism which became a key feature of the struggle. The document concluded by stating that it should be discussed by all members and all copies then destroyed. Criticisms, practical suggestions and ideas were to be sent in to the leadership and then “put into practice as much as possible”.114 That this was used as evidence in the later trial of Ivan and his comrades demonstrated that underground structures had already been infiltrated by police spies such as Ludi, and would be further compromised by “traitors” such as Beyleveld. It fell into the hands of the Special Branch as soon as it was produced. This enabled the state to develop counter-strategies.

Notes 1. Helen Joseph, Side by Side (Autobiography), Chapter III, “The World Outside”, Page 1 of 8, http://www.sahistory.org.za/arc hive/chapter-iii-world-outside, accessed 22 March 2012. 2. Poqo, the armed wing of the PAC undertook a violent sabotage campaign in the 1960s. The term means “alone” or “pure” in isiXhosa and, as with its parent body, it rejected white involvement in its structures and saw whites as legitimate targets. It aimed to overthrow the apartheid state and “replace it with a socialist African state.” It was organised on the basis of cells, with members only knowing the identity of others on a need to know basis. Acting from its strongholds in the Western Cape and the Transkei, its main targets were Paarl and Langa policemen

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

167

and chiefs in the Transkei, who were seen as apartheid collaborators. A number of members who acted as police informers were executed by the organization. The number of whites killed by Poqo violence has been exaggerated in popular imagination. On 22 November 1962, about 250 men armed with homemade weapons, axes and pangas marched from Mbekweni location into Paarl, acting in furtherance of the organisation’s aim of destablising the country. They attacked the police station, shops and homes and killed two white people. This was followed by the murder of a family of four and a fellow camper at Bashee River in the Transkei on 4 February 1963. These killings sparked a climate of fear among whites and black collaborators. B.J. Vorster, the Minister of Justice ordered that security legislation be rigorously enforced to crush “any potential rebellion”. In the face of harsh state repression, and because it went against the ethos of the national democratic struggle, Poqo faded from the centre stage of resistance politics. It nevertheless carried out some highly publicised attacks on civilians in the early 1990s. These were denounced widely both internationally and within South Africa. [South African History Online, “Poqo”, http://www.sahistory. org.za/organisations/poqo, accessed 11 March 2012.] 3. Joseph, Side by Side, Chapter III, Page 1 of 8 (Joseph quote); Gay Seidman, “Guerrillas in Their Midst: Armed Struggle in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement”, Mobilization: The International Journal of Research and Theory about Social Movements, Protest, and Contentious Politics, 6, 2, 2001, 118 (Tambo quote). 4. The Unlawful Organisations Act, No. 34 of 1960, at http:// disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg 19600407.028.020.034, accessed 1 October 2014. 5. Muriel Horrell, Laws Affecting Race Relations in South Africa: (To the End of 1976), Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations, 1978, p. 468. 6. “Indemnity Act 61 of 1961”, at http://www.justice.gov.za/leg islation/acts/1961-061.pdf, accessed 3 March 2013. 7. South African History Online, “General Law Amendment Act (Sabotage Act) No. 76 commences”, at http://www.sahist ory.org.za/dated-event/general-law-amendment-act-no-76-com mences, accessed 25 February 2013; South African History

168

A. KIRKALDY

Online, “Segregationist Legislation Timeline 1960–1969”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/segregationist-legislationtimeline-1960-1969, accessed 25 February 2013. 8. “General Law Amendment Act (Sabotage Act) No. 76 commences” (quotation); O’Malley Archives, “1962. Sabotage Act General Laws Amendment Act No. 76” at http://www. nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv01538/ 04lv01828/05lv01829/06lv01908.htm, accessed 23 February 2013. 9. “1962. Sabotage Act General Laws Amendment Act No. 76” (quotation); Jonathan Cohen (SAHO Public History Internship), “1967 Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967”, at http://www.sah istory.org.za/topic/1967-terrorism-act-no-83-1967, accessed 25 February 2013; “General Law Amendment Act (Sabotage Act) No. 76 commences”; “General Law Amendment Act (Sabotage Act) No. 76 of 1962”. 10. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”; O’Malley Archives, “General Law Amendment Act No. 37 of 1963”, at http://www.nel sonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv01538/04lv01 828/05lv01829/06lv01908.htm, accessed 23 February 2013 (quotation); Horrell, Laws Affecting, p. 469; Joseph, Side by Side, Chapter III, Page 1 of 8. 11. Joseph, Side by Side, Chapter III, Page 1 of 8. 12. Phyllis Naidoo “One of the Forgotten Stalwarts”, in The Witness, 24 October 2008, at http://www.witness.co.za/index.php? showcontent&global%5B_id%5D=15189, accessed 10. February 2012. 13. Untitled, undated document on the Bernsteins beginning: “Just before the Rivonia trialists were released”, written by Lesley Schermbrucker and in her possession, p. 1. 14. South African History Online, “Segregationist Legislation Timeline 1960–1969: The General Law Amendment Act No. 80 of 1964”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/segregationist-leg islation-timeline-1960-1969, accessed 25 February 2013. 15. South African History Online, “Segregationist Legislation Timeline 1960–1969: Criminal Procedure Amendment Act No. 96 (180-Day Detention Law) of 1965”, at http://www.sahist ory.org.za/topic/segregationist-legislation-timeline-1960-1969,

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

169

accessed 25 February 2013 (quotation); Horrell, Laws Affecting, p. 471. 16. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”; John Dugard, Human Rights and the South African Legal Order, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, p. 116; Horrell, Laws Affecting, pp. 472–473. 17. “Segregationist Legislation Timeline 1960–1969: Suppression of Communism Act No. 24 of 1967”, at http://www.sahist ory.org.za/topic/segregationist-legislation-timeline-1960-1969, accessed 25 February 2013. 18. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”. 19. Ibid. 20. If the holding officers chose to ignore them, these conditions could in fact be meaningless. 21. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”. 22. Ibid.; Dugard, Human Rights, p. 118. 23. Denis Herbstein, White Man, We Want to Talk to You, New York, Africana, 1979, p. 36, quoted in Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”. 24. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”; Dugard, Human Rights, pp. 255– 256, 260–261. 25. “Segregationist Legislation Timeline 1960–1969: Dangerous Weapons Act No. 71 of 1968”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/ topic/segregationist-legislation-timeline-1960-1969, accessed 25 February 2013. 26. Horrell, Laws Affecting, p. 449. 27. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”. 28. South African Press Association, “HRC Submits Apartheid Repression Book to Truth Body”, Johannesburg, SAPA, 27 May 1997, at http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media%5C1997% 5C9705/s970527b.htm, accessed 26 May 2016. 29. See, for example, Dugard, Human Rights, pp. 120, 135–136; Herbstein, White Man, pp. 23, 36; Muriel Horrell (comp.), (a) A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa, Johannesburg, South African Institute of Race Relations, 1969, p. 63; (b) A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa, Johannesburg, South African Institute of Race Relations, 1970, p. 57. 30. Cohen, “1967 Terrorism Act”. 31. Jack Levitan was the husband of the Black Sash activist and SACP/ANC supporter Esther Levitan (April 1920–November 2003). [Denis Herbstein, “Ester Levitan: Taking on Apartheid

170

A. KIRKALDY

with Chutzpah”, The Guardian Obituaries, 3 December 2003, at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/dec/03/ guardianobituaries.southafrica, accessed 19 May 2016. 32. Thula Simpson, Umkhonto we Sizwe: The ANC’s Armed Struggle, Cape Town, Penguin Books, 2016, p. 88. 33. Denis Kuny, untitled address at Ivan’s funeral, 1981, pp. 2–3; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70, Notes and Documents, May 1970, This Is Apartheid, II”, at http://www.avoiceonl ine.org/assets/txu-diggs-194-f14-01/txu-diggs-194-f14-01.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, p. 9 (quotation). See also “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others: Judgement, Sentences and Appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s Preparatory Examination and Charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965/Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463 (9 reels microfilm (positive): 35 mm), Reel 2, Record of Evidence of the Accused, p. 1963. 34. Anonymous [Lewis Baker], Untitled, undated reminiscences beginning “Don’t remember where I 1st met him” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 2. 35. Eli Weinberg was born in Libau in Latvia in 1908. As a child, he experienced both the First World War and the October Revolution of 1917. He stated later that from his youth, he was attracted to socialism. In 1915, Jews in Latvia and Lithuania were deported into Russia. Russian propaganda alleged that they were a 5th column for the Germans. These deportations were extremely brutal and led to a huge number of deaths. During the course of this, Weinberg became separated from his family. He became a mascot of Cossack soldiers, travelling with them. At the age of sixteen, Eli became actively involved in a trade union. He became interested in photography in 1926, after finding work as an assistant in a friend’s studio. His first experience of imprisonment was in 1928, when he was arrested during a general strike protesting against proposed anti-trade union legislation. In 1929, Weinberg emigrated to Cape Town because of increasing political repression at home. Working as a photographer from his arrival, he would remain in South Africa until 1976.

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

171

However, as a result of his stance against apartheid, he was repeatedly refused citizenship. He joined the CPSA in 1932, and was active in the trade union movement in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg between 1933 and 1953. He married Ray Alexander, a trade unionist, in 1937, when he was the acting Secretary to the local committee of the South African Trades and Labour Council. The couple divorced in 1940. In 1948 the government placed restrictions on him to curb his union activities. In addition to his union work, Weinberg continued working as a photographer. Prior to 1964, his work appeared regularly in the Guardian and its successor newspapers. Weinberg was listed in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. From 1953 onwards, he was issued with a succession of banning orders. With the declaration of the 1960 State of Emergency, he was detained for three months. He was involved in many aspects of the work of the movement, including producing propaganda in support of MK and its sabotage campaign. In 1964 Eli was awarded a silver medal at the New York World Fair for a colour slide of a group of Basuto women in the Maluti Mountains, taken in 1962. Due to his banning order, he could not attend the presentation ceremony. Over time, he also participated in training a number of black photographers. Among them was Joe Gqabi, who would later be imprisoned for 12 years on Robben Island. After his release, Gqabi would go into exile, where he was assassinated in Zimbabwe. Arrested in the 1964 crackdown, Weinberg was held in detention for seven months. Found guilty at the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial, he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. On his release in April 1970, he was issued with a five-year banning order, subjected to house arrest, and had to report to the police daily. Despite this, he was able to run a successful photographic studio. During the 1976 Soweto uprisings, Eli left the country illegally on instructions of the ANC leadership. He was still banned. Having been granted political aylum, he settled in Dar es Salaam, and was later joined by his second wife, Violet. Unfortunately, the bulk of his photographic work was destroyed as he was unable to take his negatives with him when he went into exile. He died in exile in Tanzania in 1981. [IDAF Research Department,

172

A. KIRKALDY

Prisoners of Apartheid: A Biographical List of Political Prisoners and Banned Persons in South Africa, London and New York, International Defence & Aid Fund in cooperation with United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, October 1978, p. 164; “Legendary heroes of Africa, Eli Weinberg”, citation for Liberian stamp series commemorating Jews and the South African Liberation Struggle, http://legendaryheroesofafrica.com/Eli%20W einberg.html, accessed 17 March 2012; South African Journal of Photography, “Eli Weinberg”, at http://saphotojournal.co. za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:eli-wei nberg&catid=27:photographers-profiles&Itemid=88, accessed 12 March 2012; South African History Online, “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70,”, p. 9; “Eli Weinberg”, http://www.sahist ory.org.za/people/eli-weinberg, accessed 12 March 2012; Eli Weinberg”, Obituary in Sechaba, September 1981, http://www. sacp.org.za/main.php?include=docs/biography/2006/eweinb erg.html, accessed 12 March 2012.] 36. “Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker”, notes by Hilary Hamburger in her possession, n.d., p. 2. 37. Gerard Ludi, The Communistisation of the ANC, Alberton, Gaglago, 2011, p. 137. 38. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 38–39. 39. Ibid., p. 39. 40. Glenn Frankel, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999, pp. 112–114 (quotation, p. 113). See also Stephen Clingman, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner Revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998, p. 295. 41. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 114, 124, 131; Denis Goldberg, “Arthur Goldreich 1929–2011 An Appreciation”, in Chutzpah Online, An open forum for members of SAUJS (South African Union of Jewish Students), Sunday 3 July 2011, n.p. (p. 3), at http://chutzpahonline.blogspot.com/, accessed 30 March 2012. Harold Wolpe was born in Johannesburg to a Lithuanian Jewish family in 1926. He graduated from the University of the Witwatersrand with a BA in Social Studies in 1949 and an LLB in 1952. While a student, he served as President of the SRC and was also a leading activist in Nusas. A member of the Communist Party

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

173

and an attorney, Wolpe represented a number of anti-apartheid activists (including Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu) in the 1950s and 1960s. He also helped in planning the activities of the SACP and the ANC. Wolpe married AnnMarie Kantor in 1955. They had three children. Wolpe was among the hundreds arrested after the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre. [Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust, “About Harold Wolpe”, at http://www.wolpet rust.org.za/main.php?include=13&menu=1, accessed 6 October 2014; South African History Online, “Harold Wolpe”, at http:// www.sahistory.org.za/people/harold-wolpe, accessed 6 October 2014.] Arthur Goldreich was born in Johannesburg in 1929, the son of a furniture dealer. He grew up in Pietersburg (now Polokwane). At his Afrikaans secondary school, German was introduced in support of Nazi Germany. The teacher distributed Hitler Youth magazines as “textbooks”. In response, Goldreich successfully wrote to Prime Minister Jan Smuts, demanding to be taught Hebrew and refusing to learn German. On leaving school, he began studying architecture in Johannesburg. However, as a dedicated Zionist, he gave up his studies in 1948 and went to fight in the Israeli War of Independence. He served in the Palmach, the military wing of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine. After his stay in Israel, he went to study industrial design in London. Before returning home to South Africa in 1954, he had married Hazel Berman, an active member of the YCL. Though still a committed Zionist, Goldreich was moving to the Left, joining the underground Communist Party. A year after his return to South Africa, he won South Africa’s Best Young Painter Award. He also created the sets for the musical King Kong . In 1961, as the ANC prepared to launch their underground struggle, Goldreich and Harold Wolpe clandestinely bought Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, Johannesburg on behalf of the movement. This was to serve as the secret headquarters of Umkonto We Sizwe (MK) and the banned SACP. Nelson Mandela and other leaders of the ANC who were in hiding, including Ahmed Kathrada, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Wilton Mquayi, and Denis Goldberg, were given refuge there. In addition, Bram Fischer, Joe Slovo, Bob Hepple—an academic lawyer,

174

A. KIRKALDY

Rusty Bernstein and others attended meetings of their various organisational committees there. A flamboyant personality, Goldreich played the role of the bourgeois gentleman farmer tenant of the property, living there with his wife Hazel (a teacher) and their two sons. He worked as a designer for a Johannesburg department store and the family rode horses in the countryside and involved themselves in the social life of the area. Externally, they appeared to be very much a part of what Denis Goldberg called the “huntin’, ridin’, and shootin’ set.”. On 11 July 1963, Arthur and his wife Hazel were arrested at the farm in the Rivonia Raid and held under 90 days detention. Nineteen members of the underground were arrested and charged with sabotage. Mandela was already in jail but was brought to stand trial with the others in the Rivonia Trial. He and seven other defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment. Harold Wolpe was not at the farm on the day of the arrests and went into hiding. He was captured while trying to flee South Africa. While awaiting trial, on 11 August 1963, Goldreich and Wolpe, along with two other underground activists, Mosie Moolla and Abdulhai Jassat escaped from custody at Marshall Square Police Station in Johannesburg. They had bribed a young prison official, Arnoldus Johannes Greeff. For some time, Greeff had smuggled food and cigarettes to the detainees. On one occasion, he had even brought in a pair of new shoes and a suit. Having crashed a friend’s car, he needed money to pay for damages. He also wanted to buy a car. He agreed to assist them to escape in return for R4 000. One Saturday night, he escourted them through the inner and outer doors of the prison, returned inside and then faked an injury, stating that he had been overpowered by the four detainees, who had then escaped, using his keys. [Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 122–123, 126–127, 128; Goldberg, “Arthur Goldreich”, n.p., pp. 1–2 (quotation, p. 2); Denis Herbstein, “Arthur Goldreich Obituary”, in The Guardian, 29 June 2011, at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/29/ arthur-goldreich-obituary, accessed 27 September 2014; South African History Online, “Arthur Goldreich”, at http://www.sah

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

175

istory.org.za/people/arthur-goldreich, accessed 27 September 2014; South African History Online, “Harold Wolpe”; Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust, “About Harold Wolpe”.] The plan was for one of the escape committee, Mannie Brown to be waiting outside the prison with a getaway car. He would drive Goldreich and Wolpe to Hillbrow, where they would hide with sympathisers. Mosie and Abdulhai would flee to the Indian ghetto of Ferreirastown. Born in Jerusalem in British-occupied Palestine in 1926, Brown and his family had been evacuated to South Africa as Nazi forces approached. After meeting Joe Slovo, he joined the Communist Party. Later he would also become a member of the ANC. He ran a successful leather factory in Johannesburg in the 1950s and published the magazine Amateur Photographer. Despite these forays into capitalism, he remained “a fiercely committed, belligerently dogmatic Stalinist”. Listed as a Communist in the 1950s, he went underground. In 1960, he was arrested in the mass arrests after the declaration of the State of Emergency. He was released after 100 days without being charged. [African National Congress Press Statements, “The Death of Mannie Brown”, 21 November 2003, at http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=6499, accessed 27 September 2014; Chris Barron, “Obituary: Mannie Brown”, in Sunday Times, 30 November 2003, at http://cosmos.ucc. ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=6409, accessed 27 September 2014 (quotation); Ruth First Papers Project, “Interview with Hilda Watts and Rusty Bernstein, Part 3”, an interview conducted by Don Pinnock c. 1992. Part of a series carried out at Rhodes University and held at the UWC/Robben Island Mayibuye Archive, at http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4568/4/Hilda_ WATTS_Rusty_BERNSTEIN_3.pdf, accessed 27 September 2014, pp. 79–80; Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 95, 124, 126.] On the night of the escape of Goldreich and his comrades, three young white men arrested for drunkenness had to have their blood alcohol levels tested. Greeff delayed the execution of the plan. Thinking that the escape was off for that night, Brown drove off to avoid detection. While Mosie and Abdulhai fled as planned, Goldreich and Wolpe were left stranded. To make matters worse, Wolpe was suffering from a severe attack of gout.

176

A. KIRKALDY

They were wandering down Harrow Road, deciding what to do, when they turned off into a dark side street to minimise their chances of detection. Approaching a parked Renault sedan, they discovered that its driver was the playwright, writer and director, Barney Simon. On the way home from visiting a girlfriend, he had needed to urinate. He had pulled over and gone into the bushes of a park. [Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 126–128; Goldberg, “Arthur Goldreich”, n.p. (p. 3).] Born in Johannesburg in 1932, Barney Simon was one of South Africa’s best-known theatre personalities. One of the pioneers of theatre depicting the realities of life in South Africa, he collaborated closely with Athold Fugard for 37 years and directed film versions of several of Nadine Gordimer’s novels. One of the founders of the pioneering Market Theatre in 1976, he repeatedly defied the law against so-called “mixed” casts and audiences. A secret sympathiser of the liberation movement, he allowed his flat to be used for clandestine meetings and as a safe-house to hide dissidents. He died in Johannesburg in 1995. [Nadine Gordimer, “Obituary: Barney Simon”, in The Independent, 4 July 1995, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ people/obituary-barney-simon-1589772.html, accessed 17 July 2013; Donald G. McNeil Jr., “Barney Simon, 63, Producer; Used Art to Fight Apartheid”, Obituary in New York Times Theater, 1 July 1995, at http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/ 01/obituaries/barney-simon-63-producer-used-art-to-fight-apa rtheid.html, accessed 17 July 2013.] Simon took Goldreich and Wolpe home with him. In the early hours of the morning he contacted Advocate Denis Kuny and his wife, Hilary (now Hamburger), to ask for assistance. They were sympathisers of the movement and close friends with many of the key players but not members of either the SACP or the ANC. Hilary made a packet of sandwiches for Barney to take back home for the escapees and Denis asked Ivan Schermbrucker for assistance. Working with Mannie Brown, Ivan ensured that the escapees were taken into hiding in safe houses and then smuggled into Swaziland in the boot of a car. Having hidden in the home of a sympathetic Anglican priest, the Rev Charles Hooper, dressed as priests, they later flew to the British protectorate of Bechuanaland, (now Botswana). A

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

177

plane sent by President Nyerere to fetch them there and fly them to Tanzania was blown up on the runway by South African agents. A second plane was then chartered and they were flown to Dar es Salaam together with other South African political refugees. Having received a heroes’ welcome, they later flew on to London. [Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 131–135; Goldberg, “Arthur Goldreich”, n.p. (p. 3); Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust, “About Harold Wolpe”; Herbstein, “Arthur Goldreich obituary”; South African History Online, “Arthur Goldreich”; South African History Online, “Harold Wolpe”.] Greeff did not fare as well as the escaped detainees. Within the hour he had cracked under interrogation and confessed his part in the plot to the Special Branch and his superiors. Sentenced to six years in prison, he was paroled after two. However, after the collapse of apartheid, Paul Joseph—the go-between from whom Greeff was supposed to have collected his payment—raised the question again. The escapees, and the ANC, said that the debt should be paid. More than forty years after the debt had been incurred, a courier arrived at Greeff’s motor repair shop in a remote part of the northern Cape. He handed over an amount believed to be in the region of R110,000. [Herbstein, “Arthur Goldreich obituary”.]. Within days of the escape, Mannie Brown’s car had been identified as that used to ferry Goldreich and Wolpe during their period of hiding. He fled to London and continued working for the movement. He was particularly useful as a fund-raiser for the SACP and ANC. In addition, during the 1980s, he set up a safari company, named Africa hinterland. This smuggled “truckloads of arms hidden in their safari vehicles into South Africa under the backsides of unsuspecting tourists.” He died in 2003. [ANC, “The death of Mannie Brown”; Barron, “Obituary: Mannie Brown” (quotation).] Hazel Goldreich was released from detention after three months. She had refused to be part of the escape as she was worried about her and Arthur’s children. The couple later divorced and Arthur remarried. In 1964, Goldreich returned to Israel. He became an architect there and later founded (and taught at) the Bezalel academy of arts and design, part of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He became a stong opponent

178

A. KIRKALDY

of Israel’s actions in occupied Palestine. He would briefly return to South Africa after 1994 to attend a reunion at Liliesleaf. Arthur Goldreich died in 2011 in Tel Aviv. [Goldberg, “Arthur Goldreich”, n.p. (pp. 1, 3, 4); Herbstein, “Arthur Goldreich obituary”; South African History Online, “Arthur Goldreich”.] Wolpe’s family would join him in England, where he spent almost thirty years in exile. Continuing to be an active member of the SACP and the ANC, and retaining his Marxist ideology as an academic too, he became a Nuffield Foundation Sociological Scholar at the London School of Economics in 1964–1965. Thereafter, he joined the University of Bradford and North London Polytechnic (now the University of North London). After that, he moved to the Sociology Department of the University of Essex. A key member of the ANC’s London Education Committee and its National Education Council, Wolpe was extensively involved in planning for and visits to the ANC’s Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College in Tanzania. He also worked in various ANC committees and councils. He spent his sabbatical in 1977 at the University of Dar es Salaam. In 1990 Wolpe and his wife, AnnMarie, returned to South Africa. He then became the Director of the Education Policy Unit (EPU) at the University of the Western Cape. In addition, he chaired the forum which coordinated the work of five EPUs at national level. Wolpe died in 1996. [Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust, “About Harold Wolpe”; South African History Online, “Harold Wolpe”.] 42. Arthur’s Christmas Club. 43. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger [Elizabeth Franklin (formerly Lewin) to Hilary Hamburger], Sunday 19 April 1998 in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 1. 44. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 111 (quotation); “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1960–1962; SV.4. In The Supreme Court of South Africa. (Transvaal Provincial Division) Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice DE WET, Judge-President. In the matter of The State vs. Nelson Mandela & Ors. 17th February 1964. Extract of Evidence—Ronald Martin First. s.s., pp. 4–6, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventories/inv_pdft/ AD1844-A17-9-text.pdf, accessed 1 April 2012.

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

179

45. Gerard Ludi and Blaar Grobbelaar, The Amazing Mr Fischer, Nasionale Boekhandel, Cape Town, 1966, pp. 103–104 (quotation); “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others”, Reel 3 (Continued), State v Abram Fischer, Preparatory Examination & Charge in Supreme Court, p. BF172; “Subversion by Christian Action Aid Fund denied”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 January 1966, 6. 46. Ludi, The Communistisation, pp. 44, 47, 48 (quotation). 47. Ibid., p. 48. 48. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein from Paris, 30 April 2015, p. 5. 49. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1958–1960. 50. Clingman, Bram Fischer, pp. 322–325, 327 (quotation); Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 261–262. 51. Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 329; Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 264 (quotation). 52. Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 328; Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 167 (quotation). 53. Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010, p. 5. 54. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 268. 55. “Just before the Rivonia”, p. 1. 56. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 268 (quotation); “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 9 (this source incorrectly gives the date as 23 June). 57. According to Lesley, “we still had to carry on as customers had ½ paid for parcels to be delivered at the end of the year. Our sellers were all there to carry on”. [Untitled document written by Lesley Schermbrucker beginning “They came for Ivan on July 24th 1964”, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 1.] Zug states that Arnold’s continued till the end of 1963. [James Zug, The Guardian: The History of South Africa’s Extraordinary Anti-apartheid Newspaper, Michigan, Michigan State University Press and Pretoria, UNISA Press, p. 226.] This account and Lesley’s letters to Ivan while he was awaiting trial and during his trial, make it clear that it continued beyond this. Lesley and Ruth took over the Christmas club when Ivan was awaiting trial. The following year, Lesley decided to carry on with it. Ruth had to take over in November 1965 as Lesley was also imprisoned.

180

A. KIRKALDY

[Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014, n.p.] 58. “They Came for Ivan”, p. 1. See also Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 335 (which gives the date as 24 June); “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 9 (which gives the date as 23 June). 59. “They Came for Ivan”, pp. 1–2. 60. Ibid., p. 2. 61. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 2. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Interview with Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 8. 65. “They Came for Ivan”, p. 2. 66. “Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker”, p. 2. 67. Depending on where detainees were being held, and on the whim of the Security Police, the families of detainees were sometimes allowed to bring them food and coffee daily, weekly or not at all. [Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 115 & 149.] 68. Expert witnesses stated in court that the words “heavily struck out” were: “Send this news overseas immediately.” This was followed by “You must see what can be done.” [“Detainee cannot go to court – Judge”, Rand Daily Mail, 15 August 1964, 7.] 69. “Torture in South Africa”, Extracts from the Report of the UN Special Committee on the policies of Apartheid of the Govt. of the Republic of South Africa, A/5825, 8 December 1964, in Transition, No. 50 (October 1975–March 1976), pp. 52–57, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935000? origin=JSTOR-pdf&, accessed 8 March 2012, p. 54 (314). See also “Detainee Cannot”; “Full Text of Note”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 August 1964, 1–2; Muriel Horrell (comp.), A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa 1964, Johannesburg, South African Institute of Race Relations, 1965, p. 69, at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/cis/omalley/ OMalleyWeb/dat/SAIRR%20Survey%201964.pdf, accessed 27 March 2011; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 12; “Poison Pen Letter Vilifies Detainee”, Express, 16 August 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker.

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

181

70. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger, 19 April 1998, p. 1. 71. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 2013. 72. Ibid., pp. 2019–2020. 73. “Torture in South Africa”, p. 54 (314). See also “Court Hushed as Wife Says Police Cruel to Detainee”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 August 1964, 1; “Cruelty to Detainee Alleged”, newspaper report [August 1964] from the Mayibuye Centre collection in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker (no publication details included); “Detainee Cannot”; “Poison Pen Letter”; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, pp. 12–13; “Schermbrucker Can’t Tell Court of Charges”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 September 1965, 7; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 9. 74. “Cruelty”. See also “Detainee Cannot”; Horrell (comp.), A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa 1964, p. 69. 75. Z. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’ Trial”, The African Communist, 22, 1965, 48. See also “Cruelty to Detainee Alleged”; “Detainee Cannot”. Z. Nkosi was the pseudonym for Brian Bunting. 76. “Torture in South Africa”, pp. 52–57 (quotation, p. 54). See also “Poison Pen Letter”. This should be read in conjunction with the equally notorious judgement in the Rossouw v Sachs case, which had been heard in the Appellate Division in March 1964. [ROSSOUW v SACHS, South African Law Reports [1964] 3 All SA 84 (A), pp. 85–95, at http://lexisnexis.ru.ac.za/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=def ault.htm$vid=mylnb:10.1048/enu accessed 11 March 2014.] In October 1963, Albie Sachs had been detained under the 90-day law. Having been convicted of no offence: “he sought a court order equating his status, rights and privileges to those of an awaiting trial prisoner. Two High court judges in Cape Town ruled in his favour. They ordered the police to” accord him “reasonable periods of daily exercise” and that he be “supplied with, or” be “permitted to receive and use (under suitable supervision) a supply of reading matter and writing material.”[Justice Edwin Cameron, “Judicial Independence— A Substantive Component”, paper presented to the Middle Temple and SA Conference on Judicial Independence, December 2010, p. 25, at http://www.sabar.co.za/law-journals/2010/dec

182

A. KIRKALDY

ember/2010-december-vol023-no3-pp24-29.pdf, accessed 11 March 2014; ROSSOUW v SACHS, p. 86.] The police appealed against this order. A five member panel of the Appellate Division unanimously upheld the appeal, overturning the lower court’s order. [“Detainee cannot”; ROSSOUW v SACHS, pp. 87–95.] Commenting on this, Judge Edwin Cameron of the (post-apartheid) Constitutional Court of South Africa commented that: This decision is rightly notorious. It is seen as unduly executiveleaning at a time when the court’s duty was to stand firm against white fright and for individual rights. The consequences of the appeal court’s ruling in Rossouw v Sachs , quite plausibly, was the dismal list that ensued of brutal deaths in detention—including many alleged ‘suicides’. The courts had not merely washed their hands of those in the power of the police—they had given their imprimatur to solitary confinement and detention without trial: this when at their disposal lay the clear power to do otherwise. [Cameron, “Judicial independence”, p. 26.]

Arguably the first rotten fruit from this poisoned tree was Justice Snyman’s finding in the Schermbrucker case, followed by the appeal that upheld his decision. 77. “90-Day Law Is Part of a Cold War—Margo”, Rand Daily Mail, 27 August 1965, 4. See also “Detainee’s Wife may Appeal”, Rand Daily Mail, 22 August 1964, 2; “90-Day Man’s Wife Can Now Appeal”, Rand Daily Mail, 27 February 1965, 3. 78. Schermbrucker v Klindt NO 165 (4) SA 606 (A): dictum at 616A appl 2002 (2) SA 262 (N)—South African Law Reports, with Which Are Amalgamated the All South Africa Law Reports, Cape Town, Juta + Co, 2002 (1965 (4) SA) p. 606. See also “Schermbrucker Can’t Tell”. 79. See, for example, Case no. 554/86 In the Supreme Court of South Africa (Appellate Division) Between Lindiwe Monica Nkwentsha (Appellant) and The Minister of Law and Order, Republic of South Africa (First Respondent) and The Commissioner, South African Police (Second Respondent), Coram: Rabie ACJ et Van Heerden, Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier JJA, Heard 23 February 1988, Delivered 30 March 1988, Judgement, W. Vivier JA, pp. 2–33, Nkwentsha v Minister of Law and Order, Republic

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

183

of South Africa and Another (554/86) [1988] ZASCA 33; [1988] 2 All SA 420 (A) (30 March 1988), at http://www. saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1988/33.html, accessed 12 January 2012. 80. “Poison Pen Letter”. 81. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 2. 82. Ibid. 83. Sathyandranath “Mac” Maharaj was born in 1935 in Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal. The fourth of eight children, he matriculated at St Oswald’s School. After this, he registered as a part time student for a BA at the University of Natal, Durban. During his time there, he served on the SRC, fought against the segregation of students and supported the boycott of separate graduation ceremonies. From 1955 to 1956, he edited Student Call, the campus student newspaper. Having completed his BA in 1955, he went on to register for an LLB degree, the “’Non-European” section of the university having introduced this in 1956. Having completed his first year, he found his path blocked as the university closed down the “Non-European” LLB in 1957. In the wake of the arrests of the Congress leaders for the 1956 treason trial, Maharaj was asked to take over running the New Age newspaper. Unable to obtain the necessary permit to study law in the Cape or the Transvaal, he left for the United Kingdom in August 1957. He began his LLB studies again in 1959, becoming a part-time student at the London School of Economics. Following the Sharpeville massacre, the Congress movement requested him to return to South Africa in 1960. He and his first wife, Ompragash, returned in May 1962. Maharaj was employed by a firm of attorneys in Johannesburg but spent most of his time dealing with political matters. A member of MK, he was arrested in Johannesburg in July 1964. In what became known as the “Little Rivonia trial”, he and four others were convicted on charges of sabotage. Maharaj was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, serving this on Robben Island. During the period of his imprisonment, he completed a B.Admin, an MBA and two years of a B.Sc. degree. He was released in December 1976. On his release, Maharaj was presented with a five year banning order. Among other restrictions, this prevented him from leaving his home in the Durban

184

A. KIRKALDY

Indian area of Merebank at night. At this stage, his wife was living in London, having left South Africa on an exit permit in 1974. Maharaj could not earn a living as he was refused permission to seek employment in central Durban. In 1977, the ANC deployed him to Zambia. Serving as a senior official in the ANCs political department, he was elected to the national executive committee at the 1985 Kabwe Conference. From 1987 to 1990, Maharaj worked underground within South Africa as part of Operation Vula. When the ANC and SACP were unbanned in 1990, he left the country and re-entered legally under the indemnity programme then in force. He played a major role in re-organising and re-structuring the SACP. At the relaunch of the Party, Maharaj was confirmed as a member of the Central Committee and as a member of the 22-person interim leadership group. Three days prior to this, Maharaj had been detained by Security Police under the Internal Security Act. It was alleged that he was one of the masterminds of an ANC/SACP/MK plan codenamed Operation Vula. Arising from this, in October 1990, Maharaj and eight others were charged with terrorism, with an alternative charge of illegal possession of arms, ammunition and explosives. “It was alleged that they had conspired to create a national underground network to recruit, train, arm and lead a ‘people’s army’ or ‘revolutionary army’ to seize power from the government by means of an armed insurrection” if the negotiations between the ANC and the government failed. The nine accused were released on bail in November 1990. Charges were dropped in March 1991, the accused having “received partial indemnity with respect to Operation Vula.” In order to defuse some of the tensions, Maharaj had announced his retirement from the Central Committee of the ANC in 1990. In July 1991, at the ANC’s national congress in Durban, Maharaj was appointed to the secretariat of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). This brought together most of the political organisations in South Africa to negotiate a new constitutional dispensation. Appointed to the cabinet after the 1994 elections, he served as the Minister of Transport until 1999. He then retired from active politics but resurfaced as special advisor and spokesperson to the President during the

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

185

Zuma administration. He then again retired from active politics, focusing on his business interests. [The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, “Profile of Mr Sathyandranath Ragunanan “Mac” Maharaj” for the presentation of the Order of Luthuli in Silver, at http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/national-orders/recipient/sat hyandranath-ragunanan-%E2%80%9Cmac%E2%80%9D-maharaj, accessed 7 May 2019; South African History Online, “Sathyandranath Ragunanan “Mac” Maharaj”, at https://www.sahist ory.org.za/people/satyandranath-mac-maharaj, accessed 7 May 2019 (quotations).] 84. O’Malley Archives, “01 November 2002: Maharaj, Mac”, pages 3 to 4 of 36 http://nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/ q/03lv03445/04lv03689/05lv03714/06lv03741.htm, accessed 25 March 2012. 85. Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 348; Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 270. 86. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 1; ‘The State versus Abram Fischer’, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF1–BF2; “Two Change Plea to Guilty in Red Party Case”, The Star, 10 August 1966 (clipping in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker); ‘This is Apartheid, II’, http://www.avoiceonline.org/assets/txu-diggs-194-f14-01/ txu-diggs-194-f14-01.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, Preparatory Examination & Charge, pp. 8–9. 87. The State versus Abram Fischer’, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF108–111, BF175–177, BF178–180, BF186. 88. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 11. 89. Ibid. 90. Jean Collen on Wordpress, “Life in Kensington and Johannesburg Fifty Years Ago”, at http://jeancollen.wordpress.com/tag/johnorrs/, accessed 7 May 2013. 91. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 11. 92. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 270–272; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 13; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12; “Just before the Rivonia”, p. 2 (quotations, Frankel and Lesley Schermbrucker). 93. See, for example, Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Ben and Marty Turok, 5 March 1979 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker; Letters, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 10

186

A. KIRKALDY

November 1964, p. 4; 13 November 1964, p. 1; 30 December 1964, p. 2; 25 January 1965, p. 2; 29 January 1965, pp. 1–2; 5 February 1965, pp. 1–2; 11 February 1965, p. 3; 14 February 1965, p. 2; 1 March 1965, p. 1; 5 March 1965, pp. 1–2; 9 March 1965, p. 1; 10 March 1965, p. 4, in Letters, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker from the Schermbrucker family Archive and copied to DVD 6, The Sea of Ink, 4 October 1964 to 6 April 1965, in the possession of the author. 94. Hilary Hamburger, Denis Kuny, Hugh Lewin and Rica Hodgson all commented on this informally or in interviews in January 2014; “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger, p. 2. 95. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 3. 96. Kuny, untitled address, pp. 4–5. 97. “Lesley Schernmbrucker, Jill Murray & Mildred Holo, Where you should be”, excerpt of an interview by Jim [James] Zug with Lesley Schermbrucker and her daughter Jill Murray, Johannesburg, 22 January 1994, p. 2, in Voices of liberation Project: Kasigo Publishers, communication from Hildegarde Fast and Bastienne Klein (editor) to Jill Murray, 23 December 1997 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 98. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 10 November 1964, p. 4 in 6. The Sea. 99. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 13 November 1964, p. 1 in 6. The Sea. 100. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 29 January 1965, pp. 1–2, in 6. The Sea. 101. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 5 February 1965, pp. 1–2, in 6. The Sea. 102. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 13. 103. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 20 October 1964, pp. 3–5 in 6. The Sea. 104. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 25 January 1965, pp. 1–2, in 6. The Sea. 105. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 4 April 1965, p. 3, in 6. The Sea. 106. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 30 December 1964, pp. 1–2 in 6. The Sea.

4

TIGHTENING REPRESSION: INCREASING INVOLVEMENT …

187

107. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 11 February 1965, p. 3, in 6. The Sea. 108. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 14 February 1965, p. 2, in 6. The Sea. 109. Ivan Strasburg was a young activist from Durban whom Toni—Rusty and Hilda’s daughter—had met at college. They were married in 1963. [Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 221– 222; “University of the Witwatersrand Hilda and Rusty Bernstein Papers”, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/invent ory.php?iid=9010, accessed 12 March 2013.] 110. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 1 March 1965, p. 1, in 6. The Sea. 111. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 5 March 1965, pp. 1–2, in 6. The Sea. 112. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 9. 113. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 13–14. 114. “The State versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Annexure J, pp. J1– J15.

CHAPTER 5

The Trial of Bram Fischer and 13 Others

Evidence presented at the “Trial of Abram Fischer and 13 others” revealed the increasing use of violence and torture by the Special Branch, their increasing efficiency in infiltrating proscribed organisations and identifying “enemies of the state”, and the state’s imposition of increasingly repressive controls to suppress dissent. It also clarified the links between activists and transnational organisations such as the “Friends of the Soviet Union” and Amnesty International, the inner workings of the underground SACP, the close working relationship between the Party and other bodies seeking national liberation, and Party attitudes towards the adoption of armed struggle. Factors motivating activists, and the reasons why some came to turn state evidence, were explored, as was the radicalising role played by the Second World War in exposing activists to communist ideology and in developing strong anti-fascist (often transnationalist) ideologies. Furthermore, the role of funding and support organisations such as Defence and Aid and the Quaker Service was clarified. Ivan’s evidence was littered with half-truths and outright lies as, in the absence of first-hand evidence from all except Piet Beyleveld, this seemed to provide him with the best chance of acquittal. Critically reading this evidence, it is clear that he was still committed to both the transnational and the nationalist elements of the struggle. However, the growing number of white activists fleeing into exile served to disillusion him. By the time of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_5

189

190

A. KIRKALDY

his release after serving his sentence, Ivan had little left but contempt for the external wing of the Party.

Awaiting Trial After Ivan’s release from 90 day detention, he and others detained over the same period were remanded in custody. At this time, a number of the women communist detainees, went on a hunger strike, demanding that the police either charge or release them. By agreement, Flo Duncan, Sylvia Neame and Jean Middleton—all of whom had stomach ulcers— performed only “a token fast”. Esther Barsel did not eat for 35 days, while Pixie Benjamin carried on for 49 days.1 With their change in status from detainees to awaiting trial prisoners, a number of the former detainees “laid complaints of torture against the Special Branch”. In August 1964, in making an application for bail for his client, Paul Trewhela’s attorney stated that Paul “had been interrogated continuously for sixty-nine hours and made to stand virtually all the time”. In refusing bail, the magistrate “ruled that statements on treatment and interrogation during detention were not relevant to the application”.2 In October 1964, nine political prisoners and the wife of a tenth submitted affidavits to the Supreme Court in Pretoria describing their alleged “ill treatment during interrogation”. They also sought “an order declaring that the methods of interrogation used by the police were unlawful”. Dr Constantinos (commonly known as Constantine) Gazides, Norman Levy,3 Paul Trewhela, Ivan, Ann Nicholson, Hugh Lewin, Mary Josephine Moodley, Joyce Mohamed and Christina Thimbela all complained of having to endure continuous interrogation and “standing torture” for between twelve and sixty-nine hours. Gazides had received threats of further “assault and torture”. Levy had been “struck on the head with a [rolled-up] newspaper. When he told the detectives that he had a heart complaint, they answered that he was punishing himself by being so obstinate and refusing to make a statement”. Trewhela “had been warned that the Security Police would make a physical and mental wreck of him if he persisted in refusing to make a statement”. Ivan’s interrogators had threatened to urinate on him “if he fell down”. Nicholson had been “forcibly dragged from her chair”. Lewin had been “continuously subjected to anti-Semitic abuse, and assaulted at length”. Adelaide

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

191

Joseph reported that her detained husband, Paul Joseph, “had been interrogated in such a way and for such lengths of time as ‘are calculated to impair his physical and mental health’”.4 There was “the ‘simple’ torture of solitary confinement under ninetyday detention”. Sylvia Neame was detained twice under the ninety-day detention law. The first was for 45 days, and the second for 54 days. In a statement from the dock at the trial which followed, “she described her detention as ‘the most gruelling experience of my life’.” She told the court that, except for weekly interrogation sessions, lasting from one to two hours, she “had no other contact whatever” while detained. The warders who brought her food refused to talk at all. During these periods of prolonged solitude, I was completely battered emotionally. I developed an intense feeling of being cut off. I no longer belonged. I couldn’t recognise any continuity with my past, my present and my future. When I was released after forty-five days into a strange world the reaction was even more severe. I could not adjust myself to a strange environment of people, faces and places. I mistrusted everybody, recoiled from all human contact.5

During her second detention, in her desperation, Neame attempted to escape. She was sentenced to two months imprisonment for this.6 Apparently because of her collapsed health, charges against Pixie Benjamin were withdrawn. However, Bram Fischer, Ivan Schermbrucker and twelve other men and women were charged under the Suppression of Communism Act with being “office bearers of or members of” the illegal Communist Party of South Africa/South African Communist Party; taking “part in the activity of or activities of” the party; and performing “an act or acts which were calculated to further the achievement of any of the objects of communism”.7

The Accused The fourteen originally charged were Abram (Bram) Fischer (Accused no. 1 whose code-name in the movement was “Jan”), Ivan Schermbrucker (No. 2, “Peter”), Eli Weinberg (No. 3), Esther Barsel (No. 4, “Sandy”, later “Junie”),8 Norman Levy (No. 5, “Bentley”), Lewis Baker (No. 6, “Smitty”), Jean Middleton/Jean Strachan (No. 7, “Clara” and later “Kena”),9 Ann Nicholson (No. 8),10 Constantine (Costa) Gazides (No.

192

A. KIRKALDY

9),11 Paul Trewhela (No. 10, “Jackson”),12 Sylvia Neame (No. 11, possibly “Romy”),13 Florence (Flo) Duncan (No. 12, possibly “Julia”),14 Molly Irene Doyle (No. 13)15 and Hymie Barsel (No. 14).16 While common in liberation movements, the use of noms de guerre does have a fairly “Boys Own” feel to it. In order to protect their identities, comrades used these at meetings, when referring to each other among themselves and at meetings. The contacts also used these when reporting on activities to the area committee.17 However, due to infiltration by the Special Branch, electronic surveillance and Piet Beyleveld’s decision to turn state witness, these were well known to the authorities and were revealed in evidence at the beginning of the trial. Their value as a protective measure had thus been questionable. The trial has not received enough attention in the struggle history of South Africa. As Brian Bunting pointed out in The African Communist, it was significant because it was the first case after the passing of the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950 where anybody was either charged or convicted solely on account of having been a member of the Communist Party. During the fifteen years that had passed since then: “Hundreds of people, including many non-Communists, had been convicted under one or other provision of the Act”. However, with this case, for the first time, the State secured “a conviction against people proved […] to have been members of the Party and sentenced because they had, as Communists, attempted to ‘replace the present state of the Republic of South Africa by a dictatorship of the working class’”.18 Jean Middleton noted that it “was the longest trial that had ever been heard in the Johannesburg Regional Court”.19 The political activist Phyllis Naidoo has noted that this was the political trial in South Africa which involved the greatest number of white women in detention.20 Significantly for a Party with a majority of black members, and where black activists were named in evidence, this was one of the very few political trials at the time where all of the accused were white.

The Trial Begins Proceedings began on 16 November 1964.21 On the first day, Hymie Barsel—against whom there was very little evidence—was granted bail. He was thus able to go home to his children who had been in the care of his sister and brother-in-law since his and Esther’s detention in July 1964.22 Due to his commitments as an advocate, Bram Fischer had

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

193

already been granted £5,000 (R10,000) bail. In October he had been permitted to travel to the United Kingdom to appear in an appeal before the Privy Council “involving a Rhodesian company”. Having returned on 1 November, he was present for the first session of the trial, from 16 November to the Christmas recess. He was also there when the trial resumed in January 1965. Following a defence application, on 15 January 1965, the court adjourned for ten days. When it resumed on Monday 25 January, it emerged that he had “decided to forfeit the bail and go underground”.23 According to Jean Middleton, the accused in the dock were “jubilant at hearing that Bram had got away” to continue the struggle in hiding.24 Accusing him of “cowardice”, the prosecutor, J.H. Liebenberg, “then successfully applied for the hearing to proceed against the 13 accused”.25 Fischer was subsequently disbarred for estreating bail.26 He would later be tried separately and be sentenced to life imprisonment.27 The two chief state witnesses against the accused were Petrus [Piet] Beyleveld28 and Gerald (Gerhard) Gunther Ludi. Beyleveld was a former COD leader who rapidly broke down under ninety-day detention and agreed to turn state witness against his former comrades.29 Ludi was an informer who had been “recruited into the Security Police in 1960”. He would succeed “in worming his way into the underground Communist Party in 1963”.30 Mary Benson would later recall that Bram Fischer had told her that ‘For years, Piet Beyleveld and I were comrades […] I do not believe that when he comes into court, when he looks me in the eyes, he will be able to give evidence against us.’ But Beyleveld went into court, he stood in the witness box, and he did not look Bram in the eyes. When asked by the defense why he was giving evidence, he said he had agreed after persistent questioning by the Security Police; there had been no ill-treatment. Questioned further, he gave a startlingly accurate account of Bram’s nature and influence. Fischer, he said, was well-known as a champion of the oppressed, with political views that had never been concealed; a man widely respected in all parts of the community. He himself, he added, still revered Fischer.31

This version of events was confirmed by Denis Kuny from the defence team: “Bram was convinced from the outset that Peter Beyleveld would never testify”. So, although the “politicos” overseas had attempted to persuade him not to come back, he did so partly because he “was a man of his word” and had “given his undertaking” to do so. Even though the evidence “against him was pretty strong”, it was only Beyleveld who

194

A. KIRKALDY

really knew the extent of his involvement, particularly with regard to the activities of MK. “But he was always convinced that Peter Beyleveld would never give evidence. And Peter Beyleveld was the first witness called. And Peter Beyleveld gave evidence, and evidence of a very damaging nature against everybody and he was regarded as being a traitor”. From Kuny’s point of view, the realisation that Beyleveld would possibly give evidence linking him to MK was one of the reasons why Bram estreated bail and went underground.32 Beyleveld’s evidence was damning. He immediately exposed the entire structure of the underground SACP.33 He identified Abram (Bram) Fischer, Frederick Schermbrucker and Eli Weinberg as Central Committee members; Esther Barsel as a member of an area committee; Norman Levy as an area committee and district committee member; and Lewis Baker as a group and area committee member. He indicated that he knew Jean Strachan (who interjected that she wished to be known as Middleton) and Ann Nicholson as group members. He identified Constantine (Costa) Gazides as a member of a study group organised by the area committee.34 In Sylvia Neame’s case, the district committee had sent a report to the area committee that she had moved to Johannesburg from Cape Town and should be entered into a group. An area committee had recommended the recruitment of Florence Duncan. While he knew Molly Doyle and Hymie Barsel, he was unable to give personal testimony about their role in the party. The Party “was sometimes referred to as ‘The Family’”.35 In his understanding, the “real aim of the party” was “To bring about in a long term, a socialist society in S.A. That as I understand is the general aim of all communist parties”.36 The core of the state’s case against Eli Weinberg, Norman Levy, Esther Barsel and Lewis Baker “rested on Beyleveld’s uncorroborated evidence”. While other evidence about their activities was given, he was the only witness to state that these “were conducted in their capacities as members of the Communist Party”. In addition, Beyleveld was the only witness against Ivan, and the only witness able to give first-hand evidence about the workings of the Central Committee.37 According to Beyleveld, the secretariat of the Party consisted of Bram Fischer, Ivan and Hilda Bernstein. It had been formed because, for reasons of security and efficiency, it made sense to have a small group who could carry out day-to-day activities, deal with correspondence, liaise with overseas communist bodies, and so forth.38 He went on to state that he had attended Central Committee meetings with Bram Fischer, Ivan,

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

195

Hilda Bernstein, Dan Clumay and possibly Eli Weinberg. He described a number of Central Committee meetings in detail,39 damningly placing Ivan at these.40 The defence strategy was to attack Beyleveld’s character—either he was a traitor to the cause or he was perjuring himself to protect others in the Party not on trial (presumably more senior than those who were). In his cross questioning, Vernon Berrangé41 —famed for his acerbic tongue used against witnesses for the apartheid state—focused on probing the issue that no brutality, torture or intimidation had been used against Beyleveld.42 The latter stated that he had been questioned for “six or seven hours”.43 During this period, he was made to stand for about three hours. He then told his interrogators that he had a sore back and was allowed to sit down.44 Having decided that the Special Branch were well informed of the activities of the underground SACP, he had decided to tell his interrogators all that he knew: “I tried my best to remember everything that I knew over the years”.45 Asked by Berrangé if he would “find it easy to live with” his wife, his son, his friends and himself given that he had turned state evidence so easily after so little discomfort, Beyleveld replied: “I was faced with a set of circumstances, I took a decision, it wasn’t an easy one and it isn’t easy now” However, he had “taken a decision” and would find it easy to “live with” himself: “I have taken a decision. I have done something. I am prepared to face up to it”.46 Berrangé professed total amazement at this position, surely he could only “find it easy to live with” himself if he had: “carried out the first requirement of every party member, and particularly that of a devoted member in a high rank […] of loyalty to the party”? As a “highly intelligent individual”, who had held a high position and served the Party “for years”, he would find it impossible to live with himself when he knew that “other members in a far humbler position than” him had “undergone excruciating torture” and others were still suffering this fate without turning state evidence? Instead, “without any pressure being put on” him, he had “failed”. Beyleveld replied: “Put it then that I have failed. I am not trying to make excuses”. This gave Berrangé the opening that he was looking for: “I find it terribly difficult to believe. But, Mr. Beyleveld, can we put it this way in view of what you have told us, you are either a perjurer or you are a traitor?” Beyleveld could only reply: “I am not a perjurer [… but] If Mr. Berrange wants to call me a traitor, then he may do so”. He had not made any attempt at categorising himself and did not

196

A. KIRKALDY

agree with either label: “As I have already said, I was faced with a set of circumstances, and I took a decision. I agree that that decision was to a large extent selfish and that is the position with which I am faced”.47 Berrangé drew a telling parallel between his actions and those of Adrian Leftwich.48 The previous night’s newspapers (which Berrangé got Beyleveld to acknowledge having read) had reported that the African Resistance Movement (ARM) state witness had been described by Counsel “as a rat”. The Judge President had reportedly responded by stating that: “I did not object to that appellation at the time, but on reflection, I am not sure that it is not a trifle unfair on the genus rat”. In response to further repeated probing by Berrangé, Beryleveld continued to repeat that he was “not a perjurer”—to do otherwise would have cost him his immunity. He also carried on avoiding the question of whether or not he was a traitor, instead admitting that he had cracked in under three hours of torture. Under the circumstances (and unlike the tearful claim put forward by Leftwich), he no longer could claim to hold any loyalty to the Party. Berrangé argued that, given Beyleveld’s convictions and intelligence, he could not believe that he had given in so easily. Instead, he postulated that the latter was giving his “story an atmosphere of verisimilitude”, by adding the names of some who had not been present at meetings to ensure their conviction, and concealing the names of others to protect them. Beyleveld conceded that this would have been easy to do but denied that he had done so.49 Berrangé was attempting to rattle the state witness, discredit him and undermine his credibility. Harold Hanson,50 representing Bram Fischer, tightened the screws further, stating that Beyleveld was “motivated by a desire to save [… his] own skin” and was twisting “innocent actions into something sinister”.51 During re-examination, Berrangé attempted to get Beyleveld to confess that he had been persuaded by the Special Branch to implicate Ivan under interrogation. He vehemently denied this, and that he had portrayed meetings at which Ivan was present as a newspaperman as meetings of the Central Committee, making it clear that he had met Ivan on both these kinds of occasions.52 The liberation movement was vitriolic in its condemnation of Beyleveld, seeing him as a trusted insider who, in the words of Nkosi/Bunting, had become “THE TRAITOR BEYLEVELD”.53 Having presented (a slightly embellished) account of Beyleveld’s dismal performance under cross-examination, Nkosi/Bunting went on to argue that:

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

197

There, in a nutshell, is the difference between Beyleveld and the accused. Unlike these men and women, who stood their ground and defended their principles despite all the pressures brought to bear on them, Beyleveld was prepared to bargain away his conscience to win his freedom. In addition to blasting the lives of the accused (against whom, he said in justification of his treachery, there was in any case plenty of other evidence), he named people not previously known to the police, some of whom were later arrested, some of whom will perhaps still be arrested. He also gave evidence which helped convict the accused charged with sabotage in the Mkwayi trial, and it is now reported that he is to tour South Africa giving evidence in other political trials.54

Jean Middleton had her recollection of the trial: The accused sat appalled at this betrayal by someone we had trusted. In the COD, on committees and in the unit, we had liked and respected him as chairperson. To some of us, he had been a friend. We looked straight into his face throughout that day and a half, trying to stare him down and shame him. He remained calm and firm-voiced, and didn’t seem afraid of throwing an occasional glance in our direction. His eyes had that distant, unfocused stare of somebody who had been in solitary, so he didn’t meet our eyes directly, but he didn’t avoid them either.55

Writing about the heartache and soul-searching that traitors to the movement who gave evidence against their comrades gave her, Helen Joseph would later state that: There have been many […] some tortured beyond endurance and for them there can be nothing but pity. There are others who have not been so tortured but have not kept silent. It must be a terrible burden to carry for the rest of your life and to be ostracised for it. [...] From the detention cells had come reports of ill-treatment of detainees, both black and white, long unbroken hours of interrogation without rest or sleep, and physical assault. [...] The common pattern of detention was continued physical abuse in addition to total isolation and mental torture. Pieter Beyleveld had been subjected to none of this. He decided, very deliberately, to betray his friends after only a short time in detention rather than face the possibility of a gaol sentence. This was the man who had been our leader, trusted and accepted not only by us but by the whole Congress Alliance. I heard the rumours of his dishonour but I refused to believe them unless I saw him in the witness box — almost anyone else,

198

A. KIRKALDY

but not Pieter Beyleveld. I soon knew that it was true, that Piet was a traitor. He had sold his friends to gain his own freedom. I was appalled at this betrayal and I could not bear to see him again. A year later, however, I saw him coming towards me in a city street. There was no time for me to cross to the other side. We passed each other in silence but our eyes met. I have seen that same look in the eyes of my dog after some misbehaviour but the difference is that I feel sorry for my dog.56

Of all the actors in the events of the time, only Denis Kuny—surprisingly enough, partly supported by Jean Middleton—had anything good to say about Beyleveld. In an argument which is dismissed by activists, Kuny stated that the latter’s turning state witness in fact saved his former comrades from far harsher sentences than those that they received. In his analysis, Beyleveld “was right at the core of the central committee and a long standing member and a very committed member […] he in a way welded everything together”. Moreover, he was “having an affair with Jean Middleton and a lot of that was clear on the transcripts”. From very early in his detention, he realised that there was little about his activities and the workings of the Communist Party that the Special Branch did not know about. What they did not know about was the links between the Communist Party and MK. “All they could prove and all the information that they had was that the Communist Party existed as a political organisation”. Since it had been outlawed in 1950, they could charge the accused with membership of a banned organisation, which carried a maximum sentence of three years, and carrying on the activities of the Communist Party, with a maximum sentence of five years. The State had no evidence to link them to acts of violence and to substantiate a charge of treason, which could carry a sentence of life imprisonment or death. This was why they were charged in the Regional Court rather than the Supreme Court. “Convinced there was no point in his becoming a martyr, if he could save himself from imprisonment and at the same time protect them from being shown to be involved in violence”, Beyleveld took the course of action that he did. Thus, according to Kuny: having regard to the magnitude of the events in those days, I mean that the country was in a State of Emergency and a state of turmoil, and a state of political conflict, to have got out of that trial with these sentences was actually a bonus, it really was.57

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

199

Jean Middleton grudgingly supports this version of events. She argues that Beyleveld agreed to give state evidence because he believed that, if he did not do so, the State would call Bartholomew Hlapane, who had testified for the State in the Rivonia Trial, to give evidence against him. While Hlapane knew little about the accused, he would probably have been able to incriminate Beyleveld “in one of the big MK trials coming up, in which people were facing sentences of twenty years or more”. So it was in his own interest to sell out his former comrades. In all the damning evidence he presented, there was only one point on which he disagreed with Hlapane—that of the relationship between MK and the Communist Party. While Hlapane testified that there was a very close association between them, “Beyleveld flatly denied” this. Middleton ascribes a greater role to Beyleveld’s instinct for self-preservation rather than protecting the accused as argued by Kuny. She nevertheless concedes that this action ensured that the trial was held in the Regional Court and that the sentences were lighter than they would otherwise have been. Perhaps this was part of a deal concluded between Beyleveld and the Special Branch: “It’s unlikely that we’ll ever know for certain”.58 The defence strategy with the State’s other star witness, Gerald Gunther Ludi, “Secret Agent Q018”,59 was to ridicule him as a figure of fun. Even though his evidence was damning for the accused, he played right into this. It was gleefully picked up by the press. Under crossexamination by Berrangé, Ludi stated that he had been recruited into the Special Branch by Colonel Att Spengler and told to infiltrate and spy on leftist organisations.60 “Speaking rapidly and under obvious stress”,61 Ludi said that he had been informed by a superior officer that, in infiltrating the Leftist organisations, he would have to deal with characters whose behaviour was very different from that which he was used to: “We know that these people have very low moral standards, and you will be shocked and sickened at times, but this is your instructions and you will have to do it”.62 Much of his evidence played into existing stereotypes about the wild and unprincipled antics of Communists. According to Ludi, in order to establish his credibility as a bona fide Communist, he had attended multiracial parties at the houses of people like Benjamin Turok, Eli Weinberg, Bram Fischer, the Slovos and Benjamins.63 In the early stages of his infiltration, he often felt that he was being used as a “taxi driver”.64 He was asked to drive “non-White” township dwellers to “multiracial parties”. This was a severe drain on his personal finances as his car (a 1956 Chevrolet) was “big and expensive

200

A. KIRKALDY

to run”. His passengers also expected him to buy liquor for them. They were “sponging” on him.65 The guests at these parties had “indulged” in “sex orgies” which “revolted and disgusted him […] but it was part of his job to infiltrate the groups”.66 According to the police spy, “I loathed the sex angle. The main aim of my infiltration was politics”.67 At these parties, the Immorality Act was “frequently broken”. He had seen “unclothed white married women in compromising positions with non-White men and of fights when husbands beat up their wives”.68 There was a party hosted by Bram Fischer and Ruth First where many of the guests had dived into the swimming pool naked. The newspaper report of this recorded that “There was loud laughter from the gallery at this, which was repeated frequently during Mr. Ludi’s description of the parties”.69 According to Ludi, “I found that the people that I was moving with were of an extremely immoral nature as far as sexual behaviour was concerned”.70 As a means of developing his cover, he slept with women in the movement.71 He also made advances to “Coloured girls […] to prove my feelings of true multi-racialism”.72 “I used to frequently tell people that I go out with non-Whites in order to gain prestige”.73 Colonel Spengler, the “former head of the Johannesburg Special Branch” would later tell the court that his agent “was neither trained nor licensed to make love as part of his duties”.74 Ludi also self-confessedly wrote sexually suggestive letters to a number of women.75 In these, he referred to himself as “L. Geraldo, the bullfighter” (sometimes upgraded to “L. Geraldo The Great Bull Fighter”), “The Pug”, “Little-boy Bug”, and “The Goof”.76 He carried out a protracted relationship with Toni Bernstein, the daughter of Rusty and Hilda, painting slogans with her and travelling to Russia together. Although they were widely regarded as a couple within the movement, the relationship was insincere “on both sides […] I was insincere about my interests in her, and she also – trying to assume there was a relationship. She also extensively went out with other men, and also slept with other men”. For example, after attending a party with him she had gone home with Costa Gazides and spent the night with him.77 Ludi continued to explain his infiltration: “In order to gain the confidence of these people I had to pretend I was one of them. I tried to do it as little as possible”. He had lived a “schizophrenic type of existence” where he never mixed his “proper friends with” his “associates”—the comrades that he met in communist circles. Prompted by Berrnagé, he

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

201

admitted that he “loathed” many of these associates at times. However: “Not all of them. […] Because some of them are […] friendly enough as persons to talk to”.78 Because he had infiltrated the underground structures of the Communist Party, Ludi was a mine of exceptionally damaging information. Constable Klaus Schroeder was installed into the flat next to Jean Middleton’s where meetings of the cell took place. Her flat was bugged and the recording equipment was placed in Schroeder’s flat. A sheet of one-way glass was installed above his door so he could monitor the comings and goings of people visiting Middleton’s flat. Schroeder used the alias of Franz Rheeder and passed himself off as a freelance journalist.79 Using a device which was small enough to fit in his pocket, Ludi himself recorded group meetings held in his car and at the Moulin Rouge Restaurant. Further attempts to record meetings at the Rockefeller Restaurant and the Oxford Hotel (in Rosebank) were unsuccessful.80 A ministerial order was issued specifically to prevent the disclosure of the recording technology used so as to safeguard the methods used by the Special Branch in gathering information.81 Through Ludi, the cell hired a post box at Mayfair Post Office. He would collect all material sent to the group, hand it over to headquarters for photocopying and then deliver it to the group. He also informed his superiors when actions such as sloganpainting were going to take place. Police would then observe these actions from concealed vantage points.82 However, despite the wealth of information he could give about others, about Ivan he could only say that: “I saw him at New Age offices and I recognised him as a member of the movement, but I never saw him in the Congress of Democrats”.83 Members of the liberation movement “hated” Ludi, but they do not appear to have reserved the same kind of contempt for him that they did for Beyleveld, as Helen Joseph recalled: On the other hand we also paid the price of our naivety. Gerald Ludi, whom we had accepted fully as a member in all our Congress of Democrats activities, turned out to be a professional police spy. He had been very active with us and also in the underground cells and committees of the Communist Party. He testified in court as a paid infiltrator. It cost the accused dearly in their trial but although I hated Ludi I never felt the same contempt for him as for Pieter Beyleveld.84

202

A. KIRKALDY

Ivan’s Defence and Cross-Examination At the close of the state’s case, on 4 January 1965, Berrangé attempted to have Ivan discharged based on the fact that the only evidence against him had been the uncorroborated evidence of Beyleveld. While admitting that he had “advanced strong grounds” for this, the Magistrate, Mr Allen, was unable to accede to this. As a state witness who had admitted his membership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Beyleveld was not an accomplice to the charge of belonging to the party. This meant that his “evidence about Schermbrucker’s alleged membership of [… this] committee did not have to be supported by independent evidence”.85 When the defence opened its case on 8 February, Ivan’s case rested on denying the evidence presented against him. He claimed that he had never been a member of any political party—he had only had contact with political bodies in his efforts to secure advertising revenue for, and promote sales of, the Guardian. Beyleveld’s evidence was fabricated in order to secure a conviction against him.86 It was hoped that this line of defence, coupled with the attacks on Beyleveld’s character would ensure Ivan’s acquittal—if the only witness against him could be shown to be an unreliable character (a “traitor” or a “perjurer”) and his evidence similarly flawed, there would be nothing left to convict Ivan. This was also the strategy adopted by Hymie Barsel, Molly Doyle, Lewis Baker, Norman Levy, Esther Barsel and Eli Weinberg. They did not go as far as Ivan in denying their former political beliefs or their membership of the legal Communist Party before 1950. Instead, they only denied membership of the illegal Communist Party or having taken part in any of its activities. The remaining accused—Sylvia Neame, Florence Duncan, Paul Trewhela, Costa Gazides, Ann Nicholson and Jean Middleton at first followed the same tactic. However, towards the end of the state’s case for the prosecution, they changed their pleas to guilty and confessed to “being members of the illegal Communist Party and made statements from the dock giving their reasons for joining the Party”.87 Jean Middleton would later state that, from the beginning of the trial, all the accused had: agreed that anyone who had a chance in getting off was fully justified in lying, doing what they could, taking any chance that they had. We were conscious of the moral implications of this. We believed that the racist

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

203

regime was immoral, and that it had no legitimacy, because it was undemocratic; elected by a minority; was kept in place by force and violence, and not by consent. It followed that we didn’t believe its courts had any legitimacy either; no right, moral or otherwise, to try people and sentence them, especially political opponents. Therefore, as the police and courts sought to put good people in gaol, we believed in putting in their way all the obstacles that we could.88

Thus, “those with a chance” were encouraged to “go into the witness box in their own defence, deny membership, and suggest that Beyleveld was manufacturing evidence in order to gain indemnity, Counsel began to coach them”.89 However, she believed that Ivan had gone too far in this, to the detriment of his comrades and the Party. Because of his crucial role in raising funds for the Party, rather than his public persona, Ivan was accused number two. As a result, when the defence opened its case, in the absence of Bram, he was the first witness to be called. “He said he’d never been a member of the legal Communist Party, nor of the illegal one either, and that, in fact, he wasn’t a communist by conviction”. Those who pled guilty “had no quarrel with this”. However, they “were surprised and perturbed […] when he began to sound as if he had some contempt for the Communist Party, whose selfconfessed members were sitting in the dock with him”. In Middleton’s opinion, he had perhaps been so “intent on playing his part well, and having the court believe him” that he had been “carried away by his own performance”. Alternatively, in attempting to secure at least one acquittal, perhaps Ismail Mahomed90 had been pushed to suggest to Ivan “that he was too intelligent and substantial a person, too upright a citizen, to have joined such an organisation”. Whatever the motivation, both Ivan and Mahomed “seemed to be undermining” both the confessed communists’ argument that they “we were intelligent, humane, principled, substantial people who had joined the Communist Party because it stood for justice and democracy”. If they had been “consulted beforehand”, they “would have suggested some modification to Ivan’s line of defence”. Once they “saw the way the evidence was going”, they “wrote him a letter, urging him to remember the dignity of the Party, but by then it was too late for him to change course, even if he’d been prepared to”.91 Berrangé began his defence of Ivan by emphasising Ivan’s strong ties to the country. Not only was he a third-generation South African, he was also the great-grandson of Colonel Schermbrucker, whose pro-Boer

204

A. KIRKALDY

stance and illustrious military and civic history were outlined.92 Speaking isiXhosa fluently and growing up on the trading station with African children as playmates, Ivan developed a keen sense of the conditions under which Africans found themselves—“they were the only people living around us”. In his experience, “they always struck me as being very poorly off, very poverty-stricken”. These experiences, coupled with the political debates among teachers and pupils at Umtata High School shaped Ivan’s early thinking.93 His early sympathy for Africans and the position they found themselves in was reinforced by his work for the Chamber of Mines and then his war experiences in North Africa. His reading of the Guardian, and his interaction with Fred Carneson and Brian Bunting assisted him in forming an ideological framework to make sense of the violence, destruction and suffering that he saw—both away in the war and at home in South Africa. He was opposed to fascism, Nazism and any form of racism or the imposition of a colour bar. His war experiences reportedly sensitised him to: “the sort of senseless violence and destruction that was taking place, and the tragedy of it all”. He allegedly came to “absolutely hate and loath the idea of violence in any form”.94 The focus on violence in both Berrangé’s examination and the State’s cross-examination of Ivan was that this had been made a crucial element of the definition and tactics of communism by the third core state witness, the so-called “‘expert’ evidence on communism from red-hunting Professor Murray95 of Cape Town University”.96 According to Murray, who had already proved how superficial and confused his understanding of Communism was at the Treason Trial, the violent overthrow of the government by revolution was a core feature of Communism.97 This was also in line with the argument of Ludi but not of Beyleveld, who argued that “revolution […] did not mean violence but change. The Party had condemned acts of terrorism and insisted there must be no bloodshed”.98 Thus, in the defence strategy, if violence could be disavowed by the accused, it would be that more difficult (or impossible) to convict them of being communists. One is not certain of how genuine Ivan’s rejection of violence was— my own reading is that he supported the foundation and actions of MK. Lesley has stated on a number of occasions that Ivan had been very against the armed struggle. Hilary Hamburger and Rica Hodgson were equally insistent that he had fully supported it (even if he perhaps did not actively take part in sabotage or other acts himself). They thought that he had

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

205

possibly not told Lesley about this—he kept a great deal from her, partly to protect her if she was arrested. It is also possible that he knew that she would not have supported his actions here and thus chose not to discuss them with her. Denis Kuny was more guarded, stating that only Beylevled could have given evidence about Ivan’s attitude to violence (and the links between the Communist Party and MK) but he “steadfastly refused to do” this and “denied knowing about or being involved in” MK activities: So whether Ivan was actually involved in anything of that sort I can’t tell you. I somehow doubt it, he may well have known and he may well have been part of it organisationally, but I’m quite sure that Ivan never went out and blew up pylons and so on [… he] was pretty shrewd, you know, as to what he could do and couldn’t do and […] was tough enough and experienced enough and bright enough to be able to handle situations to his best advantage. You know, if he was involved in any armed struggle he wouldn’t have spoken about it, he wouldn’t have given himself away [even to Lesley].99

Raymond Eisenstein suggested that, like Moses Kotane, who had originally opposed violence, Ivan would have supported the armed struggle once this was Party policy. At the time of his arrest, Ivan “was the […] secretary of the Party. […] So he had been there a very long time and he was very high up, there is no way that he would not have supported it”. This kind of thinking was clearly revealed in another context which Raymond would discuss in detail with Ivan in prison, namely the Soviet invasion of Hungary. The Party leadership, the “millenarians” as Raymond calls them, wholly supported this action. Ivan, on the other hand: “was more than ambivalent”, he was strongly opposed to it. “He just kept his own counsel because it was more important to carry on the struggle here and now in South Africa”. For Raymond, that was “the difference between somebody like Ivan and some of the others. I don’t think there were many like him in that crowd”.100 We have also already seen that his participation in the launch of Radio Liberation suggests at least some degree of support for the move to armed struggle. Forming an opinion on the matter is made more complicated by the fact that, since the only concrete evidence against Ivan at the trial was that of Peter Beyleveld, his defence rested on rejecting any involvement in the Communist Party or any of its (by definition, illegal,) activities. Thus

206

A. KIRKALDY

Ivan confirmed that he was “just an ordinary member” of the Springbok Legion “Like so many other thousands were”, and confirmed that he did not hold any “executive or official position” in the “Friends of the Soviet Union”—“I remained a member I suppose for a couple of years, and then just faded out of it”. He also professed not to remember any patrons of either organisation. All he could remember was “that the Springbok Legion had the blessing of General Smuts”.101 Ivan recounted some of his own past history: he continued working for the Chamber of Mines for a short while after his demobilisation but moved to the Native Affairs Department as a means of attempting to “help the African people in some way”. He “felt a great pity for them”. He soon found that, beyond expressing kindness and sympathy, he was unable to do anything to alleviate racial discrimination or poverty. He thus took the opportunity offered by Brian Bunting and accepted the job of Office Manager and Sales Manager of the Guardian’s Johannesburg office. Lying, he stated that he was not a Communist at this stage.102 Questioned about one of the brawls on the steps of the City Hall between Communists and Afrikaner Nationalists in 1946, Ivan stated that he had been on his way to a concert in the City Hall. Seeing “quite a large crowd of young men” heckling the Communist Party speakers by “shouting about ‘Kaffirs’ and ‘Jews’ and things like that at the speakers”, he had “got involved”.103 Ivan denied that the Guardian was a Communist Party paper, claiming it was a liberal newspaper with a human-rights based leaning. The paper’s line “was sort of my idea of what should be done in South Africa. I supported it”. It consistently fought “against all forms of racial discrimination. Not only in South Africa, but anywhere in the world. They fought against all the discriminatory laws that affected not only the Africans, but other sections of the population as well, the Indians and Coloureds”, such as the pass laws, the Group Areas Act, the farm labour system, farm jails, the general living conditions of African people, slum conditions on the Reef and similar issues. “The Guardian always took up very strongly the demands of people for higher wages”. In doing so, “it was only expressing the demands of the Trade Union movement and the Congress movement and so on, for equal pay for equal work.” They fought for an end to “discrimination based on colour or race” and campaigned vociferously for “the cause of a universal franchise”.104 He got “very busy and very involved in” his “work on the newspaper”. “The paper was very popular” and its offices: “became a sort of mecca

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

207

for peoples, scores of people used to come into the office” looking for advice and assistance. Many were looking for advice attempting to avoid relocation under the Group Areas Act or for advice on the provisions of so-called influx control under the pass system. “Often a whole crowd of people would come in from the reserves”. Here Ivan’s linguistic skills proved to be invaluable.105 Just after the end of the war, circulation of the Guardian “ranged between 35 to 40 thousand copies per week”. Readership “was estimated at anything between 4 and 5 readers per copy”, giving “a readership of about quarter-of-a-million people”. Because of his work on the newspaper, Ivan was brought “into very close contact with the non-White people and their problems”. He attempted to “promote the sales of the paper as widely as possible”.106 With the election of the National Party government in 1948, the advertising revenue of the paper began to drop. This was a serious blow as it used to “rely almost entirely on the advertising”, although it also utilised revenue from sales and direct donations from the public. Ivan found himself “more busy than ever” trying to “raise money for the paper”. This brought him “into contact with very large numbers of people”. These included: “the African National Congress, the Indian Congress […] trade Union bodies and organizations and a large number of people generally because I used to go out and collect money”.107 Asked by Berrangé whether the Communist Party supported the Guardian, Ivan replied that the organisation had been “banned in 1949 or ’50”. Asked about the situation prior to that, he falsely said, “I don’t know if they supported the paper, I suppose they did.” He conceded that he had “come into contact with members of the Communist Party” and “other political parties” during the course of his fundraising activities. He justified this: “Well, we used to attend the meetings of all political parties which were held in an attempt to sell the paper at these meetings”. They “used to go to a lot of United Party meetings. […] We sold the paper mainly at these meetings”. They also “brought out a lot of different pamphlets” and Ivan was responsible for the sale and distribution of these.108 He also continued to work on the paper through its various name changes.109 While appearing more forthcoming about the history of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, Ivan was also economical with the truth here. There was a lot that he left unsaid. In his version of events, sales of the paper declined “because we were already being chased all over the place by the

208

A. KIRKALDY

police. […] Our sellers and agents were being victimized by the police, interfered with”. In an effort to rescue the finances of the paper, in about 1952, as a result of a trial run conducted in Jeppestown, they decided to start the Christmas hamper business. Theoretically, this “was a completely separate organisation from the newspaper”. However, included in the parcels of groceries was a subscription to the Guardian. “The whole idea was to boost sales of the newspaper”.110 Giving an idea of the scale of this project, Ivan would state that “in the first year or two, we started off with a few hundred people, but over a period of three or four or five years, it had increased to between 7 and 8 thousand per week”.111 He did not draw any salary for this work. With the banning of the Guardian and its successors, and most of their staff, he ended up working full-time for the club.112 Ivan’s evidence ignored the role that the paper played in funding the party and the fact that the majority of its staff were either Communist Party or ANC members. Besides Ivan, these included Fred Carneson, Mary Turok, Michael Harmel, M.P. Naicker and Ruth First. Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim, Robert Resha, Albie Sachs, Ronnie Kasrils, Wolfie Kodesh, Joe Gqabi and Looksmart Solwandle were MK saboteurs.113 Ivan continued to portray himself as a mild and rather naive liberal with no formal political allegiances. He admitted that, in 1963, after the first 90-day detentions had begun to take place, he was approached by Amnesty International to give information on detainees. This he did. “I understood them to be a very conservative and very anti-Communist organization”. They simply wanted information about cases where people had been detained, and the situation that their families were left in. He was able to supply this information as, after the introduction of the 90-day law, “it wasn’t very long before a lot of the family” of those who had been detained or found guilty and sentenced “started to come along to my office and to ask for assistance, if it could be given to them”. Among the organisations that he successfully approached for assistance were Defence and Aid and a Quaker Service.114 Stretching the bounds of credibility as far as they would go, in a total Pinocchio moment, Ivan then went on to explicitly deny any involvement in the Communist Party: I am not a communist, and Mr. Beyleveld is a liar. In this Court he has told a whole pack of lies about me. He has involved me in this trial. I have spent months in gaol all because of what he has said.115

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

209

Ivan even denied being a member of the Communist Party before its being declared an unlawful organisation in 1950 and stated that he had never been a member of the COD. While he frequently came into contact with their leadership and members, as well as representatives of the trade unions and SACTU, all of his work with these organisations was geared towards raising funds for the newspaper—he was not a fellow activist.116 Despite the lies, his denial of formal political activity, and what some of his co-accused saw as his disregard for “the dignity of the Party”, Ivan did not dispute the fact that he was deeply opposed to apartheid. He agreed with Berrangé that this was clearly revealed in the activities that he had been engaged in for most of his adult life—his activities on the various newspapers, his management of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, the assistance that he provided to the relatives of detainees, and his provision of data to Amnesty International. This was Berrangé’s line of defence too: Ivan was “very prominently a person who was strongly opposed to the Government and it’s racial and economic policy”. He was “very well known” in this light both by activists and by the police. As a result, from about 1950, the police used to raid the offices of the newspaper from time to time. They would invariably immediately follow these raids up with raids on his home. There had been nothing for them to find either at work or, especially at home, no “subversive or incriminating or illegal documents” had ever been found: “Certainly not in my home, and as far as I can remember not in the offices of the paper either. Otherwise I presume we would have been prosecuted”.117 Lesley has been quoted elsewhere in this work as stating that they had well-concealed hiding places at home. The fact that nothing significant was ever found is indicative of Ivan’s caution, also referred to elsewhere. Responding to the final question in Berrangé’s examination on behalf of the defence, Ivan portrayed the issuing of his 1963 banning order as being somewhat mysterious, uncalled for and inexplicable.118 The state prosecutor, Liebenberg then took over. During his cross-examination, Ivan continued to deny membership of, or serving the interest of, banned organisations such as the COD.119 He also professed ignorance of the aims and objectives of the Springbok Legion, claiming he had played no leadership role in this organisation. He had only joined the “Friends of the Soviet Union” because it existed to promote good relations between South Africa and Russia, a former ally in the war. He felt that it was important to understand the “Russian point of view” as the views of “the

210

A. KIRKALDY

so called western world […] were adequately represented in our newspapers”. He had attended “films” and “pictorial exhibitions” organised by the Society, and heard speeches which “spoke about” the achievements of communism in Russia, but had very little knowledge about the operation of the organisation, did not know when it changed its name to the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union and did not know whether it was still operating. He thought that it had just faded out of existence.120 Ivan continued to deny that he was a Communist. He said that he had gone to fight in the war because he believed that they were fighting for basic freedoms. While he had met Brian Bunting and Fred Carneson during the war, he only found out that Bunting was a communist afterwards. “Carneson never made any secret of the fact that he was a Communist”, but had failed to convince him to adopt this ideology. Ivan nevertheless “thought that some of the things and points of view that he expressed were sound”.121 He was also prepared to concede that there was nothing in the policy of the COD that he disagreed with, for example, “universal franchise, political rights for all, cooperation with the other bodies in the Congress movement”.122 He was also forced to concede that he had attended a significant number of meetings of the Communist Party, the COD and other affiliates of the Congress Alliance, and had interacted with all of the prominent communists of the time when the Party was still legal. However, he reiterated the untruthful assertion that any contact that he had had with these formations or people had only been about attempting to boost sales of the paper.123 This covered the possibility of surprise testimony about having seen him in attendance at meetings or interacting with “known communists” being introduced. Ivan remained Manager of the Johannesburg branch of the Guardian through its various name changes. In response to Liebenberg’s questions, he conceded that the paper took “A decidedly anti-Government line”. He also admitted that its policy was anti-imperialist, pro-Russian, and labelled the USA, England and France as the “war-mongering countries”. However, while it took a “Leftist” line, he did not agree that it was merely a Moscow puppet or the mouthpiece of the CPSA—it reported facts (such as the encircling of the USSR by US army bases) not covered by the other newspapers.124 It also covered the post-war independence struggles in Africa and Asia. This was because, during the war, there had been “a great deal of talk about democracy for all people, peace and all the rest

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

211

of it”. This had resulted in an intensification of struggles for independence in the post-war era and had led to an upsurge of interest in public interest and newspaper reporting about this. In doing so, he was obviously attempting to place this in a wider debate about democracy, rather than allowing it to be portrayed specifically as Communist attempts to stir up revolution. This was merely part of the duty of journalists to report the news—both national and international. He was on the business side of the various newspapers and it was the “editorial side” that dealt with the kinds of issues that he was being questioned about. He “only did the sales and the collection of money”.125 Ivan actually had more power than he let on in court. Interviewed by James Zug in 1993, Brian Bunting (Assistant Editor, 1946–1948, EditorIn-Chief, 1948–1963) stated that: As the paper became more consolidated as the sort of organ of the movement as a whole, [...] We always did things by consensus. It was a decision of the collective, not really the editorial board as such, but Fred Carneson and Ruth and Ivan, on the telephone.126

The Guardian was far more influential than may at first appear. As James Zug has pointed out, arguing that the newspaper was “merely a conduit for political organizations – a ‘Communist Party Organ’ or an ‘ANC paper’” is an oversimplification of its true role at the time. Admittedly it was controlled by Communists and other members of the Congress Alliance. Admittedly, it “retained its communist underpinnings and steadfastly supported the Soviet Union as the Cold War winds blew”.127 Its list of contributors “reads like a Who’s Who of South African politics and literature”. The manager of the Port Elizabeth branch was Govan Mbeki, a radical activist and father of future President Thabo. Brian Bunting, who edited the paper for twenty years, was the son of S.P. Bunting, one of the founders of the CPSA. The Johannesburg office was run by Ruth First, one of the most influential CPSA/SACP members and a crusading journalist. Jack Cope and Alex La Guma, “two of the leading South African novelists of the era”, reported from Cape Town. The international affairs column was written by Albie Sachs, later to become a Constitutional Court judge and author. In marked contrast to this radical array: “Much of the Guardian’s financial support came from Indian and Jewish shopkeepers. Ironically, while the newspaper vociferously denounced capitalism it was South Africa’s small-time capitalists that

212

A. KIRKALDY

kept the newspaper afloat”. In short, the paper “did not merely record events but it controlled them. It was not merely a weathervane, but a compass that had its own magnetic pull”.128 From the USSR, Liebenberg moved on to China, attempting to get Ivan to support the assertion that violent revolution was the only method to bring about dramatic social change. In contrast, in referring to this revolution, Ivan stated that “It was a pity that it had to be so violent”. He had just fought in the war and come to the conclusion that peaceful protest was a better method to use if this was at all possible.129 Liebenberg went on to question Ivan about the alleged role of communists in secretly manipulating the Congress movement. Ivan simply denied any knowledge of this, claiming that, while their goals were similar and there was some overlap in membership, the CPSA and the Congress movement (the ANC and the Indian Congress) ran their own campaigns. Since whites could not join the ANC or Indian Congress, there was no chance of the Communist Party dominating and manipulating the Congress movement.130 Ivan admitted that he had read the programme of the Communist Party, but had only done so once the trial had started and had not seen the document until then. While he agreed “with a lot of things that are said in that document”, he did not regard himself as “an expert on the theoretical side of all these questions”.131 He agreed that the capitalist system rested on the unfair exploitation of the workers and that imperialism was inextricably bound up with capitalism and could not “operate justly and fairly towards the colonial people”. Pressured by Liebenberg to admit that he viewed the South African government as a “fascist dictatorship”, Ivan answered evasively: “I don’t know if I would describe the system of Government in South Africa today as a fascist dictatorship, not when one compars (sic.) it for example to Germany, or to Italy”—it was: “an unfair system of Government, because the majority of the people in the country don’t take part in it”. He disagreed with most of the laws passed by the white government because they were discriminatory. This opened the way for Liebenberg to ask if the programme advocated “the establishment of a socialist form of government, or as they call it the dictatorship of the proletariate (sic.) in order to break the power of the fascist dictatorship”. To Liebenberg’s exasperation, Ivan replied that he was “not clear what they mean about the dicatorship of the proletariate (sic.)”.132 This prompted the irate reply from the state prosecutor that:

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

213

Please, Mr. Schermbrucker, ignorance won’t get you anywhere. You want to suggest that in all the years of your political activity you never bothered to read a book on Communist theory? --- I have read the odd books, but nothing very much.133

Ivan admitted to reading “a lot of the little pamphlets that were issued by the F.S.U. for example”, and also the liberal historian C.W. de Kiewiet’s A History of South Africa 134 but denied that he had read any specific books on Communist theory. He had never read anything by Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Marx or Engels. This led to an exchange: But you found yourself in good company, in the company of Communists for many years. For at least ten, twenty years you were always associated with people well versed in Communist theory, is that so? --- Yes, but my associations with these people were always from the point of view of the paper and the collection of money. I used to worry them a great deal about assisting us to collect money. We had to collect a great deal of money for the paper. Yes, that may be. That was only one part of your activity. What about mastering the basic theory of Communism in order to understand what these people you were associated with were teaching? --- They never used to discuss the theory of Communism with me or anything like that. If we had political discussions they were to a large extent about what was happening in the country, and perhaps what would make news in the paper, what would help to sell it.135

Ivan stated that he still believed that peaceful change was possible and the best solution for the future of the country.136 Mandela and others had reluctantly come to the conclusion that a sabotage campaign had to be waged because of the repeated failure of peaceful protest actions but personally “hated the idea or thought of any sort of violence”. They would abandon sabotage as a tactic if they were “allowed to put forward their point of view”, but this was unlikely to happen, which he found to be “very worrying and frightening”.137 There was enough goodwill and common sense among both blacks and whites to reach a peaceful and democratic solution. There was “no alternative” to secure the future of the country, but since a resolution was unlikely, he reluctantly conceded that the liberation movement would have no option but to continue to resort to violence, however much he disapproved of this.138

214

A. KIRKALDY

Liebenberg knew well that Ivan was a communist, and had more than enough grounds for his suspicion that he was prepared to support violent change, but proving this was turning out to be difficult. He tried a new tack, asking Ivan how he felt “about the international association of workers”—was there “a common bond existing between—amongst all the workers of the world?” Ivan replied: “I haven’t thought about it, but I don’t see - it is probably quite a good thing”. He claimed only to know about the existence of the World Federation of Trade Unions139 because it had been extensively reported about “in all the newspapers”, including Advance and New Age. While it may have supported Communist Party lines, he was unsure about this: “I don’t know very much about the Trade Union movement”.140 Liebenberg enquired about Ivan’s “own views”. Did he feel that it was necessary “for all the workers of the world to unite as Marx used to say?” Ivan replied that he didn’t have an opinion on this, but thought that “not only the working class people […] but everybody throughout the world is in favour of peace and international understand[ing]. It can only be a good thing”. In response to a further assertion that he “had quite an admiration for Russia” himself, Ivan replied: “I think that during the war that many millions of people did”. He was not certain whether he would choose the USA or the Soviet Union’s system of government if given the chance, and rejected the accusation that his activities indicated that he had already decided in favour of the latter. The form of government which he wished to see was “a fully democratic country”. He had “never thought” of the CPSA taking over the government of South Africa, whether by peaceful or violent means”.141 Pressed on whether he regarded Russia as a model to be followed, Ivan replied that he thought that he supported the ideals of “world peace and international peace and all sorts of things like that”. Some of the features of the economic system of the USSR fitted “in with the sort of ideals as expressed in the Freedom Charter here and so on”, and to that degree he supported them. He approved of the way that the South African government controlled essential parts of the economy, such as the Railways and ISCOR (the Iron and Steel Corporation). He nevertheless did not feel that the capitalist system should be demolished. Questioned further about whether or not the Freedom Charter required the expropriation and redistribution of land, Ivan replied that: “When they talk about a redistribution of the land, they probably mean that the state or the government should provide more land for the African people”. The

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

215

state was in a position to do this and should do so, making “more land available for the African people”.142 Liebenberg drew attention to Professor Murray’s argument that for the establishment of a people’s democracy, the land had to be redistributed and socialised, and the “means of production, banks, big money finance institutions must be socialised”. Ivan’s response was that “I am not suggesting that one must go and expropriate somebody’s land for example and hand it over”. Asked by Liebenberg if he would have any objections if these “were the objectives of the Freedom Charter”, he replied that he hadn’t “thought about these theoretical questions in detail like that”. Liebenberg suggested that this was strange: “Aren’t you regarded as one of the senior members in the Movement, Congress Movement?” Ivan replied that, while he had spent many years working on the Guardian, New Age and Advance newspapers, he did not think that he had “ever been regarded as anything more than just a person who has worked on the paper for a very long time”.143 Liebenberg then swung his examination to explore the relationship between Ivan and Piet Beyleveld, the only person able and willing to give direct evidence against him. He began by asking him whether or not they had ever had “any differences of opinion”. Ivan replied that he had known “him as somebody closely connected with the Congress movement, in the Congress of Democrats, and as far as the African National Congress was concerned, all that sort of thing”. He had always found him easy and pleasant to get on with and had regarded him as a friend. “I used to see him pretty frequently in connection with the paper and money and things like that” and “He supported me where he could”.144 Beyleveld had identified him as a member of the Central Committee to protect the real committee members and himself. While being tortured and interrogated, the Special Branch had suggested names of possible conspirators to Ivan. They had promised to keep him in detention until they “smashed” him “to pieces” if he did not implicate these people and others in communist activities. They further promised that, if he cooperated, they would pay him, protect him and offer him and his family a free trip out of South Africa. He was certain that Beyleveld had been subjected to similar threats and promises and collapsed under this pressure.145 He vehemently denied Beyleveld’s assertion that he (Ivan) had been invited to become a member of the underground party in 1956. In fact, “The people always complained that mostly I only came to see

216

A. KIRKALDY

them or mixed with them when I wanted them to assist with the collection of money”.146 Although he had become aware of the re-founding on the Communist Party from newspaper reports, he had not discussed “the question with any of the old members” such as the Bernsteins, the Slovos, Bram Fischer, Solly Matthews, Mannie Brown and Mac Maharaj. He simply was not interested in hearing about this.147 Liebenberg clumsily attempted to use Ivan’s interaction with known communists to claim that he had been involved in receiving funds from Ruth First and other communists, and funnelling funds to the Party and to a fortnightly sports newspaper run by Mannie Brown which was calling for a sports boycott against South Africa (which he actually was) but Ivan simply denied this flatly.148 As this fact was known, he could not deny that he had served on the committee running Fighting Talk (the newspaper of the Springbok Legion), co-edited by Ruth First and Rusty Bernstein, until its banning in 1963. Conceding that the publication had supported the Congress movement and was supported by the COD, Ivan nevertheless again denied being a communist. He dealt purely with business matters and sales, rather than editorial policy, on all publications that he was involved with.149 Answering further questions by the prosecutor, Ivan claimed to have had no dealings with the “overseas committee” of the Party, and denied knowing the identities of members of the Party who Beyleveled may have been attempting to shield: “I don’t know. How should I know?” He further denied having any direct knowledge of any of his co-accused as members of the Party.150 He had never been aware that they were members of the SACP and could not mention the name of a single person that he knew was a member of the re-launched party. “None of them came along and said ‘I am a member of the Communist Party’, or anything like that”.151 Liebenberg changed his line of questioning to probe Ivan’s connections with Amnesty International and other bodies which handled funds. He was attempting to prove that Ivan had channelled funds into underground operations (which he had). In denying this, Ivan confirmed Liebenberg’s assertion that this “was a committee which concerned itself with the position of dependants of political offenders”. They had small groups of members in England, America, Canada, Australia and other parts of the world. The members worked in groups of three, adopted a family and then supported them financially. On one occasion, Amnesty had handed over about £120 to Ivan in connection with a political trial.

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

217

For the rest, none of their funds were used for the defence of political prisoners. Funds for this purpose came from Defence and Aid, which collected money both in South Africa and abroad. Ivan assisted the latter group in collecting funds. He was not a committee member, but had friends, such as Elizabeth Lewin (its secretary), who worked for it. The Amnesty Committee and the Defence and Aid committee operated independently of each other. However, he and Elizabeth had worked together for Amnesty.152 Liebenberg probed the funds raised by Arnold’s Christmas Hampers. He was unable to trap Ivan into admitting that they had been used for anything other than funding the newspaper, a misrepresentation of their true purpose. Ivan truthfully said that he personally made no money out of this until after the banning of the newspaper. His salary from the paper was between R170 and R180 a month. While he could have earned much more elsewhere, he “was interested in the work that” he was doing. He “was able to live comfortably”. Many people were “prepared to make sacrifices for things that they believe in”. He had made no attempt “to conceal that” he “believed very much in the struggle for a happy, peaceful South Africa of all races living together”. Ivan likened his situation to that of somebody working in the civil service. While not “overpaid”, many were “dedicated to their work”, felt that they were of “some service to the community” and were “willing to do it”.153 Liebenberg challenged this version, stating that Ivan was in fact “in a special category”. He was “being constantly visited by the security branch police”, his “personal freedom was hampered, restricted” and he had suffered the “very serious inconvenience” of being banned. He was “liable to be arrested under the 90 days Clause”, was under surveillance and was raided and questioned. Despite this, he was prepared to work for a “newspaper which was struggling to exist” for a much lower salary than he would have earned elsewhere. Ivan replied that he “was prepared to undergo” all of this for what he “believed in […] I was prepared to play my part in the struggle which I believed it correct and right to do so”.154 The prosecutor attempted to run with this, stating that Ivan had seen fit to introduce his personal history, attempting to show that he was “descended from a family of ancestors who were soldiers, gallant warriors”. Just as they had gone to war for what they believed in, so Ivan had fought in the Second World War. On his return after the conclusion of peace, he had fought his “first battle at a Communist Party meeting in 1946”. Ivan responded that: “I wouldn’t put it like that. I’m rather

218

A. KIRKALDY

proud of what my forefathers had done for South Africa”. In going to fight in the war, he had simply done what “millions of others” had done. The fight on the steps of the town hall could “hardly be described as a battle”. Rather, it was “a general scuffle and disturbance”. Six million Jews had died in the war. He had responded in anger because of this and because he “didn’t want to think that all the time” that he had “spent in the army was entirely wasted”.155 Liebenberg attempted to use this sign of what he saw as “militancy” to suggest that Ivan had “allied” himself “with the congress movement, the liberation movement to fight for the deliberation [sic. – liberation]) of the people in this country” Ivan replied: “From a peaceful point of view, yes”. However, while he “would always regret violence”, if the continued denial of their rights forced violence on people he “would find it difficult to condemn”. Throughout the trial: “I said I believe and I say it once more, in an extension of democratic rights and a free democratic multi-racial system of society in South Africa”. The prosecutor used this to suggest that Ivan may think that copying the October Revolution in the USSR was the only way for this to be achieved in South Africa. Ivan replied that, hypothetically speaking, he would prefer to live under a socialist, rather than a capitalist, system of government. Under socialism “people get a better deal, that they earn good wages, that there’s social security and employment and things like that”. However, as far as he could see, it was unlikely that there would be a revolution in this country: “I can’t agree with anybody who suggest[s] that South Africa is in a revolutionary state or anything like that at the moment”.156 Rather than discussing the theoretical advantages or disadvantages of socialism and capitalism, or whether or not there was the possibility of a revolutionary situation developing here, he felt that it was more urgent for “the South African Government to sit down and discuss the problems of this country with the non-Whites”.157 If the government continued to resort “to violence to smash people’s legitimate demands and so on and so forth”, he “would find it very difficult to condemn people if they retaliated in some sort of way”. However, he “could not and would not support the masses of the people themselves, taking to arms and fighting”. Despite this, encouraging the mass of the people to demand political and economic rights was “a perfectly legitimate thing”.158 In this he found no reason to differ with Communist Party members, although he had not joined the Party.159 In his opinion, “we seem to have got into the habit in South Africa of labelling everything that one has to say against the government, as being

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

219

communist or pro-communist”—true words indeed for the situation from the 1960s until the achievement of democracy in 1994.160 Ivan claimed not to “know very much about” the activities of the anti-apartheid committee, but said that he thought that they supported “sanctions and boycotts”. He himself agreed with the call for sanctions.161 Confirming that he wanted change in line with the Freedom Charter, he denied that this was a socialist document. He did not envisage a situation where the “entire means of production” would immediately be “taken away from the property owners and all that sort of thing”. When talking about the land situation, the Charter was not envisaging the seizure and nationalisation of the land, rather “that there should be more equitable distribution of land”.162 The Communist Party may have seen the achievement of the demands of the Freedom Charter merely as a first step towards the achievement of socialism but he personally saw it as the first major step towards achieving a democratic, equitable and just society.163 Responding to further questions about funding, Ivan said that he and Rica Hodgson ran a bail fund and paid bail for many people. This was started in the second half of 1961 to deal with the many applications for bail “in political cases”. In addition to funds collected in South Africa on a loan or donation business, people in England sent donations. There was a steady stream of cash flowing in and there was generally between £1,200 and £1,300 available. Rica “had the main say” in the administration and moneys for bail were paid through Harold Wolpe’s office—James Kantor and Partners. Some time around the time that Rica left the country, she instructed Ivan to withdraw R1,800 from the bail fund and to pay it over to Harold Wolpe. Questioned by Liebenberg as to whether or not the money was subsequently used to help her and Jack “on their ways”, Ivan replied that he did not know whether or not this was the case. He thought that it was after they had already left.164 In addition to the activities of the others, Ivan also raised funds for the account. For example, he raised £500 from Cecil Williams (one of the leadership of the Springbok Legion and the man who was driving Mandela when he was arrested). Late in 1962, he had asked for his money back. Since a lot of the cash was “out on bail”, they had agreed to pay him back at the rate of “£100, £200 at a time […] in the same way as other people who contributed money to the Bail Fund”. They were “constantly trying to raise money from other people to replace the money that had been drawn out by the original contributors”.165

220

A. KIRKALDY

Sometimes the fund “lost on the deal” when people estreated bail. The controllers attempted to get assurances from those who they were funding that they would not do this and would attempt to recover the cash in such cases but were not always successful. One such person was Joe Molefe. Although he was one of the Treason Trial accused, he seems to have joined the PAC later. Ivan wrote to the Rev. Blaxall, who knew him well, to see if he could help in recovering the money.166 He had said that he would see what he could do, but the money was never recovered. It had been intended that this would be used “as part of the repayment to Cecil Williams”. Williams eventually got most of his money back, being repayed as other money came in.167 The last main strand of Ivan’s defence was a denial of his links to Radio Liberation. He said that he had lent his car—a station waggon—to Bram Fischer after the death of his wife, Molly. Bram’s car having been destroyed in the fatal accident, the family only had a small car remaining. After her funeral, he, his daughters and some friends went down to Cape Town. They had been stopped on the way. Ivan denied Liebenberg’s assertion that the police had found radio parts in their search of the car but stated that Bram had told him “that they had found underneath the seat of the car a piece of paper on which was written something about radio requirements”. He had “no knowledge” of this. He did not know how it could have got there. Only naming people who were safely in exile, he stated that “Lots of different people used to drive” the car as “It was used for the business”. Wolfie Kodesh was one of those who used it. Rica Hodgson used it “extensively. A few other people used to borrow it from time to time”. He had “never seen the document” before and thus could not comment on Liebenberg’s assertion that it contained information about places to buy radio parts. Ivan was involved in establishing Although he claimed that he knew “nothing about it”, Ivan had been involved in establishing Radio Liberation and perhaps after this.168

Judgement and Sentence Regional Court Magistrate S.C. Allen delivered his 35,000 word judgement on 2 April 1965. It took three hours to deliver.169 The fourteen accused were all “charged with the crimes of being members of the Communist Party [Count 1], taking part in the activities of the Communist Party [Count 2] and performing acts calculated to further the achievement of the objects of Communism [Colunt 3]”. In response to

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

221

defence argument, the state had agreed to request “the Court to treat Count 2 as an alternative only to Count 3”. All the accused had originally pleaded not guilty. In the opinion of the Court, Bram Fischer had “in effect admitted guilt by becoming a fugitive from Justice”.170 He would face trial later when recaptured. During the course of the trial, Jean Middleton, Ann Nicholson, Costa Gazides, Paul Trewhela, Sylvia Neame and Flo Duncan had “indicated from the dock that they were, in fact, communists”. Thus, the judgement only had to deal with Ivan Schermbrucker, Eli Weinberg, Esther Barsel, Norman Levy, Lewis Baker, Molly Doyle and Hymie Barsel.171 Allen lambasted the accused and their defence counsel for the tactics that they had used. It appeared to him that some of the accused had been “waiting for the whole of the State case to be revealed before piecing together their defence”. Owing to these tactics, “hundreds of pages of cross-examination” and argument “became superfluous when Accused 7 to 12 in the middle of the defence case suddenly admitted their guilt”. Therefore only about a quarter of the record was relevant to the judgement.172 Allen found that, although Beyleved was the only witness to give evidence against Ivan, this evidence was admissible. He had found Beyleveld to be a credible witness and was “somewhat hesitant to believe” Ivan “when he has said that he was never a communist, and was never asked to be a Communist”.173 He could not have held the positions on the various newspapers that he did if he were not a Communist. He also associated with many known Communists. It was clear from his evidence that his “political views” inclined “strongly to the Left”.174 It was “extremely difficult to believe that” he “would not have joined the Communist Party before 1950 when it was perfectly legal to do so”. It was: a lot harder to believe that he was never asked to become a member even when it was a legal organization. The Communist Party seems to be his natural poltical home and the home of his associates and employer. [...] I find it difficult to believe that the Communist Party could forego having a man of his calibre in the Party.175

Allen found the evidence of police torture of Ivan, contained in the letter smuggled out of prison, to be implausible because he had not mentioned all of the details in his evidence—surely if they were true, these

222

A. KIRKALDY

were the very things that he would have emphasised in his evidence? Had the police dictated what he should write in his statement, as Ivan had claimed, surely he would have referred to this in the smuggled letter? Allen also found it difficult to believe that Ivan could not remember what he had written in the statement dictated to him by police “owing to fatigue”.176 It was likely that the letter smuggled out of prison was either “blatant and untruthful propaganda” or an attempt to provide “material on which to base a civil claim” against the police.177 These findings completely ignore the psychological effects that torture may have on the mind and memory of detainees or the ability to present all the details of this stressful period some time later in court. Allen found that Ivan had deceived the Rev. Blaxall about the extent to which he had “absolutely guaranteed more than half of the money in” the bail fund. Looking at his “evidence as a whole”, he found Ivan to be “unscrupulous and having little regard to the truth”. It was “almost possible from his association, activities, mental outlook and background to draw a common sense inference that he is a Communist”. This inference was supported by “strong accomplice evidence” from Beyleveld. Ivan was “at best a most unreliable and unconvincing witness and […] portions of his evidence could not be regarded “as being reasonably and possibly true”.178 Allen regarded the evidence against Hymie Barsel to be insufficient for a conviction and he was found not guilty and discharged. The case against Bram Fischer would be resumed after his recapture. All of the remaining accused were found guilty on all charges, despite the lack of supporting evidence. “The evidence was clear that the accused had collectedly and individually acted in a common purpose – the replacement of the present state of the republic by a dictatorship of the working classes”.179 It was revealed that four of the accused had previous convictions. Eli Weinberg had “a previous conviction for intimidation”. Costa Gazides had been found guilty for “being found in the offices of the Security Police”, Sylvia “Neame for entering locations without a permit” and Molly Doyle for attending prohibited meetings. The trial had “created a record of 2,861,000 words for a trial in a lower court”.180 Pleas for mitigation were heard on 12 April 1965 and the sentence passed on 13 April 1965.181 In determining sentence, Magistrate Allen focused on the allure of the CPSA/SACP:

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

223

The accused in this case have been convicted under two counts under the Suppression of Communism Act. [...] The chief and obviously the most important argument advanced in mitigation is that the accused became and were active Communists in order to give practical expression to their moral convictions regarding the political and material advancement of the non-Europeans in South Africa. No good reasons have, however, been advanced as to why the accused, if sincere and genuine in these views, did not join one or more of the many legal organizations also striving, and striving in a more sensible and practicle [sic.] way for the upliftment and advancement of the underprivileged. There are political parties which are legal and which aim at the political uplift of the non-European by legal and constitutional means. There are race relations organizations which attempt to focus attention on the needs of the non-Europeans. There are church bodies and charitable organizations doing practical work of an educational and financial nature amongst non-Europeans. Some of them have indirectly been mentioned in this case. Most organizations of this nature need all the assistance and support that they can get. The genunine idealist in South Africa will be able to find a field of labour without having to join the Communist Party. One feels, therefore, that the accused preferred to take risks of belonging to the Communist Party, solely because it was the Communist Party. I bear in mind the defence contention that the group of which some of the accused were members was for the most part engaged at the time in propaganda work.182

Ivan (43) and Eli Weinberg (56) were each sentenced to five years imprisonment. As “minor office bearers in the Communist Party”—Area Committee members—Esther Barsel (40), Norman Levy (35), Lewis Baker (54) and Jean Middleton/Strachan (26) were sentenced to three years. Ann Nicholson (24), Paul Trewhela (23), Sylvia Neame (26), Flo Duncan (31) and Molly Doyle (28) were seen as “clearly part of the rank and file of the Communist Party”. They were each sentenced to two years. As “a new recruit to the Communist Party”, Costa Gazides (28) was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.183 On 6 August 1965, represented by Ismail Mahomed and Denis Kuny, Ivan, Eli Weinberg, Esther Barsel, Norman Levy, Lewis Baker and Molly Doyle appealed against their conviction. Despite the evidence presented in the trial resting overwhelmingly on the testimonies of Ludi and Beyleveld, Judge J. Galgut of the Supreme Court dismissed all of the appeals,184 endorsed by J.P. de Wet, Judge President of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal.185 As was usual in political cases, Ivan and his comrades would

224

A. KIRKALDY

all serve their full sentences. Upon their release, they would immediately be issued with restrictive orders.186

Reflections on Activism---Pre-incarceration Letters Elizabeth Lewin/Franklin had argued that the thing that Ivan missed the most during his trial, and his subsequent imprisonment, was his family: Most of all, he loved his family. He was so proud of Jill and Peter. He wrote so much of missing them and of his pride in them. His and Lesley’s love and respect for each other, was critically important in his life and daily activities. He wrote of her with such love and pride, of the days he saw her in court, of her courage and support, and with much pain and worry about the welfare of the family without him.187

This mutual love, pride and care is clearly expressed in the final letters written just before Ivan’s imprisonment.On 2nd and 3rd April 1965, after being found guilty in the judgement but not yet sentenced, Ivan wrote a letter to Lesley summing up his convictions and his feelings about his situation. It presents an honest and revealing insight into his motivations and feelings, unlike the evidence that he gave in court. Beyond demonstrating that his principles had left him with no alternative but to take the actions that he did, that the struggle was just one enjoying overwhelming local and international support, that it was occurring in the context of liberation movements in other parts of the world, and that it would eventually be victorious, this letter clearly reveals his growing disillusionment and disgust with activists who had left the country to go into exile: Darling Lesley Jill and Peter Well my darlings so this is it, now we know for sure what I suppose we have known and felt in our hearts for sometime. I dont really know how this letter will turn out, but I shall just write things down, as I have felt and how they come to me, and I want you to know that this is really what I feel and from the bottom of my heart. As soon as the magistrate started his judgement to day I think we all knew that he was going to find us guilty. I think his judgement was a blood vicious and unfair one but what can we expect with the prevailing political climate in this country. But the point is this my darlings, things

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

225

won’t and can’t remain the same as they are. It does not matter how depressing things may seem at the moment, it is only a temporary state of affairs, I am sure of that. The Govt to me seems to be drunk with power, they think that they can go on indefinitely treating millions of human beings as if they are so much dirt. But I am convinced they won’t get away with it – this is not Germany or Spain or Portugal. There is far too much against them. Here we lie at the bottom of a huge continent, almost surrounded by millions upon millions of people who have sworn not to tolerate the policies of the Govt. In addition to that there are countless millions of others throughout the world who are against apartheid. As the Govt continues its mad, crazy racial policies they make more and more enemies, and in the rapidly shrinking world of today, with the countless millions of non whites emerging to take their rightful place in the sun, this crazy system must collapse. With most of the people of the world on our side how can we lose? It may take a bit of time but in the end we will win, You know we will my darlings. I hope you are not thinking that this is an absurd time to be giving you a political lecture or pep talk. I feel that I must say these things to you so that you will understand my state of mind. My god, Lesley Jill and Peter I would give anything in the world, as I have told you again and again, to be with you all. You know that I love you, and that you mean more to me than anything else. But I want you to know that I don’t go to gaol with hopelessness and despair in my heart. I certainly don’t go as a martyr. I know and you know my darlings that I shall hate and loathe every minute of it. That every minute of it I shall be loving you all, missing you so terribly much. But I do not believe that it will be in vain. If I thought this, I could not write you such a letter. You have always known how strongly I felt about the right of all our people in S.A. to take part equally in the affairs of our country. And believing this, and taking part in this struggle, how could I when things began to get difficult, pack up like so many other whites, and clear out, like so many of them, rationalizing my way out. This would have been so dishonest. I dont want to go to gaol Lesley I shall, in all probability shed some bitter tears, for I am only human, I love you, I love my children and I love our many wonderful friends. But they will not be tears of despair my love. [...]How can I say to an African that we must struggle for a united nonracial South Africa, and then in the middle of this, turn round and say ‘I’ve had enough’ ‘its hopeless’ ‘I see no future for the white people’ and then get out. What about my black brothers who still believe that there is a future for all of us here in S.A. Thousands of them are sitting in prisons all over the country, because they have believed and fought for this policy.

226

A. KIRKALDY

I do not believe that all is lost, that the struggle is futile – to believe that would be to admit defeat. [...] It would be terrible to go to gaol feeling that all has been in vain, that it was to no purpose, And I will not be doing this. Can you understand this my darlings. I will be with thousands of men and women who have fought for what they believe in, and who have been prepared to stand by their principles. It is going to be so hard to leave you Lesley and Jill and Peter and if you want to cry, cry my darlings, and get it over with. But don’t despair. Please don’t give in to despair. Please dont think it is all hopeless ’cause you know its not. [...] Of course my darling its going to be so hard, but time will pass, and it will pass quickly, and then we will also be together again, and we will still have a wonderful life together. I know we will. We have so much love for each other and this will see us through. Jilly and Peter I have so much love for you. I care for you so much. I admire and have so much confidence in you. All the time I will be thinking of you, never forgetting you. And I know that you will always love me and never forget me. You must look after each other, love each other always and take great care of your Mother who is the most wonderful person that I know. Don’t ever be afraid to turn to Mummy or any of our wonderful friends for help and advice, they will always be there to give it to you, they have promised me this, so do not worry. My main concern Jilly and Peter is that you should look after yourselves so that one day we will all live our lives together again. I know that you will be proud of your daddy, just as I am so proud of all of you. Please dont be sad. Enjoy yourselves, work hard, play hard and try to live a normal life. [...] Be brave, have confidence. And my beloved Lesley, it is such a comfort my darling to know that you are with me in all this. To know that you would never have had me be any different. To know that you would never have had me run away [...] I could never have done it to any of those dear, wonderful, gentle people. They, you and I, and our children my darling, will play our part for many many years to come in the future of our country. And always I shall love you, think of you, dream of you, embrace you all the time, never never forgetting you for one moment. I am so proud of your courage and wonderful spirit Lesley, I love and admire you so much my darling. I know that my heart will sometimes break with love and longing for you, and I know that you will feel the same. But this is only goodbye for a short while my darling. Remember in our present sadness that you and I can still write every few months, and that we will still see each other too with every six months [sic.]. [...] About our personal affairs my darling. Mostly you will just have to use your own good common sense, I suggest you keep the Hampers going

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

227

this year, but you will have to cut staff to one or two, and then finally decide. We should try and keep the house for as long as possible, but we just cant afford to pay William [the gardener] all those wages my darling, I realize that you will probably have to draw on some capital but for as long as possible, we should try and keep it intact or else it will soon whittle away. Dont be hesitant to take help from friends my love, I am not proud. One day perhaps we can pay it back. Our house means so much to so many people it would be nice for them, for you and for the children to keep it, apart from the fact that it is essential for your work. [...] I wanted to get all this off my chest my love, and I feel much better for it all. Lesley, Lesley have much courage and good cheer. We have so much love to live on my darling. I adore you always. [...]188

Responding, Lesley explained the “courage and strength” that she had been given by Ivan’s letter. She also set out to put Ivan at ease—she had the full support of their friends and would manage to cope: Ivan my darling, your very moving and quite wonderful letter has filled me with so much courage and strength, that today I can think and see my way ahead more closely than over the past few months. Your belief and faith in people will always be the most vital thing about you my dearest. It is going to be heartbreaking some of the time but I shall always, always have you near, deep down inside me. Ivan, your love and admiration for me makes me feel so precious and wrapped up and at the same time so wonderfully warm and close to you – you are just everything to me Ivan – everything. Have shown your letter to our friends and [...] they say please do not worry, it just goes without saying that they will look after us.189

This was followed two days later by a letter in which Lesley reiterated that, however hard the days ahead were likely to prove to be, and how the family would need to scale back their lifestyle, they would cope. Ivan my darling seeing you today has made me realize that we have in a sense turned over a page + now must go forward – it is going to be difficult to live such a life apart from each other but after talking to you have adopted a little of your philosophy. What I love about you Ivan is your decisiveness; (ie) this is how it is going to be + we can do nothing else at the moment except live with it. But my dearest one I am going to miss you like hell – there are going to be such long long days ahead – I promise you not to despair + always look to the future + being together again. [...]190

228

A. KIRKALDY

Notes 1. Jean Middleton, Convictions, A Woman Political Prisoner Remembers, Randburg, Ravan Press, 1998, pp. 35–36; 51–52; Phyllis Naidoo “One of the Forgotten Stalwarts”, The Witness, 24 October 2008, at http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showco ntent&global%5B_id%5D=15189, accessed 10 February 2012; “Legendary Heroes of Africa, Esther Barsel”, citation for Liberian stamp series commemorating Jews and the South African Liberation Struggle, at http://legendaryheroesofafrica.com/Esther_ Barsel.html, accessed 17 March 2012. 2. “Torture in South Africa”, Extracts from the Report of the UN Special Committee on the policies of Apartheid of the Govt. of the Republic of South Africa, A/5825, 8 December 1964, in Transition, No. 50 (October 1975–March 1976), pp. 52–57, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935000?origin=JSTOR-pdf&, accessed 8 March 2012, p. 54 (316). 3. Norman Levy was born in Johannesburg in 1929. His parents, Mark and Mary, were Lithuanian immigrants. He and his twin brother, Leon, were the youngest of four children. Leon was a founder member of SACTU. He later became its National President. Norman matriculated in 1946. Having been an activist since his early teens, played an active role in the YCL (YCL), followed by the CPSA. After the banning of the CPSA, Levy continued to participate in ANC campaigns, particularly those which led to the Defiance Campaign in 1952/1953 and those against the introduction of Bantu Education. He was also involved in the meetings leading up to the founding of the COD. By this time, he had become a member of the underground SACP. In 1954, he participated in events leading to the establishment of the FEDSAW. The Bantu Education Act came into force in April 1955. Levy and Helen Joseph represented the COD on a regional committee of the African Education Movement (AEM). They played a major role in setting up Cultural Clubs, so-named in order to evade the provisions of the Act which paced education for Africans in the hands of the state. These clubs provided “a temporary alternative to Bantu education for the African children whose parents had heeded the African National

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

229

Congress’s (ANC) call to boycott government schools.” Levy also participated in the Congress of the People. Between 1957 and 1960, he served as the secretary of the National Consultative Committee (NCC), which facilitated consultation between the various congresses. Levy’s flat was frequently raided by the police. He and Leon were arrested in December 1956 and charged in what became the Treason Trial. The Transvaal Education Department suspended him as a teacher until he was acquitted in December 1957. In February 1958, Levy married Philippa Murrell. They had three children and divorced in 1974. Levy left teaching in January 1960 and began studying for a degree at the University of the Witwatersrand. Philippa was detained when the State of Emergency was declared in 1960. However, since the regulations under which she had been arrested had not yet been published in the Government Gazette, the police were forced to release her. She and the children fled to Swaziland, where they remained until the State of Emergency ended in August. They then moved back to Johannesburg. Levy continued to work underground until his detention in July 1964. He spent 54 days in solitary confinement at Pretoria Local prison. In the trial of Bram Fischer and Thirteen Others, he was found guilty and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Six days before his release in April 1968, his banning orders were renewed, “prohibiting him from work, meetings, participating in politics and social gatherings.” He was also under house arrest from dusk to dawn. Levy and his family went into exile in the United Kingdom. First employed as a lecturer at the Bromley College of Technology, in 1972 he became a history lecturer at the Middlesex Polytechnic (later renamed Middlesex University. He taughts there until he returned to South Africa. In the interim, he obtained a PhD in Economic History from the London School of Economics. In 1979, Levy joined the ANC’s London Education Committee (LEC). As the ANC’s education officer, he obtained scholarships for students from the Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College in Tanzania, and for students in the front-line states. He also gave seminars and workshops to South African trade

230

A. KIRKALDY

unionists brought to Zimbabwe and Zambia by the International Labour Organization (ILO). He was later commissioned by the ANC and ILO to plan for skills training for a post-apartheid South Africa. From the 1980s onwards, he became increasingly active in liberation movement structures and initiatives. Returning to South Africa in 1991, Levy began working towards the transformation of the Public Service. His work in this field was assisted by his appointment as Head of Community and Labour Studies (CCLS) at the University of Durban Westville. He married Carole Silver, Professor of English Literature in 1991. In 1996, he was appointed as Deputy Chairperson to the Presidential Review Commission (PRC) for the Transformation of the Public Service. He moved to Cape Town and was appointed as Professor Extraordinary at the School of Government at the University of the Western Cape. Before his retirement, Levy served on an inter-ministerial committee responsible for placing apartheid documents in the public domain (2003–2004). He also led a ministerial task team on “Balancing Secrecy and Transparency in a Democracy”. After his retirement, he continued to write and participate at national and international conferences. [South African History Online, “Norman Levy”, at http://www.sahist ory.org.za/people/norman-levy, accessed 17 March 2012.] 4. “Torture in South Africa”, p. 55 (322). 5. Z. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’ Trial”, The African Communist, 22, 1965, 48–49. Z. Nkosi was the pseudonym for Brian Bunting. 6. Ibid., 49. 7. “The State Versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others: Judgement, Sentences and Appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s Preparatory Examination and Charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965/Abram Louis Fischer et al. (Defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463 (9 reels microfilm (positive): 35 mm), Reel 1, Charges, pp. 1–3. See also “Arrest of Abram Fischer”, Tribune Magazine, 26 November 1965, at http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/art icle/26th-november-1965/16/arrest-of-abram-fischer, accessed 1 November 2011; Stephen Clingman, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998, p. 348; Nkosi,

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

231

“The ‘Fischer’”, 46; “Detainees in Court Today”, Rand Daily Mail, 28 September 1964, 13; “Sensation as Bram Fischer Trial Opens, Beyleveld Gives Evidence for the State”, The Star, 17 November 1964, 3. 8. Hymie Barsel was born in 1920 in Fordsburg, Johannesburg. His parents, Faiga and Moishe Barsel, both of Litvak heritage, were strong Zionists. An epileptic, he was treated by Dr Max Joffe, also a Zionist. Joffe convinced him that only through communism could anti-Semitism be ended and all humanity achieve equality. Hymie became increasingly involved in the youth structures of the liberation movement. He also started working as an organizer, and then as secretary, of the “Friends of the Soviet Union”. In this capacity, he would organise FSU branches throughout South Africa. Spending some time in Durban, he worked with the ANC and the Natal Indian Congress (NIC). It was here that he encountered the violence perpetrated by the Grey Shirts, a Fascist organisation. He was also assaulted on a number of occasions while taking part in protests against the Black Shirts (another Fascist organisation). During the War, in addition to his tasks at the FSU, he was secretary of the Johannesburg Medical Aid for Russia, which arranged for medical assistance for the Soviet Union, and was also a member of the CPSA and the COD. [“Legendary Heroes of Africa, Hymie Barsel”, citation for Liberian stamp series commemorating Jews and the South African Liberation Struggle, at http://legendaryheroesofafrica. com/Hymie_Barsel.html, accessed 3 March 2013.] Esther Barsel was born in Raguva, in Lithuania, in 1924. She was the daughter of Sonia Garenblumaite of Raguva and Joseph Levin of Kubelake, Ukraine. In order to escape pogroms in the Ukraine, her father had moved to Raguva in about 1915. To avoid detection, he would later assume “the identity of a dead man - Lieb Lurije”. The latter, a widower, had been a merchant who had died in 1922. He dropped this identity on his arrival in South Africa in 1926. Esther and her mother joined him in 1927. He bought a farm store near to Middelburg, sold this in about 1936, and the family moved to Johannesburg. Esther joined the YCL at the age of fourteen. She subsequently worked as a secretary/bookkeeper for the “Friends of the Soviet Union”. There she met Hymie. They married in

232

A. KIRKALDY

1945. [“Legendary Heroes of Africa, Esther Barsel”; “Legendary Heroes of Africa, Hymie Barsel”; South African History Online, “Esther Barsel”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/estherbarsel, accessed 17 March 2012 (quotation).] Hymie and Esther worked together as organisers of the Congress of the People. Hymie was active in the selling and distribution of COP literature. In 1956, they were among the organisers of the Women’s March. Arrested in December, Hymie was one of the accused in the Treason Trial. Esther was left behind with the children, Sonia (8 years), Linda (5 years) and Merele (8 months). Charges against him were dropped in April 1959. [“Legendary Heroes of Africa, Hymie Barsel”; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 47, 55.] On 3 July 1964, Esther and Hymie were detained by the Security Police at their home in Yeoville. Both were members of the SACP and had been listed as communists after its banning. They were given limited opportunity to make arrangements for the care of their children. [“Legendary Heroes of Africa, Hymie Barsel”; Naidoo “One of” (quotation).] In the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial, Hymie was found not guilty and discharged. He was placed under house arrest from 1965 to 1968. Esther was sentenced to three years hard labour, serving these in Barberton Women’s Prison. After her release in April 1968, she was banned for about twenty years. [Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 46, 47, 55; “Legendary Heroes of Africa, Esther Barsel”.] The authorities subjected both Hymie and Esther to ongoing harassment. As with other banned people, they were only allowed to see one other person at a time and were prevented from communicating with any banned person besides each other. They were also not allowed to attend religious services. When Feiga, Hymie’s mother, died, Esther was refused permission to attend her funeral. On one of their weekly sign-in sessions at the police station, Hymie was instructed to sign the “Parole Book” instead of the “Banning Order Book” kept in the same place. He was charged by the police for signing the wrong book. [“Legendary Heroes of Africa, Esther Barsel”.] Hymie died in 1987. When Chris Hani, the SACP leader, returned from exile in 1990, Esther served as his private secretary.

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

233

He was assassinated on 10 April 1993. Esther continued to fight for workers’ rights. As late as 2006, “she was blogging information about the long-defunct ‘Friends of the Soviet Union’.” She actively supported same sex marriage in South Africa and counted President Mandela among her friends. Esther died in Johannesburg in 2008. [“Legendary Heroes of Africa, Esther Barsel”; Naidoo “One of”; South African History Online, “Esther Barsel”, (quotation).] 9. Jean Middleton was born in Durban in 1928. Having matriculated from Durban Girls’ College, she obtained an MA in English the University of Natal and then became a teacher. She was briefly married to Harold Strachan, later imprisoned for publishing descriptions of prison life in the Rand Daily Mail. [Denis Herbstein, “Jean Middleton Obituary”, Guardian, 3 January 2011, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/ 03/jean-middleton-obituary, accessed 17 March 2012; South African History Online, “Jean Clarice Middleton”, at http:// www.sahistory.org.za/people/jean-clarice-middleton, accessed 5 March 2013.] Having moved to Johannesburg, Middleton became active in the COD. Members often met at small “tea parties”. At one of these, she was invited to join the underground Communist Party. She became active in distributing leaflets and in spray-painting anti-regime slogans. Dismissed from her job at a state school after a visit there from the Security Police, she was taken on as a teacher at a private college owned by a fellow COD member. On one occasion, while on the run, Nelson Mandela met Winnie and their daughters at her flat. She left after their arrival. Within weeks of the Rivonia Trial, she was arrested. [Herbstein, “Jean Middleton Obituary” (quotations); Middleton, Convictions, pp. 9, 11–15, 26.] As the police hammered on her door in July 1964, she shredded a document and flushed it down the toilet. When they finally broke in and heard the toilet flushing, they threw her across the room in anger before arresting her. Attempting to show no fear, since it was Friday, her day for dyeing her eyebrows and eyelashes, she “got out the little bottles and brushes, and a hand mirror, and, for part of the time, occupied” herself in that manner. [Middleton, Convictions, pp. 1–2.]

234

A. KIRKALDY

After a year in detention, mostly in solitary confinement, Middlleton was one of the fourteen defendants in the trial under review. Much of the evidence presented by the State had been obtained by means of clandestine recordings made in her flat. Meetings of the cell to which she belonged were frequently held here. There were also intimate recordings of her interactions with her lover, Piet Beyleveld. The recordings, together with the testimony of Beyleveld and police spy Gerhard Ludi were more than enough evidence to condemn the activists. Found guilty, Middleton was sentenced to three years. [Herbstein, “Jean Middleton Obituary”; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 47, 55; “The State Versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others”, Reel 3, Judgement, Sentence and Appeal, pp. 3491, 3493; Middleton, Convictions, pp. 30–43, 66–81.] Middleton was imprisoned in Barberton. She later related that her “three years were harsh but […] nothing like the treatment meted out to black prisoners.” By this time, her father was dead. Her mother cut off all contact with her. She wrote that: “they were trying to pretend to their friends that nothing had happened.” As an only child, when her mother died, Middleton inherited the family home. [Herbstein, “Jean Middleton Obituary”; Middleton, Convictions, pp. 86, 98–111.] After her release, Middleton was banned and placed under house arrest. She was not allowed to teach, or to associate with more than one person at a time. One month after this, she was convicted of failing to report to the police daily as required by her banning order and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, all but four days of which were suspended. She subsequently left South Africa on an exit permit and went into exile in Britain, taking a post as an English teacher at Shoreditch Comprehensive School in London. She became an active member of the anti-apartheid movement and, after retirement, served as the editor of Sechaba. After Mandela’s release, Middleton returned to South Africa in 1991, becoming editor of Umsebenzi, the SACP publication. Unable to afford the costs of treatment for emphysema, she returned to England to access the benefits of the NHS. She began writing for communist paper the Morning Star. She died in 2010. [Jill Chisolm, “Punishment Without End”, Rand Daily Mail, 25 January 1969, 11; Herbstein, “Jean Middleton Obituary”.]

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

235

10. Ann Nicholson was an art student and had been a member of the COD. In the trial, she was sentenced to two years imprisonment. After her release, she was banned and house arrested. Prohibited from entering any educational institution, she left South Africa to study Art History in Sweden. [Chisolm, “Punishment”; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 55.] 11. Costa Gazides saw the Sharpeville massacre of March 1960 as “a first turning point in his life.” At the time he was a medical student at the University of the Witwatersrand. Feeling that “he had to do ‘something’”, he joined the COD. He then moved to the Communist Party. [Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 46; Benjamin Pogrund, “From Braam Fischer to Stanley Mogoba”, Mail & Guardian Online, 20 December 1996, at http://mg.co.za/article/1996-12-20-from-braam-fischer-tostanley-mogoba, accessed 17 March 2012 (quotation).] He spent more than two years in jail, having been detained and then sentenced to a year’s imprisonment in the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial. On his release, he was banned. Included in the terms of his banning order was a prohibition on entering any educational institution. His subsequent application for permission to enrol for a course in tropical medicine was refused by the authorities. He subsequently left South Africa on an exit permit. Settling in Britain, he specialised in public health. The second turning point in his life came in 1968, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia. Fundamentally disillusioned with the Soviet Union, he sought a new political home. While working in Nottingham, he met Bennie Bunsee, an exiled PAC cadre. This provided another turning point. With political change in the country, Gazides returned to South Africa. He continued to remain active in the PAC and in the health field. He unsuccessfully stood for Parliament in 1994. [Chisolm, “Punishment”; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 48, 55; Pogrund, “From Braam Fischer”.] 12. Paul Trewhela was born in 1941. His father, Ralph Trewhela, was a music composer—his song “So long, Sarie” was a favourite marching song of the South African Army during the Second World War. His mother, Evelyn Levison, was Jewish. She worked as a theatre critic and broadcaster. They lived in Johannesburg. Paul’s primary schooling was at The Ridge Preparatory School, in

236

A. KIRKALDY

Johannesburg. In 1955, he moved to Michaelhouse. He remained there until he matriculated in 1958. Presaging his later life as an artist, his sketches of life in prison, and his important role in the “Courtyard Players”—a group of political prisoners who would put on plays while in prison—he won the Senior Art Prize and acted in the school Shakespeare production of Henry Vth in 1958. [Michaelhouse, “Paul Trewhela: St. Michael Award Citation”, 6 June 2008, at http://www.my-english-writing.com/ courage/paul_trewhela.html, accessed 17 March 2012. For the Courtyard Players, see Hugh Lewin, Bandiet Out of Jail, Cape Town, Umuzi, 2013, pp. 157–165.] Paul went to Rhodes in 1959, originally to study for a BSc. Deeply influenced by the Sharpeville massacre, he changed to a humanities degree. In 1960 and 1961, he served on the Nusas executive. He was responsible for liaison with students at Fort Hare University College. Meetings were held secretly and at night. Paul was first arrested for taking part in a protest against the Sharpeville massacre by academic staff and students. Leaving Rhodes with a BA degree in Political Science and English, Paul was subsequently arrested twice in Cape Town. The first was while employed by The Star, and the second while attending a journalists’ training course with the Cape Argus. In both cases, he was arrested for putting up posters and handing out leaflets protesting against the General Law Amendment Act. Dismissed from The Star in mid-1962, Paul was employed as a journalist on the Rand Daily Mail. Having held this position for a year, he became Africa Editor of the Johannesburg-based News Check, then the only news magazine in South Africa. While employed at the Rand Daily Mail, and prior to his arrest in 1964, Paul joined the COD. He also joined the underground SACP. At the request of Ruth First, Paul wrote a leaflet entitled “The ANC Spearheads Revolution. Leballo? No!” Distributed in 1963, it compared the military strategies of MK and Poqo. [African National Congress Leaflets, “The ANC Spearheads Revolution. Leballo? No!”, at http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4703, accessed 19 October 2014; Michaelhouse, “Paul Trewhela”.] After Ruth First’s detention, and her subsequent exile, Paul worked closely with Hilda Bernstein as editor of Freedom Fighter, the underground newspaper of MK. A month after the end of

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

237

the Rivonia Trial, the Special Branch carried out mass arrests. Paul and his comrades in his SACP cell were detained. They spent 53 days in solitary confinement. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment in the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial. [Michaelhouse, “Paul Trewhela”; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 47.] On his release, Paul was placed under house arrest. He was served with banning orders which prevented him from continuing to work as a journalist and, as with all other banned persons, prohibited him from being quoted in South Africa. He subsequently left South Africa on an exit permit. He then took up a United Nations scholarship for an MA degree at the University of Sussex (1967–1968). Between 1969 and 1974, he taught English and History in schools in inner-city areas of London. [Chisolm, “Punishment”; “Michaelhouse, “Paul Trewhela”.] “Paul had decided to leave the SACP while in prison”. Bram Fischer was unable to persuade him to change his mind. The same was true of Joe Slovo and Ruth First when he was in London. For some years, he was close Moeletsi Mbeki, the brother of later President Thabo Mbeki, and to Pallo Jordan, later Arts and Culture Minister. However, because of ideological differences, he was eventually extremely isolated in London. He moved to Dublin, where he lived between 1974 and 1983. From there, Paul and his family moved to Aylesbury in England. He taught English as a second language in the state system. From 1995 to 2006, he taught part-time at a school in a council estate area in Watford, north of London. He also tutored in Social Sciences at the Open University, and worked with autistic pupils in Oxfordshire. In his teaching career, he taught students of all ages from infants through to adults in retirement. [Ibid.] From 1988 to 1994, Paul co-edited Searchlight South Africa, together with Baruch Hirson. This publication exposed conditions in the prison camps for dissenters run by the SACP and ANC in exile in Africa. Paul continued writing on South African affairs in the press. After a gap of more than thirty years, he returned to drawing and painting in 1992. He had a number of solo exhibitions and has also participated in a number of group shows in London. [Ibid.] Paul is married to Flo (Florence) Duncan, Ivan’s co-accused and Lesley’s prison mate at

238

A. KIRKALDY

Barberton. [Personal E-Mail communication, Paul Trewhela to Alan Kirkaldy, no subject, 26 October 2013.] 13. Born in 1935, Sylvia Neame was an historian, a political activist and a member of the Liberal Party, the COD and later the CPSA. At the time of her arrest in 1964, she was doing research on the ICU and wider aspects of the national liberation movement. She was also the partner of Ahmed Kathrada, an illegal relationship at the time. Found guilty under the Suppression of Communism Act in the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial, she was sentenced to two years in prison. Ten days later, she was taken to Humansdorp. There she was sentenced in to four years imprisonment on a charge of advocating violence. However, she was subsequently acquitted on appeal. [A2729 NEAME, Sylvia, Copyright 2008, Historical Papers, UWL, University of the Witwatersrand, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inv entory.php?iid=6364, accessed 17 March 2012; Antoon De Baets, Censorship of Historical Thought: A World Guide 1945–2000, Westport, CT and London, Greenwood Press 2002, p. 54; Sylvia Neame, “On Trial in South Africa”, Tribune Magazine, 18 August 1967, at http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/ 18th-august-1967/6/on-trial-in-south-africa, accessed 20 March 2012; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 46, 55.] After her release from Barberton in 1967, Neame left South Africa on an exit permit. Living in Britain for four years, she continued work on her PhD at London University. In 1971, she transferred to the University of Leipzig, in the German Democratic Republic. After graduating in 1976, she worked as an historian at the University, specialising national liberation issues. She continued living in Germany after reunification. [De Baets, Censorship, p. 55.] 14. Flo Duncan was a physiotherapist and had been a member of the COD before joining the CPSA. In the trial, she was sentenced to two years imprisonment. She subsequently married Paul Trewhela. [Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 55.] 15. Molly Doyle (nee Anderson) was the estranged wife of Gerry Doyle. She had been a member of the COD. In the trial, she was sentenced to two years. Released from prison in October 1967, she was banned to a farm in the Free State. Demonstrating their vindictiveness towards released prisoners, the authorities refused

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

239

her application for a relaxation of her banning order to enable her to play tennis with her mother and brother at a nearby tennis club. [Chisolm, “Punishment” (quotation); Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 55.] 16. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 46–47; “The State Versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others”, Reel 1, List of Accused, p. 1; Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 21–22. 17. Middleton, Convictions, p. 14. 18. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 46. See also “Twelve Are Guilty in Fischer Trial”, The Star, 2 April 1965, 1. 19. Middleton, Convictions, p. 66. 20. Naidoo, “One of”. 21. “Fischer and 13 Go on Trial Today”, Rand Daily Mail, 16 November 1964, 3; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 46. 22. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 41; Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 348; Middleton, Convictions, pp. 34, 64; Naidoo “One of”. Ivan, Molly Doyle, Norman Levy and Lewis Baker would later be denied bail. [“Bail Refused for Red Trial Men”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 December 1964, 2; “Court Denies Bail for Alleged Reds”, Rand Daily Mail, 2 October 1964, 3.] 23. Clingman, Bram Fischer, pp. 340–344, 348–356; “Arrest of Abram Fischer” (quotation); “Twelve Are Guilty”; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 47. See also “Beyleveld Lied, Says Red Trial Accused”, The Star, 8 February 1965, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker; “Bid to Clear Red Trial Man Refused”, Rand Daily Mail, 5 February 1965, 13. 24. Middleton, Convictions, p. 65. 25. “Beyleveld Lied” (quotation); “Arrest of Abram Fischer”. 26. “Arrest of Abram Fischer”. 27. Clingman, Bram Fischer, pp. 400–416. 28. Piet Beyleveld was born in the Orange Free State in 1916 and did his schooling at farm schools. At the start of the Second World War, at a time when many of his neighbours were violently opposed to South Africa’s participation in the war on the Allied side, he joined the army. After a period of active service, he was placed in charge of the Afrikaans section of the Armed Forces Radio Station in Cairo.

240

A. KIRKALDY

On his return to South Africa in 1945, he came to believe “that the enemy he had been fighting for the previous five years not only remained but, continued to flourish”. Having joined the Springbok Legion, he rose to the position of Vice Chairman. Growing increasingly politically conscious and radicalized, he resigned from his job in 1953, becoming the national organiser of the Labour Party. He later joined the Textile Workers’ Union, serving as a full-time official. He became the first President of the COD. In 1955, he was elected as the first President of SACTU. He was one of the organisers of the Congress of the People and one of the accused in the Treason Trial. He joined the underground SACP in 1956. [South African History Online, “Pieter Beyleveld”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/pie ter-beyleveld, accessed 8 March 2012.] Beyleveld unsuccessfully ran for parliament in 1958 in a Coloured constituency in the Cape, being defeated by a United Party candidate. As a result of his political activism, he came to the attention of Security Police. In 1963 he was co-opted onto the Central Committee of the SACP. His connections to the Party having been uncovered, he was detained in 1964. Caving under interrogation, he named more than 80 people as members of the SACP. His testimony played a major role in the conviction of Ivan and his comrades, and Bram Fischer. After his evidence in their trials, Beyleveld gave evidence in a number of other political trials. Encountering “total ostracism and condemnation”, he “went to work in his wife’s office services business and faded into obscurity.” [Ibid.] Denis Kuny would add that Beyleveld “never recovered” from his condemnation and ostracism. He and his wife subsequently divorced “and he died a miserable death years later.” [Interview with Denis Kuny, Johannesburg, 22 January 2014, pp. 3–4.] 29. “Arrest of Abram Fischer”; “Fischer Trial Surprise”, The Star, 17 November 1964, 1, 3; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 49. See also Mary Benson, “A True Afrikaner”, at http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/ NAM/newafrre/writers/fischer/Benson%20on%20Fischer.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, p. 3. Originally published in Granta, no. 19, 1986. 30. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 49. 31. Benson, “A True Afrikaner”, p. 3.

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

241

32. Interview with Denis Kuny, 22 January 2014, p. 4. 33. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 1–7. 34. Ibid., pp. 7–8, 10, 11, 18–19. 35. Ibid., pp. 20–22. 36. Ibid., p. 24. 37. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 51 (quotations); Middleton, Convictions, pp. 63–64; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 112. 38. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 38– 39. 39. Ibid., pp. 37–38, 42–46. 40. Ibid., pp. 42, 45, 160. 41. Vernon Berrangé was born in Pretoria in 1900. He practiced as an advocate (1924–1926), an attorney (1926–1950) and then as an advocate again (1950–1966) in Johannesburg. Although he was never in the army, he was employed by General Smuts’ Military Secretary on special duties during the Second World War. These duties included tracking down fascists who were attempting to infiltrate the armed forces. Partly arising out of this, he became involved in the activities of the Springbok Legion. He had also joined the CPSA in Johannesburg in about 1938 as an ordinary member. When the Party was banned, he stopped taking part in any of its activities, instead focusing on defending those who had fallen foul of repressive legislation. A Queen’s Counsel, he served on the defense team in all of the major political trials at the time, such as the Treason Trial, the Rivonia Trial and the Fischer/Schermbrucker trial. Berrangé also represented the families of persons who had died in detention, such as MK regional leader Looksmart Ngudle, at inquests. For a number of trials he re-entered South Africa from Swaziland, where he had moved with his family in 1959. He also returned to South Africa for medical treatment at various times. He is arguably one of the most colourful, best-known and committed Human Rights Advocates in South African legal history. After the passage of the Suppression of Communism Act, the government appointed a J. de Villiers as a “liquidator”. He informed more than fifty former CPSA members in Johannesburg that they should show why they should not be ‘named’ in a list of communists compiled by the state. Despite the fact that Berrangé

242

A. KIRKALDY

had withdrawn from all Party activities, he was subsequently listed as a Communist under the Act and banned until 1955. In 1962, he applied (unsuccessfully) for his name to be removed from the list. [Clingman, Bram Fischer, pp. 175, 237–239, 302–303, 314, 319, 322, 338–339, 348, 350, 352; Glenn Frankel, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999, pp. 62, 159–160, 175, 206, 208–209, 211, 213, 214, 236, 237, 243, 250, 251– 252, 254, 259–260, 279; The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, “Citation for the Award of the National Order of the Companions of O.R. Tambo in Silver to Vernon Berrange for His Excellent Contribution to the Struggle Against Racial Oppression in South Africa”, at http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/nat ional-orders/recipient/vernon-berrange, accessed 27 February 2018; Rivonia Trial Collection, AD1844, Bd8.1, “Statement by Vernon Berrange in answer to a questionnaire presented to him by the Minister of Justice and after he had made a further application to have his name removed from the Liquidator’s list of named communists”, 15 October 1962, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventories/inv_pdft/ AD1844-Bd8-1-text.pdf, accessed 18 September 2014; South African History Online, “Vernon Celliers Berrange”, at http:// www.sahistory.org.za/people/vernon-celliers-berrange, accessed 25 May 2014.] On Berrangé’s trips to South Africa, he and the house he always stayed in in Berea, were closely watched by the Special Branch. Paul Erasmus, a Security Police Officer, would later successfully apply to the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission for amnesty for acts carried out in this regard. Ordered “to make Berrange feel unwelcome during such visits”, he obtained a skeleton key for the house. He would enter as soon as Berrangé left, leave obvious signs of having searched the house and try “to make his stay as uncomfortable as possible. He swopped labels on medicine bottles but did it in such a way that it would be obvious e.g. put the label for pills on a bottle containing liquid.” The aim was to discourage him from returning to the country. [AC/2001/230, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Amnesty Committee, “Application in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

243

1995, Paul Erasmus, Applicant (AM3690/96)”, at http://www. justice.gov.za/trc/decisions%5C2001/ac21230.htm, accessed 18 September 2014. See also South African History Online, “Vernon Celliers Berrange”.] It was Berrangé who organised the plane which flew Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe to Botswana in 1963. Berrangé died in Swaziland in 1983. In 2010, The Order of the Companions of OR Tambo in Silver was posthumously conferred on him. [The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, “Citation for the Award of the National Order of the Companions of O.R. Tambo to Vernon Berrange”; South African History Online, “Vernon Celliers Berrange”.] 42. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 99, 101, 113. 43. Ibid., p. 99. 44. Ibid., p. 101. 45. Ibid., p. 102. 46. Ibid., p. 113. 47. Ibid., pp. 113–114. 48. Aidrian Leftwich was born in Cape Town in 1940, the son of a liberal Jewish family. His father was a doctor while his mother taught piano, performed “charitable good works” and played bridge. While still a teenager, he opposed the injustices of apartheid South Africa. Entering university, he became involved in student politics. The Sharpeville massacre occurred as Leftwich was about to be elected president of Nusas. In the aftermath, the state banned and detained considerable numbers of activists. Included in their number were many of the leadership of the Liberal Party, of which Leftwich was a member. Convinced that peaceful protest had no chance of success in South Africa, he was one of the co-founders of the National Committee for Liberation. This began a sabotage campaign directed at state installations and services. The group, whose members were mainly white liberals would later change its name to the African Resistance Movement. [Rebecca Davis, “Adrian Leftwich, the Unforgiven”, Daily Maverick, 22 April 2013, at http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/ article/2013-04-22-adrian-leftwich-the-unforgiven/#.U9DZvkKDyA, accessed 24 July 2014; David Evans, “Adrian Leftwich:

244

A. KIRKALDY

Leading Anti-apartheid Activist Who Turned State Witness”, The Independent, 28 May 2013, at http://www.independent. co.uk/news/obituaries/adrian-leftwich-leading-antiapartheid-act ivist-who-turned-state-witness-8633563.html, accessed 24 July 2014; Adrian Leftwich, “I Gave the Names”, Granta, 78, 2002, 11–13.] Leftwich estimated that there were about 40 active members of the ARM. Targeting infrastructure, rather than people, they were credited with at least 25 sabotage attacks between 1961 and 1964. He was involved in several of these, assisting in the importation of plastic explosives, blowing up electricity pylons and blowing up a suburban railway line in Cape Town. Ironically, in terms of his later history, he was also one of the instructors helping to train recruits to hold out under interrogation. [Davis, “Adrian Leftwich”; Evans, “Adrian Leftwich”.] When the Security Police searched Leftwich’s flat on 4 July 1964, they found a training document on the use of explosives. They detained him at Caledon Square police headquarters. As soon as news of his detention began to spread, some of his ARM comrades fled the country. Convinced that he would hold out under interrogation, others remained behind. Moving on to search his girlfriend’s flat, the Security Police found detonators, explosives and incriminating documents. While “others in his situation resisted giving the police any information at all, Leftwich sang like a canary almost immediately.” As he spoke, the police rounded up those he named. Some managed to escape but others were arrested. [Davis, “Adrian Leftwich”; Leftwich, “I Gave”, 11, 14–18.] While Leftwich was still under interrogation, John Harris’ station bomb exploded. He recalled that: “Late that night, my cell door swung open to reveal Van Dyk, white with rage, his eyes bulging behind his glasses […] He screamed, ‘Twenty people have been killed in Johannesburg by one of your bombs. You fucking Jew. Now you’ll hang.’” Terrified, Leftwich told his captors nearly everything that he had withheld. He subsequently testified against fourteen of his compatriots. All but one were imprisoned. Hugh Lewin served seven years. Eddie Daniels received 15 years, the longest sentence. [Davis, “Adrian Leftwich”; Leftwich, “I Gave”, 18–22.]

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

245

Formerly widely respected in struggle circles, “Now, at the age of 24, he was ruined among his peers.” Leaving South Africa in 1965, he became a school teacher in England. He could not settle, moving on to work on a kibbutz in Israel and then as a farmhand in the USA. On his subsequent return to Britain, he again worked as a teacher. Completing a PhD, he eventually secured employment at the University of York, becoming a Professor in the Department of Politics and then going on to become research director of the Development Leadership Programme. By this stage, he was a strong critic of leftist academic and political views. His home life was fraught—he married and divorced twice, became addicted to sleeping pills and was “haunted by nightmares of the security police.” [Davis, “Adrian Leftwich”; Leftwich, “I Gave”, 21–22, 27–29.] He found some solace in his two children, who he raised “virtually single-handed.” He died at York in 2013. [Evans, “Adrian Leftwich”.] 49. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 115– 118 (quotations, pp. 115, 116). See also “Beyleveld’s Loyalty: ‘Traitor’ Clash in Fischer Trial”, The Star, 18 November 1965, 5. 50. Harold Hanson (1904–1973) was a well-respected South African advocate (QC) and member of the Johannesburg Bar Council. He also served as vice-president of the South African Zionist Federation. Born in Johannesburg, Harold was the son of Ralph Hanson, a Rand Jewish pioneer and Clara Lewis. Having attended Twist Street Government Primary School in Johannesburg and King Edward VII High School, he matriculated at the age of fourteen. He then went on to study law at the University of the Witwatersrand, being called to the Bar in 1926. He would build up a strong practice in Johannesburg, dealing with civil, criminal and political cases. He was particularly “known for his strongly held liberal views and championship of civil liberties.” [“Harold Hanson, South African Barrister, Zionist Leader, Dead at Age 68”, JTA, the Global News Source, 27 February 1973, at http://www.jta.org/1973/02/27/archive/harold-hansonsouth-african-barrister-zionist-leader-dead-at-age-68, accessed 17 March 2015.]

246

A. KIRKALDY

51. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 186– 187. 52. Ibid., pp. 136–146, 164–166. 53. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 49. 54. Ibid., 50–51 (quotation, 51). 55. Middleton, Convictions, p. 69. 56. Helen Joseph, Side by Side (Autobiography), Chapter III, “The World Outside”, Page 1 of 8, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/arc hive/chapter-iii-world-outside, accessed 22 March 2012, Chapter III, Pages 4 to 5 of 8. 57. Interview with Denis Kuny, 22 January 2014, pp. 3–4 (quotation, p. 4). 58. Middleton, Confessions, pp. 69–70. 59. “Agent Q018 Tells of Love Note to Malay Girl”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 December 1964, 4; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 199. See also “Agent Ludi Was a Provocateur, Says Defence”, Rand Daily Mail, 13 March 1965, 3; “Agent Q018 Recalled in Communism Hearing”, Rand Daily Mail, 2 March 1965, 11. 60. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 578– 579. See also “Ludi Tells of (Illegible in copy), Revolted—But It Was ‘Part of My Job’”, Star, 8 December 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 61. “Ludi Tells”. 62. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 569. See also “Ludi Tells”. 63. “Secret Agent Q 018 Tells His Story”, Rand Daily Mail, 25 November 1964, 1; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 201. 64. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 583– 584. 65. Ibid., pp. 494 (identification of car), 583–584. 66. “Ludi Tells”. 67. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 572. See also David Pincus, “Ludi Tells of Love-Life on Bo[Cut off] of Colour Line”, Sunday Times, 13 December 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker.

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

247

68. “Ludi Tells”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 513–514, 527–528, 570–571 (NB). See also Ludi, The Communistisation, p. 46; Pincus, “Ludi Tells of Love-Life”. 69. “Ludi Tells”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 571. 70. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 527. 71. Ibid., pp. 483–485. 72. Ibid., p. 493. See also Pincus, “Ludi Tells of Love-Life”. 73. Ibid., Reel 1, Trial record, p. 493. 74. “Q018 Not Licensed to Love—Spengler”, Rand Daily Mail, 4 February 1965, 11. 75. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 576. See also Pincus, “Ludi Tells of Love-Life”. 76. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 495, 511. See also “Agent Q018 Tells”; “Ludi Tells of Police Reports on Malay”, Rand Daily Mail, 14 January 1965, 13 for “Malay Girl” and “romance by post”. 77. Pincus, “Ludi Tells of Love-Life”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 472–483, 489. 78. Pincus, “Ludi Tells of Love-Life”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 513, 570–571(quotation). 79. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 148– 155, 643–650, 683, 686. 80. Ibid., pp. 650–683, 981–988. See also Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 53. 81. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 655. See also “Communism Case: Minister Forbids Certain Evidence”, Rand Daily Mail, 9 December 1964, 4. 82. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 728; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 53. 83. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 1, Trial record, p. 203. 84. Joseph, Side by Side, Chapter III, Page 5 of 8. 85. “Bid to Clear”. 86. “‘Red’ Trial Man: I Was Never a Communist”, Rand Daily Mail, 9 February 1965, 11; “The State Versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others”, Reel 2, Record of Evidence of the Accused, pp. 1941– 2177.

248

A. KIRKALDY

87. “London Sent R16,000 to Help; S.A. Reds, Court Told”, Rand Daily Mail, 17 November 1964, 2; Middleton, Confessions, pp. 68, 75; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 53–54 (quotation, 54). 88. Middleton, Convictions, p. 64. 89. Ibid. 90. Ismail Mahomed was born in Pretoria in 1931, the eldest child of six in a devout Muslim family. His father was a tradesperson. Having completed his schooling in Pretoria, Mahomed qualified as a lawyer at the University of the Witwatersrand. Admitted to the bar in 1957, he was unable to practice in his home city as only whites were allowed to do so. He moved to Johannesburg. Since the Johannesburg Bar was situated in a White Group Area, he was prohibited form renting chambers. He was forced to borrow offices from sympathetic white colleagues when these were available. At other times, he had to use a desk in the library to interview his clients. Excluded from the common room, on occasion, he had to eat his lunch in the toilets. The ludicrous nature of his position is perhaps best illustrated by cases where he needed to appear before the appellate division of the Supreme Court in Bloemfontein. Asians were not allowed to remain in the Orange Free State overnight. Legal tradition required that barristers should arrive the day before the hearing. Mahomed would fly to Bloemfontein the day before. He would then fly out and spend the night in Durban. The following morning, he would return to Bloemfontein. Mahomed also frequently represented rural communities against apartheid laws. Often denied accommodation in local hotels, he had to drive great distances to find accommodation for the night. Although he was by inclination conservative in his interpretation of the law, the injustices of apartheid South Africa and the constant humiliations that he was forced to endure: “contributed instead to Mahomed’s development into one of the finest civil rights lawyers the country has known.” In 1974, Mahomed became Black South African to take silk in this country. While his promotion in judicial office would be considerably delayed at home, he was appointed as an appeal judge in Swaziland and Lesotho, and then as Chief Justice of Namibia. In 1991, with political changes in South Africa, he was

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

249

appointed as a judge. In 1994, he was appointed as deputy president of the newly-created Constitutional Court, and then as Chief Justice in 1996. He continued to serve as the Chief Justice for Namibia. Resigning his offices in February 2000 because of illhealth, he died in June. [David Beresford, “Chief Justice Isamael Mahomed”, Obituary in The Guardian, Wednesday 21 June 2000, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/jun/21/gua rdianobituaries.davidberesford, accessed 19 March 2013 (quotation); South African History Online, “Ismael Mahomed”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/ismail-mahomed, accessed 19 March 2013.] 91. Middleton, Convictions, pp. 75–76. 92. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1941–1942. 93. Ibid., pp. 1942, 1943 (quotation). 94. Ibid., pp. 1943–1946 (incorrectly labelled as 1947 in original), 1947. See also “Beyleveld Lied”. 95. Andrew Murray (1905–1997) was born in Nevera, Nyasaland (Malawi), the son of missionary parents. Having grown up in Stellenbosch, he studied at the university there. He was then awarded a Rhodes scholarship, obtaining B.Lit. and Ph.D. degrees at Oxford. In 1931, he was appointed to the staff of the Department of Philosophy at the University of the Witwatersrand. Six years later he moved to the Philosophy Department at the University of Cape Town. Having retired in 1970, in the following year he was temporarily appointed Head of the Philosophy Department at the University of the Western Cape in the wake of the resignation of Adam Small. Murray served as member of “the Governor-General’s Commission on Native Education (1949–1951), the Presidential Commission on Financial Relations between Central Government and the Provinces (1960–1963), and the Rhodesia Constitution Commission (1967).” For many years, he was a member of the Publications Control Board. He frequently appeared as an expert witness in cases tried under the Suppression of Communism Act. [BC1253: AH Murray Papers, donated to UCT Libraries by Professor Christina Murray, A list Compiled by André Landman, Cape Town, UCT Libraries, 2009, pp. 1– 3, at http://srvrhldig001.uct.ac.za/R/?func=dbin-jump-full& object_id=7516&local_base=GEN01, accessed 20 March 2012.]

250

A. KIRKALDY

For a scathing demolition and denunciation of the evidence of this “so-called expert on communism” during the Treason Trial, see Stephen Clingman, “Writing the South African Treason Trial”, Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa, 1 July 2010, pp. 44–46, at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Wri ting+the+South+African+treason+trial.-a0244951480, accessed 20 March 2012. He had no serious academic output in the field, had read only a limited selection of the Marxist classics, and had published on communism mainly in Die Huisgenoot, an Afrikaans magazine. However, the defence did not wish to undermine him entirely—“it was Murray who supplied the prosecution with its key definition that communism was connected with violence and vice versa - a definition the defence had little desire to destabilise.” [Ibid., pp. 44–45.] 96. Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 53. See also “Expert Tells Red Trial of Communism”, Rand Daily Mail, 18 December 1964, 3. 97. “The State Versus Abram Fischer “, Reel 1, Trial record, pp. 764– 816, 1425–1455, 1461–1513, 1519–1610. 98. Mary Benson, “A True Afrikaner”, p. 3. 99. Interview with Denis Kuny, 22 January 2014. 100. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein from Paris, 30 April 2015, pp. 2, 4 (quotation). 101. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1947–1949. 102. Ibid., pp. 1948–1950 (quotations, pp. 1948, 1950). 103. Ibid., pp. 1950–1951 (quotation, p. 1950). 104. Ibid., pp. 1951–1952. 105. Ibid., pp. 1952–1953. 106. Ibid., p. 1953. 107. Ibid., pp. 1953–1954. 108. Ibid., pp. 1954–1955. 109. Ibid., p. 1958. 110. Ibid., pp. 1955–1956. 111. Ibid., pp. 1956–1957 (quotations, p. 1957). 112. Ibid., pp. 1957–1958. 113. James Zug, The Guardian: The History of South Africa’s Extraordinary Anti-apartheid Newspaper, Michigan, Michigan State University Press and Pretoria, UNISA Press, p. 197. 114. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1958–1961 (quotations, p. 1959).

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

251

115. Ibid., p. 1961. 116. Ibid., pp. 1961–1962. During the 1930s, a number of trade unions from across the political spectrum merged to form a single trade union, named the South African Trades and Labour Council (SATLC). In 1944, this adopted the Workers Charter, which aimed “to advance the struggle for” a “socialist government”. This caused a split in the union between its conservative, democratic and more radical members. In addition, with the passing of the Suppression of Communism Act, the state began to act against non-racial unions. The right wing trade unions walked out of the SATLC conference in Durban in October 1954, forming the Trade Union Council of South Africa (TUCSA). This consisted of white, coloured and Indian workers. Black Africans were not eligible for membership. Nineteen trade unions, representing about 20,000 workers, objected to these developments. They formed a Trade Union Co-ordinating Committee. This led to the formation of the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) on 5 March 1955. A few months after its formation, SACTU sent delegates to the Congress of the People. It became and active member of the Congress Alliance. Membership rose to 53,000 with 51 unions by 1961. The union organized major strikes and protest action around the country between 1957 and 1960. It also forged links with international trade unions and federations. [South African History Online, “South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU)”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/org anisations/south-african-congress-trade-unions-sactu, accessed 9 March 2012.] 117. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1962–1963. See also “59 Homes Were Raided in Pre-dawn Swoop”, Rand Daily Mail, 4 May 1961, 2; “Detectives Raid ‘Advance’ Staff Offices, Homes”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1954, 9; “Manager of ‘Advance’ Protests”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1954, 9; “Security Men Raid ‘Spark’ Offices”, Rand Daily Mail, 2 March 1963, 3. 118. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1963. 119. “Ibid., pp. 1963–1964. 120. Ibid., pp. 1965, 1969–1971, 1977 (quotations, pp. 1969, 1977). As evidenced the publication of a six page mimeograph by the

252

A. KIRKALDY

South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R. in 1951, this name change from the “Friends of the Soviet Union” had occurred by then. [South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R., “For Peace and Friendship. News About Life in the Soviet Union” by the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R. (AFRICA, South), 1951, at http://books.google.co.za/books/about/For_ Peace_and_Friendship_News_about_life.html?id=maHuMgEAC AAJ&redir_esc=y, accessed 1 May 2014.] 121. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1963–1965, 1967. 122. Ibid., pp. 1965–1966 (quotations, p. 1966). 123. Ibid., pp. 1967, 1982–1984. 124. Ibid., pp. 1967–1969 (quotation, p. 1969). 125. Ibid., pp. 1973,1980–1981, 1984–1986, 2008, 2014–2019, 2038–2040. 126. Zug, The Guardian, p. 297 n. 142. 127. Ibid, p. 4. 128. Ibid., pp. xi–xii, 2, 4–5. 129. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1974 (quotation)1977. 130. Ibid., pp. 1986–1987. 131. Rica Hodgson, Denis Kuny, Hilary Hamburger and Reviva’s father all commented in conversations/interviews with me that Ivan was not really a Marxist theoretician but a practical communist. He nevertheless clearly knew more than he was letting on here though. 132. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1991–1993. 133. Ibid., p. 1993. 134. C.W. de Kiewiet, A History of South Africa Social and Economic, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1941. 135. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 1993–1994. 136. Ibid., pp. 1994–1997. 137. Ibid., pp. 2043–2047 (quotations, p. 2043, 2047). 138. Ibid., pp. 2047–2055 (quotation, p. 2051). 139. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) had been founded at a world labour conference held in London in 1945 with the aim of developing “joint programs among the national unions of various countries.” The Congress of Industrial Organizations disaffiliated in 1949. This joined with

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

253

other non-communist labour organisations, froming the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. [Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, “World Federation of Trade Unions Records, Collection Number 5595”, at http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/KCL 05595.html, accessed 31 April 2019.] 140. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 1998. 141. Ibid., pp. 1998–1999. 142. Ibid., pp. 2004–2006. 143. Ibid., pp. 2007–2008. 144. Ibid., p. 2008. 145. Ibid., pp. 2012 (correctly numbered—appears in addition to 2010 incorrectly labelled as 2012)–2014 (quotation), 2019– 2020. 146. Ibid., p. 2022. 147. Ibid., pp. 2024–2025. 148. Ibid., pp. 2027 (incorrectly numbered in trial record—should actually be 2026)–2026 (incorrectly numbered in trial record— should actually be 2027). 149. Ibid., pp. 2028–2029. 150. Ibid., pp. 2030–2033. 151. Ibid., pp. 2035–2038. 152. Ibid., pp. 2063–2066. 153. Ibid., pp. 2066–2071. 154. Ibid., pp. 2071–2072. 155. Ibid., p. 2072. 156. Ibid., pp. 2073–2076. 157. Ibid., pp. 2076–2079 (quotation, p. 2079). 158. Ibid., pp. 2080–2081. 159. Ibid., pp. 2084–2085. 160. Ibid., pp. 2087–2088. 161. Ibid., pp. 2089, 2091 (quotation), 2094, 2097 (“stanch communist” quotation); South African History Online, “Rowley Israel Arenstein”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/rowley-isr ael-arenstein, accessed 7 June 2019; South African History Online, “Dr Yusuf Mohamed Dadoo”, at https://www.sahistory. org.za/people/dr-yusuf-mohamed-dadoo, accessed 7 June 2019. 162. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, p. 2106. 163. Ibid., pp. 2106–2108.

254

A. KIRKALDY

164. Ibid., pp. 2111–2115, 2117–219, 2124. 165. Ibid., pp. 2119–2120 (quotation, p. 2120). 166. Born in Britain in 1891, Arthur Blaxall was an Anglican clergyman who—aged 72 years—pleaded guilty to four counts under the Suppression of Communism Act in October 1963. These were “taking part in or aiding the activities of the Pan Africanist Congress and the African National Congress” and possessing two banned publications, Fighting Talk and New Age. [“I Am Ready Lord—Blaxall”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 October 1963, 2 (quotation); South African History Online, “Arthur William Blaxall”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/arthur-william-bla xall, accessed 11 April 2020.] Blaxall had come to South Africa in 1923 to work with the deaf. In the 1930s, he was the head of the Athlone School for blind coloured children near Stellenbosch. In 1939, he moved to the Witwatersrand, founding Ezenzeleni, “the first workshop for blind Africans in South Africa” in Roodepoort. He was its superintendent until 1950. He became a pacifist, served as chairperson of the South African branch of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation, and was the secretary of the South African Christian Council. He joined the Liberal Party in the 1950s and attended the Congress of the People (COP). In the early 1960s, he collected money from exiled leaders of the ANC and PAC and other sources, using this to assist political prisoners and their families. Because of his age, and the negative publicity which his arrest and trial had aroused, Blaxall was parolled after only “a night and a day in prison”. The rest of his sentence was suspended. Shortly thereafter, he returned to Britain. He died in 1970. [South African History Online, “Arthur William Blaxall”.] 167. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 2, pp. 2121–2124. 168. Ibid., pp. 2126–2127. 169. “Twelve Are Guilty”; Schermbrucker; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3, pp. 3491–3538. See also “Ludi Smiles as 12 Reds Are Found Guilty”, Rand Daily Mail, 3 April 1965, 3. 170. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3, p. 3493. 171. Ibid., p. 3491. 172. Ibid., pp. 3492–3493. 173. Ibid., p. 3507. 174. Ibid., pp. 3507–3508.

5

THE TRIAL OF BRAM FISCHER AND 13 OTHERS

255

175. Ibid., p. 3509. 176. Ibid., pp. 3509–3514, 3511–3512 (quotation, p. 3512). 177. Ibid., pp. 3513–3514. See also “Twelve Are Guilty”. 178. Ibid., p. 3514. See also “Twelve Are Guilty”. 179. Ibid., pp. 3537–3538. Accused number 3 was discussed on pp. 3515–3519; Accused No. 4, 5 and 6 on pp. 3519–3530; Accused No. 7 on pp. 3525, 3526, 3527, 3528, 3529, 3530, 3534, 3535, 3536; Accused No. 7 to on 12, pp. 3530–3531, 3532, 3533 and Accused No. 13 on pp. 3531–3537. 180. “Twelve Are Guilty”. 181. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3, pp. 3657–3659. See also “Twelve in Fischer Trial Are to Be Sentenced Today”, Rand Daily Mail, 13 April 1965, 2. 182. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3, pp. 3657–3658. 183. Ibid., pp. 3658–3659; Nkosi, “The ‘Fischer’”, 47. See also “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70, Notes and Documents, May 1970, This Is Apartheid, II”, at http://www.avoiceonl ine.org/assets/txu-diggs-194-f14-01/txu-diggs-194-f14-01.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, p. 9. Ages added in from “Twelve Are Guilty”. 184. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3, Reel 3, Appellant’s Heads of Argument, pp. 1–93; Judgement on Appeal by J. Galgut, Judge of the Supreme Court, pp. 3–35. Ivan’s evidence is discussed on pp. 13–16. See also “Appeal of Fischer Trialists Dismissed in Pretoria”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1965, 5; “I Was Never a Communist, Barsel Tells Court”, Rand Daily Mail, 13 February 1965, 5; “Not Only the Reds Oppose Apartheid Court Told”, Rand Daily Mail, 18 August 1965,13; “Red Was a Reliable Witness Court Told”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 August 1965, 13; “Trialists Now Appealing Were Evasive— State”, Rand Daily Mail, 26 August 1965, 15. 185. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3, J.P. de Wet, Judge President of the Supreme Court, Agreement of Dismissal of Appeals, pp. 1–35. 186. IDAF Research Department, Prisoners of Apartheid: A Biographical List of Political Prisoners and Banned Persons in South Africa, London and New York, International Defence & Aid Fund in cooperation with United Nations Centre Against Apartheid,

256

A. KIRKALDY

October 1978, p. 153; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 8. 187. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger [Elizabeth Franklin (formerly Lewin) to Hilary Hamburger], Sunday 19 April 1998 in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 3. 188. Friday 2nd and Saturday 3rd April 1965. This letter was written by Ivan after having been found guilty but before sentencing. It is typed, probably by Jill and Lesley—see letter of 4 April, pp. 1– 3, in Letters, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker from the Schermbrucker family Archive and copied to DVD 6, The Sea of Ink, 4 October 1964 to 6 April 1965, in the possession of the author. 189. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 4 April 1965, pp. 1–4, in 6. The Sea. 190. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 6 April 1965, pp. 1–3, in 6. The Sea.

CHAPTER 6

Women Picking up the Spear: Lesley’s Increasing Involvement, Arrest and Trial

Increasing Involvement, Further Arrests and Detentions, Clandestine Meetings, Party Funds and Hiding Bram Fischer With the detention of their husbands, Lesley Schermbrucker and Violet Weinberg took their places on the Central Committee. Bram Fischer continued to serve on this while on trial. While he was overseas for the Bayer case, his place was temporarily taken by his daughter, Ilse. From time to time, they were joined in these meetings by Issy Heymann and Ralph and Minnie Sepel.1 Due to the risks of holding these meetings in the homes of activists well known to the Special Branch, Lesley organised with Doreen Tucker for her to meet with Bram Fischer and Violet Weinberg at her house from time to time. This was a continuation of Doreen’s previous arrangement with Ivan, dating back to 1963. Issy Heymann also came to at least one of these meetings. Doreen was not present.2 This signified a new burst of Communist Party activity on Lesley’s part. In an interview, she recalled that for all the years that I can remember I was a member of the Communist Party, although I wasn’t all that active because of various other things I had to do, earning a living and looking after the children and that, I certainly was committed, I certainly believed in it all at that stage.3

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_6

257

258

A. KIRKALDY

This belief left her no alternative but to take up where Ivan had left off. This was particularly so after it was decided at a Central Committee meeting attended by Bram Fischer, Issy Heymann, Lesley and Violet Weinberg (possibly among others) in December 1964 that Bram would skip bail and go underground to “continue with the work of the Communist Party”.4 To evade the attention of the Special Branch, Lesley would draw in sympathetic friends like Doreen Tucker, Luli Zampetakis (Callinicos) and others, who were not as well known to the authorities, to assist Violet and herself in their underground activities. On a visit to the Schermbruckers’ house on a Saturday afternoon in January 1965, Doreen saw Bram Fischer. He told her that he was looking for a house for sale and asked her to look for him. She agreed. At first she used her own name when making enquiries. She later started using the name Thompson. She reported to Lesley on her progress. Lesley then passed the information on to Bram.5 Lesley opened a bank account for her and Bram at the Stock Exchange Branch of Barclays Bank in the name of M. and W. Wilson. Bram supplied her with specimen signatures—both of them had signing powers. R12,000 was transferred into this account from London in January 1965. While far from Moscow millions, this money had apparently come from overseas Party funds. Lesley drew this in cash which was used to purchase a Volkswagen for Bram’s use for R6,800, and to rent a house for him at 57 Knox Street, Waverly. The rent of R660.00 was paid in advance in cash. A young Wits student, and Party member, Gabrielle Veglio (also known as Veglio De Casteletto), made these payments operating under the pseudonym of Ann Getcliffe.6 Before Bram took occupation of the house, she occupied it together with another student, Jeffrey David Rudin,7 who used the pseudonym of A. Saayman. Using this name, he had the water and electricity connected. Gabrielle also opened a bank account at the Netherlands Bank, Rosebank, in January 1965 as Ann Getcliffe. She gave a false reference and deposited a few hundred Rands into the account. This may have been associated with the purchase of the car.8 After a preparatory trip to Mrs. Raymond Milindton’s farm at Rustenberg in Lesley’s company, Bram went into hiding there, adopting the name Charles Thompson.9 It was she whom Ivan and Rica Hodgson had visited on their collecting trip when they knew her as Madam Raymond. Since she knew Ivan, and knew that both he and Rica were Communists, it is likely that she would have known who Lesley and Bram were.

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

259

While Bram worked on perfecting his disguise, Milindton put him on a health-food diet, both to assist in changing his looks and to help fight his high blood pressure10 Lesley recalled that “his disguise was absolutely amazing” and that, much to Bram’s amusement, she and Violet did not recognise him when they first saw him: No, not at all, we didn’t recognise him. He’d lost a lot of weight. Bram had a very distinctive way of walking, he changed that. He didn’t have any sort of plastic surgery but he did his hair differently. He had a couple of moles on his face which were taken off. And he […] had a little black beard […] and his hair was dyed a different colour and he was totally different. He dressed differently. […] Bram always dressed in that sort of very lawyery way, suit and that. He was [now] dressed like a county gentleman almost. He had a walking stick which he swung around and when I first saw him I was really quite dumfounded.11

In early 1965 Lesley approached Luli Zampetakis (Callinicos) and asked her to organise an address to receive correspondence. Her cousin, Michael Agyros, who owned Seagull Shoe Service in Yeoville, agreed to receive the mail, which was addressed to Mr. G. Armstrong. He then contacted Luli, who collected the letters and passed them on to Lesley. They started arriving in May or June and stopped just before Lesley’s arrest. About 15 were received in all, all having a London postmark. These apparently came from the external wing of the SACP and, among other things, contained newspaper cuttings.12 This was similar to a previous arrangement that Ivan had had with Doreen Tucker which lasted for a few months in 1963. Doreen had made arrangements with a close friend, Mary Wallace, to receive post for her. Mary would pass these on to Doreen who, in turn, would pass them on to Ivan.13 These presumably contained material related to the banned Communist Party and the struggle. Bram moved into the house in Knox Street in April 1965. Just prior to this, Gabrielle Veglio left and went overseas, ostensibly on holiday. The student posing as A. Saayman also left the house.14 A number of meetings of the Central Committee, and with close friends of Bram’s, were held at this house.15 However, this was considered too risky they would generally meet elsewhere, for example at Doreen Tucker’s house. During the course of 1965, Doreen Tucker stored and disbursed funds for Lesley through the safety deposit box which she had earlier opened

260

A. KIRKALDY

for Ivan and also transported Lesley and Violet Weinberg to a number of clandestine meetings in the Johannesburg area. In February 1965, at Lesley’s request, Doreen collected a briefcase containing roughly £5,000 from a Mr Benjamin’s shop. Lesley did not tell her where this money had originated from. She put this in the safe-deposit box. Two days later, she handed over the money to Violet Weinberg in the women’s cloak-room at John Orr’s. At various times of the year, Lesley asked her for money from the safe-deposit box. Amounts generally varied between £200 and £250. Doreen also drove Lesley and Violet to various car parks and shops, dropped them there and collected them some hours later. Lesley and Violet drew Doreen further into their underground work, assisting them in keeping in contact with the grassroots membership and underground structures of the SACP and the ANC. On at least one occasion, she addressed somewhere between 300 and 500 envelopes, using details that Lesley had given her. She claimed that she did not realise this at the time, but later worked out that these were destined for the underground SACP membership.16 Revealing the transnational nature of anti-apartheid funding, Doreen was actively involved in administering funds to support the dependants of detainees and political prisoners, and the detainees and prisoners themselves. Contributors funded fares to Robben Island for family visitors, provided pocket money for prisoners and took care of school requirements for their children. In April 1965, at the request of Canon Collins, Doreen set up a committee to act as trustees for money collected by Christian Action and Defence and Aid in London and funnelled through the South African Institute of Race Relations. This had become necessary because the Johannesburg branch of the Defence and Aid fund in Johannesburg was being criticised for doing “More than providing defence for political prisoners” (Liebenberg)—veiled accusations were being made that they were furthering the aims of communism and hiding this under the smokescreen of assisting families. They therefore decided to abandon this welfare fund and deal only with matters directly related to funding the defence in the trials of detainees and political prisoners. At Canon Collins’ request, Doreen’s committee incorporated an alreadyexisting one in Soweto. Not yet known to the authorities at this time, this comprised a veritable “Who’s Who” of underground activists at the time. As finally constituted, it consisted of Doreen herself; Gertrude Shope (an ANC operative who was the link between Bram Fischer and the ANC underground in Soweto); Tshintsheng Caroline Mashaba (listed

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

261

in the record as Mashabo), underground ANC operative and wife of Andrew Mashaba (who was later sentenced to fifteen years for sabotage); James Ngwenya from MK High Command (listed in the record as “Ngwengcwa”); a “Miss Monro” and Father Davies. Once this fund was established, the Quaker Service, which collected funds from Quaker sources alone, handed over their welfare funding for political prisoners to it.17 With regard to the non-Quaker Service funding, in June 1965 a cheque of R1,500 was sent in Doreen’s name. She opened a bank account in her name at the Standard Bank in Johannesburg. From time to time, she made withdrawals from this for payment to political prisoners. A further R1,540, originating in London, was transferred to the account from the Institute of Race Relations in Cape Town in September 1965. Doreen and Father Davies were the signatories for the cheques paid out. When Doreen paid out money, this was given to Mrs. Mashabo, who then distributed the money to the dependants of political prisoners in Soweto. On one occasion, Doreen paid over R150 to Lesley from this account. She had discussed the existence of the account with Lesley, who then asked her for the money to give to families that she herself was assisting.18 The house at 57 Knox Street was vacated before the lease had expired. Bram then moved to 215 Corlett Drive, Bramley, having rented this house in the name of D. Black. On 9 November 1965, when Violet Weinberg was arrested, Bram adopted the alias of Peter West. He hired a house in Eastwood Road Dunkeld and opened a bank account at the Netherlands Bank in that name. This precaution proved to be abortive, as he was arrested in “Oaklands, Johannesburg, on 11 November 1965. He was skilfully disguised but failed to convince the police he was Douglas Black.”19 Mrs. Shope visited Doreen the Saturday after Bram Fischer’s arrest to set up arrangements to bring her messages from the ANC which she would then pass on to Lesley. Nothing came of this as Doreen was detained during the course of the following week.20 Talking about this period of underground activity with the benefit of hindsight, and in her usual self-deprecating way, Lesley would recall that she, Violet Weinberg, Ilse Fischer, Sholto Cross and the Sepels “didn’t really do much” beyond “helping to keep Bram underground”. With the arrests, detentions, imprisonments and departure of much of the leadership for overseas, they were the only ones “left around really. It was a very disjointed time, everything was falling apart and we were absolutely […] lifted up by the idea of Bram going underground and making a statement,

262

A. KIRKALDY

standing a bit, doing something”. She found it “quite remarkable” that they had managed to keep him underground for “nine or ten months”. They had each done their “little bits”—among them organising for letters that Bram had written to be sent overseas. They were waiting for a forged passport for him from overseas so that he could “come and go out of the country”.21

Lesley’s Arrest and Detention and Bram Fischer’s Preliminary Hearing A week after Bram’s capture, Lesley was detained under the “180-day law” on 18 November 1965.22 She was arrested in front of her class of exercise ladies. Leah Pozniak would later tell her “that she (Leah) couldn’t stop crying”.23 While expected, the arrest came as a real jolt to Lesley and the children: But I’ll tell you also, when they picked me up at home to take me away, when they came for me early in the morning, I ‘phoned Tony Goldstein […] to take Peter to school. And Peter I think was quite bewildered, although I told him I was going to jail. The kids sort of knew, you know, but I think he must have been quite bereft to think here was the other [parent going to jail], and that’s when Jill stepped in as the most wonderful mother. But Pete went off to school, I looked back in the car – they were taking me off – and there was Jill [who was now a university student] standing at the gate looking very forlorn. And it just went through my mind: ‘This is something I’ve got to do.’ There was nothing I could do about it but I had a feeling she would be able to cope […] And we had a solid marriage and a solid family and I think that that helps a great deal when you face these sort of happenings. And I think a lot of people perhaps didn’t have that and that’s why it was very difficult for them. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons they took exit permits and things like that. Because there were a lot of single people and divorced people and so forth.24

Jill recalled in 2011 what it was like for her and Peter now that both parents were in prison: “It sounds like a strange thing to say, and I hope I’m not saying it with hindsight, but almost like a sense of relief – it’s happened, you knew it was going to happen and now it’s happened”.25 Before her arrest, Lesley had asked the children “What must I do?” They had replied “Don’t cave in”. Asked by Ben Schermbrucker if she would

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

263

have caved in if they had asked her to, Peter replied: “Probably not, probably not, but it would have caused her concern. No, we were fully on their side”.26 Things were tough for Lesley. Upon reflection she saw that her arrest showed just how stupid they had been to underestimate the power and efficiency of the Special Branch: But, you know, I always think that there was a great contempt for the Special Branch. Too much so, because they knew what was going on. They knew the people that were active. And a lot of people were arrogant about it […] and a lot of them when they were picked up, well they must have given statements […] you cannot possibly be interrogated in that small room and be given no water, no food, and interrogated straight through, no opportunity even to go to the lav, not allowed to – I only know from my own point of view – not allowed to sit, […] and it’s intimidating, there’s a little window up there and you have these two people, Breitenbach [sic. Breytenbach] was the one and that dreadful [“Rooi Rus”] Swanepoel, Ja. I’m sure that everybody gave in at some stage. But you see, Ivan and I discussed it and he mostly told me what to do. He said don’t wait until you’re absolutely cringing and falling on the floor, do it beforehand, then you won’t tell everything. But I was quite lucky because they showed me Doreen Tucker’s statement and she’d already told a hell of a lot, so I just repeated that on the piece of paper.27

In an interview in January 2014, Lesley revealed more fully just how awful her detention prior to Bram’s preliminary hearing had been. Immediately after her detention, she was taken to Greys, the Special Branch Headquarters, and “put in a little concrete cell with a bucket”. This was the fate that, deep down, she had always expected and she was ready to meet it: [Y]ou know in those days Alan I had such commitment that I just knew what it was going to be like and I did it, I was there, I did it. All our lives Ivan and I were committed to it. Although I wasn’t that active, I was one hundred percent behind Ivan and behind all that was happening. I helped a little way with collecting a little bit of money- dances, jumble sales, all those sort of things, you know. And it was ideal for me to be one of the people to help to keep Bram underground because I wasn’t all that well known and Ivan particularly did not tell me a lot of things, so when I was interrogated, I was able to [withhold information …] I mean, everybody breaks […] because they’ve got this subtle way of keeping you, [… in]

264

A. KIRKALDY

those cells which had a thick door, no windows, a table, a chair […] and I had that dreadful man with the red neck, […] Swanepoel. And in between Swanepoel I had the other man, Lieutenant [Broodryk …] I think he was a good chap, good one bad one [laughs …] So they put me into this little room and then they started. And you try to be brave, you try to be brave but it really hits you what’s happening. Although you’ve read about it and all these other poor fellows have been in it to such an extent of torture that they have jumped out of windows and so forth. And then they start interrogating you, you see, and you try to prevaricate and so forth and so on. And then they don’t give you any sleep and when you try to sit they yank you up. And then they don’t let you go to the toilet so you’re practically wetting your pants. And particularly though they don’t let you sleep, they keep you awake all the time, you see. And very little water, no food. I forget how many hours I managed to stick it out but Ivan had sort of said to me, ‘You know, the best thing to do is before you break completely write something down. And then you won’t start spilling the beans about all sorts of things that perhaps aren’t even true’ […] So then I wrote out the thing that I was a member of the Party from such and such a time. And I managed because I was still fairly sane. And then they showed me Doreen Tucker’s statement, so she’d already admitted all this business, you see, so I didn’t have to do so much along those lines. And of course they asked me about Bram, you know, that verdomde Afrikaner. And there I said I thought [that what he had done] was a very, very good idea […] and they didn’t like that at all of course. A: Was Swanepoel very aggressive to you? L: Yes, oh yes, ja. And you know, just to look at him is frightening – especially when he gets so red in the face and he leans over the table on you, you know, almost spitting in your face […] it’s very subtle because you come out without any sort of physical [marks] but emotionally it’s terrible. It seemed to go on and on and on but I can’t remember […] Everybody cracks eventually and the people who say they don’t, I don’t believe them. […] I did a crafty thing. That Lieutenant […] took me to a jail in Krugersdorp before I was taken to court. And I had a room there, […] a bigger room, you know. And I was let out for [… some time each] day to walk around and to have a bath and a bit of food and so forth there. […] because he was trying to persuade me to give evidence, you see. And this went on and on and on. And I thought to myself […] ‘I know I’m going to go to jail so let me try and bring it to a stop.’ So I said to him: ‘I am going to give evidence.’ And he was so thrilled, he was absolutely delighted. […] And of course when I got into court […] I turned the tables on them. I was determined to do it. Because he was schwarming up to me: ‘Do you want

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

265

your hair done, I’ll take you for a drive’, all that business, you know. And I said: ‘No, I don’t need any of that.’ They even brought Peter […] and Jill to visit me and so forth. For the first time I saw them. [… They also] allowed a friend of mine to send in a dress or two. […] But there was no way of course that I was going to give evidence.28

While in detention, Lesley received no letters from Ivan or the children. Except for this brief visit with Jill and Peter in December 1965, and Jill’s presence at her subsequent court appearances (Peter was too young), Lesley would have no further contact with her children for more than 300 days.29 She was taken to the Greys periodically for interrogations and harassment. On one occasion, she was made to phone Agnes to get her to bring the key for the family’s safety deposit box at the bank (Agnes held Ivan and Lesley’s Power of Attorney).30 On 27 January 1966 Lesley was called to give evidence against Fischer in his preliminary hearing after his re-arrest. Always careful (some family members would say vain) about the way that she dressed, she appeared in court “in a pink summer frock and black shoes”. In her characteristically understated way, and “in a halting voice”, she told the magistrate that: “I do not wish to give evidence, your Worship. But before making up my mind finally I would like to consult a legal representative. I do not think I want to give evidence”.31 Given permission to stand down, she consulted with Denis Kuny who thought that she was intending to give evidence. Instead, when she returned to the stand in the afternoon, she informed Magistrate S.C. Allen that: “I had the law explained to me by my advocate, and I’ve decided that not at this stage nor at any other stage will I give evidence. And I’m prepared to face the consequences”. This threw State Prosecutor J.H. Liebenberg, who had intended to devote the afternoon to questioning Lesley. The court was adjourned until the following morning and Lesley had the night to stew about whether or not she would stick to her decision.32 Lesley knew that she was facing a year in prison—this was the maximum sentence provided for under Section 212 of the Criminal Code. Denis Kuny had warned her that this was the most likely outcome. Liebenberg called for the imposition of this sentence when she was summoned to the stand on the following day.33 As Glenn Frankel has noted, Lesley had good reason to cooperate with the police. She had two teenaged children, Ivan was in prison, and Bram had been recaptured and

266

A. KIRKALDY

would definitely be sentenced. It would have been pragmatic for her to give state evidence in return for her freedom or a suspended sentence. She nevertheless refused.34 Asked by Allen if she had anything further to say, Lesley replied: “Your Worship, I don’t mean to be disrespectful and I don’t want to go to jail, but it is a question of principle”.35 He sentenced her to three hundred days imprisonment on 28 January 1966, informing her that she could gain release at any time by satisfactorily answering questions.36 Lesley recalls that: “I looked at Jill and she smiled – they didn’t know what was happening with me coming into court, you see”. Bram also gave her a warm smile as she was led away. As she was led down the steps to the cells, she gave her rings to Jill.37

Those Who Gave State Evidence Not everybody took the same principled stance as Lesley. One of her closest friends gave incriminating evidence about her receiving communist material from overseas.38 As this friend has a proud history of struggle involvement and the evidence that she gave against Lesley was not particularly damning, I have chosen to withhold her name. According to Reviva Schermbrucker, the friend wants mutual friends to arrange a meeting between her and Lesley so that she can apologise but “Lesley is not interested”.39 Lesley commented on this in 2010: And then, of course, I refused to give evidence against Bram – a lot of people said to me I should have given it, you know, [Name withheld] for instance, she gave evidence, you know, and she said she had her children to look after, and this sort of thing to look after, but it is no argument really, Black people, everybody had children to look after, either you were in or you were out, and a lot of them left straight after and they gave the excuse, or the justification, or maybe they even really thought, I don’t want to judge people, that it was the best thing to do, but thirty forty years out there, I don’t know, I don’t know what they were doing.40

She reiterated her stance in 2014: People had to make their own decisions and then live with the consequences of these. [… this friend] had small children [one of them sickly] and, with the divorce, perhaps she didn’t want them to be left without a

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

267

mother. But I also had children and Ivan was in jail too – they were left without any parents. She made her decision and I made mine.41

She is less forgiving about this than Ivan reportedly was. (The friend claimed to Lesley that Ivan had forgiven her.)42 Others gave state evidence out of concern for their children. In December 1964, Rosemary Wentzel gave state evidence in the Pretoria sabotage trial of Hugh Lewin, Raymond Eisenstein (sentenced to seven years each) and Bertram [Baruch] Hirson (nine years). Rosemary, an ARM operative, had been kidnapped from Swaziland by the Special Branch on 10 August 1964 and taken into 90-day detention. After being in jail for seven days, she decided to turn State witness.43 I know it was a dishonourable thing to give evidence against my friends in a case in which I was an accomplice […] but for the first time in jail I realised my duty as a mother came before my political convictions. I did it because of my children, and I don’t care what people think. […] When I was in jail and realised the consequences, it hit me for the first time that I had no right to deprive my children of motherhood and put my political convictions first. There was a terrible conflict and pangs of conscience when I made the decision. I will always live with it – especially the thought of Hugh Lewin, who was a very close friend.44

Lesley’s close friend Doreen Tucker was listed as an accomplice by the court in Bram’s preliminary hearing. This meant that, as long as she gave evidence truthfully and to the satisfaction of the court, she would receive immunity from prosecution.45 Her evidence seriously implicated Lesley, Violet Weinberg and Bram Fischer. Ivan was also incriminated, although he had already been sentenced.46 Lesley was prepared to forgive Doreen, who had been in detention since November 1965, had cracked under interrogation and was in a terrible state. She: “was almost in tears when giving evidence. She looked pale and remained seated in the witness-box but reassured the prosecutor she was feeling well enough to testify”.47 At times, it looked as if she was likely to pass out. “She trembled through most of her evidence and often coughed and held a handkerchief to her mouth”. She periodically had to pause in her testimony and be given water to enable her to continue.48

268

A. KIRKALDY

Tightening the Net Further---Lelsey and Violet’s Trial Violet Weinberg refused to testify in the subsequent trial of MK operatives Issy Heymann and Michael Dingake. She was sentenced to three months.49 Subsequently both she and Lesley “were charged in a new Communist Party trial”,50 appearing in the Johannesburg Regional Court before Mr J.T. Potgieter in August 1966. Both women were represented by Fred Zwarenstein, S.C. They entered a plea of “not guilty” but indicated “that the plea might be reconsidered in due course”.51 In giving evidence against the accused, Jeffrey Rudin (who had used the nom de guerre A. Saayman), stated that he had become a member of the Communist Party in August 1963 after having been recruited by Bram Fischer. The day before he had moved to 57 Knox Street in January/February 1965, he had communicated with somebody he knew as Pedro Ferreira. As instructed, he had gone to the restaurant at John Orr’s and asked at the desk for a Mrs Brown. He was shown to a table and Lesley (who he already knew) subsequently arrived. She asked him “how things were”. This was a coded reference to the house which he had been told to acquire to hide Bram Fischer. After replying that everything was “OK”, he and Lesley arranged a coded means of contacting her. He “was to telephone her house on a week day before 9 a.m”, identify himself as Mr Brown and say that his “wife was sick and would be unable to attend gym classes that morning. This would mean that [… he] would meet her the following day at 1 p.m. at Commissioner Street branch of C.N.A.”52 They arranged a second meeting for about a fortnight later. At this meeting Lesley asked Rudin to drive Bram Fischer to the house in Knox Street, instructing him to drive to an open field near King David High School at 11 p.m. in the Volkswagen which Ann Getcliffe (the pseudonym for Gabrielle Veglio De Casteletto) had acquired for him. Rudin met Bram at the appointed place but “but did not recognise him until he spoke”. At this stage, he was well aware that Fischer “had estreated bail and was to work underground”.53 The next morning Rudin returned to his parents’ house, driven there by Bram, who left in the Volkswagen. While they had been driving to Knox Street the previous evening, Bram had told him that, thereafter, Lesley would be known by the code-name “Lucy”. Meeting with Lesley a few days later, Rudin “told her that everything was in order”. She gave him a number of letters to hand over to Bram. This was the last contact

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

269

that he had with her. Rudin also gave evidence that he had carried letters to Violet Weinberg from Pedro Ferreira (who had joined the Communist Party), and that he had “handled” coded correspondence on behalf of Bram Fischer on the night before the latter had been arrested.54 At this stage, Fred Zwarenstein hammered out an agreement with the state’s lawyers whereby they would drop some of the charges if Lesley and Violet would give evidence incriminating themselves in Communist Party activities.55 Foremost among their concessions, the state withdrew the charge “that Weinberg and Schermbrucker had been members or office bearers of the Communist Party”. They also abandoned the: “allegation that they had conveyed messages and money to a representative of the African National Congress and that they had received messages and reports from the A.N.C.”56 Bram Fischer already having been sentenced to life imprisonment, Weinberg and Schermbrucker admitted to playing the major role in assisting him while he was in hiding.57 They also admitted that Lesley “had opened a banking account under the assumed name of Margaret Wilson at the Stock Exchange Branch of the Barclays Bank, in December 1964”. This “had been opened for the benefit of Abram Fischer whose assumed name then had been W.D. Wilson”.58 They accordingly changed their plea to “guilty”.59 Lesley says that they agreed to this course of action both because the state had overwhelming evidence against them and because they were attempting to gain Doreen Tucker’s release from detention: she was really a great friend and a very liberal sort of person and when she was picked up they kept her in isolation and really interrogated her to such an extent [that she cracked …] We helped to get her released so that she wouldn’t have to come to trial and Violet and I admitted that we were involved and so forth. And so we didn’t have a real trial, it was done like that.60

Despite Fred Zwarensetin’s request that they be given suspended sentences, they were sentenced to two years “for taking part in of the activities of the Communist Party”. These sentences ran consecutively with the 300 days and three months that Lesley and Violet respectively were already serving.61 As Stephen Clingman has noted:

270

A. KIRKALDY

They – two women with husbands in jail and children at home – had kept faith, whereas men like Beyleveld [who had testified against their husbands and Bram Fischer] and [Bartholomew M.] Hlapane [who had testified against Bram Fischer and them] had not.62

Caught in the Crossfire---The Children The degree to which the children of activists were affected by the struggle has often been neglected in works covering this period. To varying degrees, those who prioritised the struggle over family commitments faced the risk of alienating their children. However, it goes beyond this. On the one hand, they were drawn into struggle politics and all that this implied for family relationships and the disruption of family life and security by the choices made by their parents, whatever they felt about this. On the other, they remained children trying to find their way in the world and interacting with, and attempting to find validation from, their peers, some of whom (particularly in the case of white activists) may have actively supported, or certainly benefited from, apartheid. In the case of the Schermbruckers, Jill and Peter seem to have been far less conflicted by this situation than many others (Fig. 6.1). Peter recalls the arrest of his father as: “I think the most terrifying day of my life”. He had to go to school the next morning and face the possible reactions of his fellow students. St. John’s was “not a casual school”, there were rigid traditions and ways of doing things. Standard sixes were “at the bottom of the pile”. In the morning, the pupils had to stand in lines and the register would be called. When your name was read out, you had to answer “ad sum”. Having gone to school in great trepidation, he encountered a situation where: Prefects were walking up and down and I thought: ‘who knows, who’s read the newspaper, who’s seen’ and I kept thinking, ‘well it’s OK because it’s non-violent and they’ve kind of done the right thing’ and nothing happened, nobody, they did the English thing and nobody said anything and nobody did anything.63

From that moment, he realised that—at least at school—everything would be OK. This he ascribed largely to the influence of the Head, Deane Yates, who he saw as “a real Christian, a living Christian”. He left St. John’s as its “most respected headmaster” and would go on to found

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

271

Fig. 6.1 Drawings of Jill and Peter by Paul Trewhela while in prison. He drew them from a description provided by Ivan (Schermbrucker family and Paul Trewhela)

the Maru-a-Pula School in Botswana.64 In Peter’s recollection, “he put the world out” that Peter was “ok” and was to be treated sympathetically. In addition, one of the priests, French Beitrag, organised money for his school fees from America. “So they were definitely liberal, and you felt safe, and all the heads of the houses and that, they all were definitely, as long as there wasn’t something like violence or things […] they were all against the government”.65 Asked if his fellow pupils had ever given him grief after his father’s arrest, Peter said that “I got invited to people’s houses, taken on holiday with them, I felt quite privileged actually”. He thought that this had a lot to do with his personality—he was “quite naughty and always ready for a prank”. He was also “with a very terrific class of people”, who seemed to feel that it wasn’t “a bad thing to be friends with this” child of political prisoners. A lot of the pupils came from rich families and they, and their parents were often absent, “so we would go to their houses and

272

A. KIRKALDY

drink beer, and we would never even see the parents”, who “seemed to be busy with their own stuff”. The richer kids also had cars and they would use these to drive to parties. This lent Peter a kind of “mystique”. Moreover, “the number one thing was girls and parties. And interesting teachers”. Also, the architecture and traditions of school itself meant that “you just felt like you were in some kind of paradise”—there were beautiful “courtyards and stone and the boarders living in these garrets and buns for tea”. This did not mean that all of his fellow pupils were liberals. At one stage, the kids had been allowed to run political parties at school as a form of civic awareness. While some formed the United Party, Craig Williamson, the future apartheid spy and assassin, had adopted the conservative Herstigte Nasionale Partei. Peter also knew that he had been accepted by his peers at St. John’s when he made the first soccer team and they soundly beat Yeoville Boys’ High, his old school. He was awarded colours for this.66 Jill, at Rhodean, also found that Ivan’s arrest did not lead to any major upheavals at school: The school was actually quite sympathetic, I mean in a strange sort of way, I don’t think I was ostracised at school about it, no, no. Look, some of my school friends also came from […] liberal political families and I think that they had more of an understanding what was going on. I don’t think the school kids understood really what was happening but I wouldn’t say that they ostracised me. I remember one girl’s father was a mine manager in Welkom, this was after my father […] was taken off to jail, and there had been a big mine accident, and I think he was prosecuted as the mine manager. And she said ‘Now I know exactly what you’re going through, you know, my dad’s also been prosecuted [laughs’ …] The communist thing, I guess one kind of slightly downplayed that with school friends and it was more a black/white thing, you know.67

Ivan had been arrested during her matric year, and when the trial carried on into 1965 Jill was at Wits studying for a BA Degree. She took four years over this because she changed her majors.68 Peter was still at school. She found considerable sympathy for her position, and her parents’ stances, at Wits: You know, there weren’t fantastic student politics in the sixties. There was the SRC, which was quite a big deal.69 And then there was Nusas, which I was vaguely involved with, but not to a massive extent. […] When I was at

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

273

university, there was a bunch of us. I mean, the Fischers – Paul Fischer and Ilse Fischer were there, Sheila Weinberg, so there was a whole group of pretty left wing students […] on the campus. […] Paul was a total cynic, a very cynical character, looked on all of this with a degree of scepticism so to speak. So, he was a very cynical guy, would sort of watch everything with a jaundiced eye. [Asked by Alan if they hung out together] Yes, very much so, the groups of us would all hang out together. In my first year of university, my dad was on trial. So I would go to the trial, friends of yours from university would be there […] Definitely there were a group of younger lecturers at WITS who were very sympathetic towards this whole setup. You know, Al Stadler was in Politics, Charles Newton was in Politics, there was a whole group of English lecturers, Robin Lee, etc, etc. There was the Guy Len Alderchof, in African Life and Thought. So, more so than at school, which was a slightly different setup, at university you felt that you were definitely around people who were sympathetic.70

By the end of Ivan’s trial, it had become clear that it was likely that Lesley would also face arrest. As a result, she made plans for Gerry Doyle, a Skinnerian psychologist and primatologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, to move into the house and take care of the children should this happen.71 It may have made more sense for them to stay with Agnes, but Agnes and Jim had totally different ideas about child-rearing. They would have imposed petty regulations in a way which would have rendered insignificant the disaster that would emerge when they stayed with the Rosenbergs. The children repeatedly pleaded with Lesley to make certain that they never had to stay with Agnes.72 It did not take long after Lesley’s imprisonment for the carefully laid plans about Gerry Doyle’s care of the children to fall apart. In Lesley’s words after a short stay he realized the job was too much for him. He couldn’t deal with two difficult teenagers who had their whole life turned upside down within a year. Jill and Peter knew our commitment in theory but the realization was quite different.73

He reportedly said to Agnes “when are you going to do something about these bloody Schermbrucker children because I can’t stay here any longer?” He left within two months.74 To make matters worse, Ivan and Lesley had saved R3,000 (a considerable amount of money in those days) for the children to use as a nest egg while they were in prison.

274

A. KIRKALDY

Jill, who had power of attorney, was coerced into parting with this to settle outstanding taxes due from the winding up of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers.75 Bertha and Izzy Rosenberg offered to have the children and the house was rented out. However, things did not work out. Peter in particular could not fit in with the Rosenberg’s rigid family rules, became increasingly unhappy and eventually ran away. Jill also found the friction unbearable.76 Matters came to a head when Jill phoned around to see if they could find a flat. One or two people called back and Bertha answered the phone, leading to a scene from which there was no going back.77 Yael Hirson then invited Peter and Jill to go and stay with her and her children for a while.78 Her husband, Baruch, a Trotskyite, was serving nine years imprisonment at the time because of his activities in the banned ARM, of which he was a founder member.79 Lesley noted that: “There Jill and Peter were very happy – it was more like they had been used to said Jill, ‘freedom with responsibility!’”80 This would be confirmed by Peter.81 But this did not last long. Yael had three children and their house was fairly small. After about three months they had to move to a students’ commune in an old Parktown house where they remained until August 1968.82 Peter and Jill moved back to 178 Frances Street to get it ready for their mother’s return in November 1968 after three years in prison.83 In Lesley’s summation: “You know, like all boys and girls, siblings, they fought like mad and sometimes they were friendly and sometimes they fought. But when we went to jail these two kids stuck together”.84 “Jill and Peter had a rocky time but came through it all firm friends and solidly behind us – very proud to know we had taken a stand and stuck to our principles”.85 Lesley ascribes this lack of resentment partly to the fact that, unlike families like the Slovos, they had a very solid relationship: “If you don’t have this sort of solid background of family life then it’s hard to cope with all of these things, the cracks and breaks and everything. No, Jill and Peter are absolutely lovely”.86 For Peter and Jill there had never been any doubt that their parents would do otherwise. Jill explained that by mid-1964 the family well knew that Ivan and Lesley would be jailed. They had talked about this and realised that, morally, there was no alternative—the Party had decided “that whites in senior positions shouldn’t leave, because they were privileged enough to be able to leave and they would be seen as running off and abandoning” their black comrades. So, “even at that point, I don’t think that we particularly resented it”. As with their parents, she and Peter saved their resentment for those like the Slovos who left when they “were

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

275

not supposed to”. She believed that she and Peter had coped with all of this largely because their parents’ political involvement and activities were simply “a factor of life”. As far as she could recall, she always felt in sympathy with what her parents did, and there was no tension between the family and politics.87 Peter agreed that he and Jill were much closer than what they would have been because of their shared experiences. As children before their parents went to prison, they fought “very much, like cat and dog”.88 Reviva noted that the Schermbrucker children appeared to bear their parents no ill-will. Ilse Fischer, Ruth Slovo and Denis Hirson “resented their parents’ involvement […] a terribly sad story”. However, she had never heard anything negative from Peter and Jill—“I think they are suppressing it”.89 While Peter accepted many of the socialist teachings that his parents espoused, Jill was perhaps more cautious. Although she accepted socialist ideology, she was more critical of socialists themselves: at the time that my dad went to jail and that, I began to think that these weren’t such a nice bunch of people. And I thought: ‘do I really want to be with these people that I’m not really [very fond of]’ You know, I’m sure that you’ve heard that my parents stayed in South Africa and other people went off when they weren’t supposed to go off and at the time of the whole Rivonia Trial I saw people just collapsing and crumbling and I thought ‘You know, I don’t think that these are particularly nice people’. And I guess I learned that actually politics is one thing and the way that people actually behave towards people is another thing. And I think that there were people who were nicer, who often in a way who had better values, who weren’t particularly involved – you didn’t actually have to be politically involved to be a good, decent person. And I still feel that. And I think that I’m vindicated. You look back and you see these people that were politically involved and they turned out to be a thoroughly bad bunch. So I never really felt that I had a drive to be politically involved, no. Although sympathetic towards people, not particularly materialistic in values, that sort of thing – I think that I imbibed some of the better values.90

276

A. KIRKALDY

Notes 1. “The State Versus Abram Fischer and 13 Others: Judgement, Sentences and Appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s Preparatory Examination and Charge in the Supreme Court, 1964– 1965/Abram Louis Fischer et al. (Defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463 (9 reels microfilm (positive): 35 mm), Reel 3 (Continued), State v Abram Fischer, Preparatory Examination & Charge in Supreme Court, p. BF1; Glenn Frankel, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999, p. 270; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 1. See also Stephen Clingman, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner Revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998, pp. 348, 366, 397; Gerard Ludi, The Communistisation of the ANC, Alberton, Gaglago, 2011, pp. 146–147. Ludi mentions plans for rapidly changing membership of the Central Committee to counter the effects of arrests and replace those who had fled into exile. 2. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), State v Abram Fischer, Preparatory Examination & Charge in Supreme Court, pp. BF173-BF174. At this stage, Doreen was the Secretary of the Hope Training House for crippled children. [“Three More Held Under 180-Day Clause”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 November 1965, 1.] She had been a member of the COD and had assisted in the organisation of the Congress of the People. [“Subversion by Christian Action Aid Fund Denied”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 January 1966, 6.] 3. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 1. 4. Ibid.; “State Begins the ‘He Led Reds from Hiding’”, Rand Daily Mail, 27 January 1966, 8. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF1. 5. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF175–BF176 (quotations); “Subversion”. 6. “State begins”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF1–BF2 (quotations). See also Gerard Ludi and Blaar Grobbelaar, The Amazing Mr Fischer, Nasionale Boekhandel, Cape Town, 1966, pp. 84–86, 97–98.

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

277

7. “Evidence of Jeffrey David Rudin Given on 10.8.66 in Trial of: State vs. V. Weinberg and L. Schermbrucker”, University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers, p. 1, at http://www.historicalpa pers.wits.ac.za/inventories/inv_pdft/AD1897/AD1897-B7-01jpeg.pdf, accessed 25 March 2015. 8. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF2, BF3. 9. Ibid., p. BF2. 10. Clingman, Bram Fischer, pp. 364–365; Interview with Rica Hodgson, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014, pp. 2–3; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 1. 11. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 1. 12. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF108–BF111. 13. Ibid., p. BF174; “Subversion”. Mary Wallace was the secretary to the South African Committee for Higher Education. [“The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF104.] In the Rand Daily Mail report of Bram’s trial, she appears as Naomi Wallace. 14. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF2. Once Bram had been arrested, Gabrielle would not return to South Africa to give evidence against him. [Ibid., pp. BF124-BF125.] 15. “State Begins”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF2. 16. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF176–BF180. 17. Ibid., pp. BF182–BF190 (quotation, p. BF185); Gregory Houston, The Post-Rivonia ANC and SACP Underground, Pretoria, HSRC, 2004, pp. 603, 610; United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Opponents to Apartheid Subjected to Banning Orders in South Africa, Alternative title, Notes and Documents—United Nations Centre Against Apartheid No. 18/69, October 1969, accessed through Aluka digital library, at http://psimg.jstor.org/ fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document.nuun1969_13_final. pdf, accessed 12 August 2020. 18. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF182–BF184, BF186, BF190, BF192.

278

A. KIRKALDY

19. Ibid., pp. BF1, BF3. 20. Ibid., pp. BF179–BF180. 21. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 1. Bram had managed to obtain a false identity card and driver’s licence in the name of Douglas Black which were forged for him by Party contacts in London and forwarded to him through Lesley. [“State Begins”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF3.] See indexes of Clingman and Frankel for biographical details of the Sepels. 22. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 290; “Three More”. See also Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 404; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, p. 1; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70, Notes and Documents, May 1970, This is Apartheid, II”, at http://www.avoiceonline.org/ass ets/txu-diggs-194-f14-01/txu-diggs-194-f14-01.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, p. 9. Doreen Tucker was detained on the same day. [“Three More”.] 23. Interviews with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 10; 20 January 2014, n.p. 24. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 5. 25. Interview with Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 3. 26. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, pp. 12, 13. 27. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 9. 28. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., pp. 2–3, 9. 29. “Lesley”, undated notes prepared by Hilary Hamburger in her possession, p. 1. See also Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 9. 30. “Lesley”, p. 1. 31. “180-Day Detainee Refuses to Talk”, Rand Daily Mail, 28 January 1966, 6; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF152. 32. “180-Day Detainee”; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF158–BF159.

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

279

33. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 9; “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF168–BF169. 34. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 290. 35. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF169. 36. Ibid., p. BF171; “Subversion”; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 9. 37. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, pp. 290–291; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 3 (quotation). 38. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF108-110. 39. Interjection by Reviva Schermbrucker to Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 40. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 8– 9. 41. Telephone conversation, Lesley Schermbrucker, 11 July 2013; Informal conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 21 January 2014 (quotation). 42. Telephone conversation, Lesley Schermbrucker, 11 July 2013. 43. Peter Hazelhurst, “Why I Turned on My Friends—Mrs. Wentzel”, Rand Daily Mail, 3 December 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker (quotation); TRC Final Report, Volume 2, Chapter 2, Subsection 33, paragraph 329, at http://sabctrc.saha.org.za/reports/volume2/chapter2/subsec tion33.htm, accessed 11 March 2014. 44. Hazelhurst, “Why I Turned”. 45. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF181; “Subversion”. 46. “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), pp. BF171–BF192; “Subversion”. 47. Ludi and Grobbelaar, The Amazing, p. 104 (quotation); “The State Versus Abram Fischer”, Reel 3 (Continued), p. BF172; “Subversion”. 48. “Subversion”. 49. “In the Supreme Court of South Africa (Appellate Division), In the Enquiry Concerning Violet May Weinberg, Enquiry in Terms of Section 212 of Act 56 of 1955, and Arising Out of the Proceedings in the Matter Between the State and I. Heymann and M. Dingake”, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inv

280

A. KIRKALDY

entories/inv_pdfo/AD1901/AD1901-51-1-01-jpeg.pdf, accessed 25 March 2014; “I Was Kept Awake 4 Days—Mrs. Weinberg”, The Star, 18 May 1966, 1, 3; “Judge Assumes Truth of Mrs. Weinberg’s Torture Charge”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 May 1966, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Frankel, Rivonia’s Children, p. 291 wrongly states that Violet was sentenced for refusing to testify against Bram. 50. Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 417. 51. “Two Change Plea to Guilty in Red Party Case”, The Star, 10 August 1966 (clipping in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker). 52. “Evidence of Jeffrey David Rudin”, p. 1. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid., pp. 2–3. 55. Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 417; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 1; 10; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 9. 56. “Two Change Plea to Guilty in Red Party”. 57. Ibid.; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, pp. 8–9. 58. Clingman, Bram Fischer, Cape Town, 1998, p. 417. 59. “Two Change Plea in Red Act”, Rand Daily Mail, 11 August 1966, 11; “Two Change Plea to Guilty in Red Party”; “Women Given Two Years in Red Case”, The Star, 15 May 1966, clipping in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 60. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 2. 61. “2 Jailed for Red Activities”, Rand Daily Mail, 16 August 1966, 4; Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 417; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 1, 10; Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 2 “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, pp. 8–9; “Women Given Two Years” (quotation). 62. Clingman, Bram Fischer, p. 417. Bartholomew Hlapane joined the Communist Party in 1955 and served on the Central Committee from the end of 1962. He gave evidence against Bram Fischer in his second trial. [Clingman, Bram Fischer, pp. 348, 404–405, 407–408, 414, 416–417; “Detainee Gives Details of Communist High Command”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 January 1966, newspaper cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker.] 63. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 1.

6

WOMEN PICKING UP THE SPEAR: LESLEY’S …

281

64. Maru-a-Pula School, an independent and co-ed day and boarding Secondary School, was founded in 1972 and aimed “to serve as a model of non-racial education in southern Africa.” [Maru-aPula School, Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/mar uapula/info, accessed 5 December 2013.] 65. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 5. 66. Ibid., pp. 2, 5 (quotation), 6. 67. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 1. 68. Ibid., 5 January 2011, pp. 1, 5, 6. 69. Jill was one of twelve Nusas supporters elected to the Wits SRC at the end of August 1966. They took twelve of the fourteen seats contested in this election. [“12 Nusas supporters elected to Wits S.R.C.”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1966, 13.] 70. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 4. 71. Interviews with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010, p. 7; Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 3; Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 12, 13; Untitled document written by Lesley Schermbrucker beginning “They Came for Ivan on July 24th 1964”, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 3. For a time, Gerry [Gerald A.] Doyle was married to Molly Irene Doyle (nee Anderson). However, under the stress of police harassment and detentions, their marriage fell apart. He was a founding editor of the International Journal of Primatology. 72. Informal conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 22 January 2014. 73. “They Came for Ivan”, p. 4. 74. Ibid.; Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 3. 75. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 13; “They Came for Ivan”, p. 4. 76. Interviews with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, pp. 3–4; Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, pp. 12; Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 8; Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 8; “They Came for Ivan”, pp. 4–5. 77. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 4. 78. “They Came for Ivan”, p. 5; Interviews with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 4; Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 9.

282

A. KIRKALDY

79. Ian Hunter, “Biography, Baruch Hirson (1921–1999)”, at http:// www.marxists.org/archive/hirson/biography.htm, accessed 26 February 2014; South African History Online, “Baruch Hirson”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/baruch-hirson, accessed 26 February 2014; “They Came for Ivan”, p. 5; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 9. 80. “They Came for Ivan”, p. 5. 81. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 9. 82. Interviews with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, pp. 4–6; Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 8; Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 8–9; “They Came for Ivan”, p. 5 (quotation). 83. Interviews with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 5; Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 9; “They Came for Ivan”, p. 5. 84. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 12. 85. “They Came for Ivan”, p. 5. 86. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 10. 87. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, pp. 1, 3. 88. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 16. 89. Interjection by Reviva Schermbrucker to Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 13. 90. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 4.

CHAPTER 7

Prison Life

“Politicals” and “Non-Politicals” Understandably, accounts of the lives of political prisoners during the struggle years have focused on Robben Island and the experiences of prisoners there. With the exception of Hugh Lewin’s account and the biographies of Bram Fischer, life in Pretoria Central or Local for white men political prisoners has been largely neglected. This is even more the case for the women incarcerated in the Fort and in Barberton. The majority of the political prisoners—both black and white—were prisoners of conscience and, in a democratic society, would never have been incarcerated. The authorities feared that the “politicals” would corrupt the “non-politicals” ideologically—both groups had fallen foul of society but the former were potentially more of a danger because they were perceived to be more intelligent and deeply committed to overthrowing the established order. They thus did all in their power to avoid mixing between “politicals” and “non-politicals”. Realising that this was not practical in a prison setting, they set out to foster divisions between the two groups, creating a hierarchy of privileges and encouraging the latter group to inform on the former. In doing so, they relied heavily on the fact that, unlike their black counterparts, white political prisoners generally had no status as freedom fighters among the “non-politicals”. Despite the stereotypes, some of the encounters between the two groups on the Island were far from happy experiences. In addition, despite the activities of the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_7

283

284

A. KIRKALDY

authorities, not all of the white “politicals” were seen as “race traitors” by their “non-political” fellow inmates. Relationships varied over time between individuals. It was here that Ivan’s role as a “practical communist” really came into its own. He seems generally to have got on well with the “non-politicals”, to the disgust of Lewis Baker. While the “nonpoliticals” at times showed respect for the commitment of the “politicals”, they frequently saw them as gullible and easy to take advantage of. Political prisoners were automatically classified as “D” category inmates. Common-law prisoners, including bank robbers, murderers and rapists were classified in the higher “B” category. Political prisoners would appear before a prison board, consisting of senior prison officials, every six months. This board would question the prisoners and consider reports from their warders. After assessing these, they would make a decision— either to upgrade their category, keep it the same or demote them. It took Eddie Daniels, a Robben Island prisoner who served fifteen years, “four years to be promoted from ‘D’ to ‘C’”. Within “months, he was demoted back to ‘D’”. Those who reached “A” category, and had sufficient funds, could buy additional luxuries such as cakes, cookies, sweets and non-alcoholic drinks. They could also buy magazines, newspapers and tobacco.1 Prisoners could write and receive one 500-word letter every six months. “It was not unusual for wardens to count off what they considered 500-words in an incoming letter and snip off the rest”. Over time, wardens became tired of counting out the words and the regulation was amended to allow for 1½ sides. Prisoners soon learned to write in extremely small print. Censorship was strict.2 Generally, “political prisoners were not allowed to write to known political activists and censorship focused explicitly on political issues and information about the living conditions in jail, including the situation of […] fellow prisoners”.3 Letters could sometimes be withheld. Ahmed Kathrada, one of the Rivonia group only received a letter posted by his brother in 1964 in 1982. “It was withheld for 18 years because of its political content:” he had mentioned “that there had been a change of government in Britain and Harold Wilson of the Labour Party had come into power”.4

7

PRISON LIFE

285

Ivan Just before sentencing, Lesley had organised Ivan’s registration at UNISA.5 Despite his involvement in political activism, it was the practicalities and the cut-and-thrust of politics on the ground that really excited him. Studying through the then-conservative Department of Political Science was not his favourite pastime while in prison. Jeanne Daley later recalled that the SACP members in prison “were well-organised”. Most of them “enrolled for different courses to ensure a range of interesting reading matter. Ivan said later that one of the good things about coming out of prison was that he did not have to study any more”.6 While they were still on trial Ivan and his co-accused had been able to receive regular food parcels and correspondence from outside. Lewis Baker’s description of Ivan at that time was not flattering, describing him as “a man who had got used to living well”, going to parties and socialising. Incarcerated in the Fort Prison, they “were all locked up in the same section. Ivan was a man taken out of freedom and put in a cage”. This he bore “with some humour but huge anger”. Ivan was “totally concerned with his own role in trial”. He got “the impression that Ivan believed he was innocent. He didn’t behave like a political person. Made friends with criminals”. Lesley made and “sent in beautiful food” which he shared with his fellow trialists. “He lived well - he smoked cigars”. Baker recalled with amusement that, one day, Ivan had received a parcel— a roasted chicken—which was rather “downmarket” and not up to the usual standard. Investigations by the Section Head revealed that Syd Latie, a prisoner on a fraud charge, had received Ivan’s parcel in error. Neither Syd nor Ivan was pleased by the outcome—the former’s parcel had contained cannabis while the latter just wanted the delicious chicken (Fig. 7.1).7 Elizabeth Lewin recalled that Ivan wrote with much appreciation and wonder, about the night of the last day of their trial, when the nonpoliticals, who had been listening to them singing all the old political folk songs every evening, planned a special event for them. Apparently the non-politicals had been practicing the songs in secret, while they were away in court, and performed a special concert for them, as a tribute to the courage and compassion of these political prisoners.8 Conditions changed dramatically with their conviction and transfer to Pretoria Local and then Central. Describing this, Lewis Baker wrote that the parcels stopped and the good things came to an end. They were

286

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 7.1 The Fort Prison. The prison closed in 1983 and became dilapidated before restoration work began. The site now forms part of the Constitution Hill complex and the seat of the Constitutional Court (Constitution Hill Archive)

shaved, issued with prison clothes and placed in D category. Reluctantly, he admitted that Ivan came into his own under these conditions: “Here I remember Ivan stripped of everything, if he didn’t have that political commitment he would never have survived that. He was interested in all new – insatiable”. What kept him going was that “Ivan felt in the leadership” and that “People deferred to him”.9 Raymond Eisenstein also commented on this: “Ivan was very, very practical and John Laredo via Evans10 called him on occasion ‘The Yard Boss’ and also ‘The Old Grey Fox’”. This was because “he was very smart” and very good at reading people. There were “all sorts of clashes” around “ideology and so on”, and “he could calm tempers down and that was very, very important”.11

7

PRISON LIFE

287

Hugh Lewin put this more directly: “He was fairly laid back but he was also pretty tough. He was Ivan Fucking Schermbrucker to everybody, particularly himself”. 12 Hugh also confirms that your category in prison defined your whole being. At Pretoria Local, the political prisoners fell under the command of Colonel Aucamp and he was merciless in his use of the categories as a way of humiliating and controlling them: we were kept very much down in terms of groupings because your whole status in prison was whether you were A, B, C, D group and we were definitely D group and he kept us in D group, which practically meant we couldn’t smoke or we couldn’t smuggle any tobacco in our section until we were put in with some black prisoners who smuggled quite happily but we didn’t get much tobacco. But the most important thing was the lack of news.13

It was also disconcerting that D group prisoners were only allowed one visit by a single person every six months. In C group, visits took place every three months. While some of the shorter-term prisoners managed to be upgraded to C group reasonably quickly, for the longer-term political prisoners, it took more than two years for the upgrade: “And that was really cruel, there was no need for it at all, they had complete control over the whole operation. But it was something that was there that was in fact in place […] I would say for about four years”. It was through the tireless efforts of Helen Suzman and, through her, the International Committee of the Red Cross that improvements were gradually made: and I mean, improvements was one tennis ball instead of anything else – but as soon as we started getting C group […] and then into B group and then finally A group, which was the acclamation that one could smoke in A group, so by the time you got to A group you were able to smuggle happily with the rest of the people. But it did take a considerable time […]14

Beginning his sentence in Pretoria Local, Ivan was transferred to Pretoria Central in March 1966, along with Eli Weinberg, Norman Levy, Lewis Baker, Costa Gazides, Paul Trewhela, Denis Goldberg, Dave Kitson, Marius Schoon and Hugh Lewin.15 They were transferred back to Local in November 1966.16 The convicted women:

288

A. KIRKALDY

were bundled off to Barberton and we didn’t have much news from them because Aucamp kept us very much isolated and was peculiarly nasty about the way he did it […] Basically the white politicals were kept isolated, which meant that we were kept in a separate prison, or rather a separate section of the Lokaal, of local, the main prison.17

Agnes only saw Ivan once after he was imprisoned. This was when Lesley was arrested and she was granted a compassionate visit to decide what to do about the children, the business and the house.18 Surprisingly, their younger brother, Brann, who had joined the police, managed to see more of Ivan than Agnes. From time to time, he would accompany senior officers from Kimberley, where he was stationed, to Pretoria. On “two or three” occasions, he would change out of his uniform into civvies and visit Ivan.19 Describing another of these visits, when Brann did not change out of his uniform, Raymond Eisenstein, Ivan’s cellmate at the time, stated that: One day the cell opens and the warder says to Ivan: ‘Schermbrucker you have a visit.’ So Ivan goes and has his visit and comes back all smiling and [...] he says, ‘Oh, I’ve just seen my brother.’ No sooner had he said that than [...] Warder Scheppel, I don’t know whether he’d already been made a Lieutenant or whatever, he was a small man, rather fat like some of these Afrikaners with a florid face, he’s enraged, absolutely enraged, screaming his head off, screaming his head off at Ivan. And so we listened to that and I don’t speak Afrikaans, and anyway he could barely speak he was so angry. And then he just slammed the door after a few minutes of that screaming stuff. And so I said to Ivan, ‘Well, what was it?’ So he said, ‘Oh well, that was about my brother. My brother is a policeman in Kimberley. And he had the good idea to visit me in his uniform.’ Schneppel angry because what he was saying was: ‘How could you who come from such a good family do things like you did?’ [...] Because in the hierarchy of these people the police were a bit above the warders, you know, they were all in the same boat, you know, but he assumed that Ivan was just one of us and then seeing his own brother in uniform, with that he couldn’t contain himself, he was absolutely enraged. We laughed a lot about that. [Laughs]20

While Ivan would remain close to Agnes throughout his life, he and Brann were “Not really close, I mean they would see each other once in a blue moon”.21

7

PRISON LIFE

289

A More Nationalist Focus One is able to get some idea of Ivan’s prison years from his fellowprisoners; Denis Kuny, his legal representative and friend; Lesley and his prison correspondence. It is clear that his prison experiences strengthened his humanity and his focus on creating a just society for all rather than a commitment to political ideology. While he would remain a communist, he saw the value of all contributions to the national democratic struggle. Committed to maintaining peace and harmony among his fellow-prisoners, he focused on what united them, rather than ideological differences. He began to concern himself more with the national situation than with the transnational. Transnational links could be tapped for support, but national liberation was the first priority. According to Paul Trewhela: “Ivan was probably the most steadfast moral beacon among our quite substantial number of white male political prisoners in Pretoria Local”.22 For Paul, Raymond Eisenstein and Dave Evans (of the ARM), what characterised Ivan—and set him apart from his fellow Communists— was his “humanity” and pragmatic approach to Communism. Raymond emphasised that: “And I have to tell you that this was something in short supply with some of his comrades, you know”. In his reading, Ivan “was not Stalinist and the South African Communist Party at that time was the most Stalinist next to North Korea”. Other communist fellow-prisoners such as Eli Weinberg and Issy Heymann “were lovely people otherwise but totally, totally Stalinoid. Ivan was not like that. He had great humanity and he was a great human being”. He became the “go to” person if one was depressed, despondent or seeking advice. In this respect, he was “closer […] to people like Laredo and Evans etc.”, a number of whom were not Marxists. Ivan “was not an ideological imbecile, he was not into [Marxism as a] religion […] And in that sense he was not a millenarian, which the others were including Bram”. For Raymond, “some of them were lovely people” but they were enslaved by their millenarian Marxist ideology. Ivan “knew the ideology, obviously, but he was not ideological”. While Bram was Raymond’s “great friend” and “was a lovely guy, very, very nice”, he and his fellow ARM prisoners felt that they could never entirely trust him because of his solid commitment to the party line. Ivan was “loved by all without qualifications and trusted completely” by communists and non-communists alike. Even those who had turned their back on the Party or had been expelled or branded as Trotskyites shared

290

A. KIRKALDY

this trust. While Ivan and Bram were close friends, for Raymond, this was the major difference between them.23 He felt that Ivan was a communist because “the Communist Party was the only significant non-racial organisation which existed since 1927”. Had there been other progressive organisations with a history of non-racialism at the time, there was a strong possibility that Ivan would rather have joined one of these.24 He was nevertheless “a man ahead of his times” and a pioneer of “Socialism with a Human Face”. Remarkably, he managed to achieve this while not falling foul of the Party hierarchy and being branded a Trotskyite.25 It is unlikely that all of his fellow political prisoners felt as strongly about Ivan’s sterling qualities as Raymond and, as we have already seen, Lewis Baker viewed him differently. It is clear that Ivan was widely trusted and seen as a peacemaker who could bridge the ideological divides between the factions and offer support and pragmatic advice. Denis Kuny fleshed this out more in his funeral eulogy for Ivan: And speaking of Ivan’s courage which was coupled with a kind of blunt, forthright but respectful quality, the time he spent in gaol was an inspiration to his fellow prisoners. The example which he set and the leadership qualities which he displayed will always be remembered and spoken about. He was never afraid to take up issues on his own and on their behalf, to act as a spokesman or to take responsibility, and in this way he achieved a great deal on behalf of all of them. I can remember seeing Ivan in the Fort in 1964 and 1965 quietly, respectfully, tactfully and diplomatically dealing with prison officials and warders in such a manner that he established an outstanding communication and relationship between the officials and the prisoners who were, by the very nature of their charges, not particularly popular prisoners.26

Hugh Lewin also had fond recollections of Ivan’s interpersonal skills: I’m struggling to find a term for this; basically he was really the auntie of everybody. […] And so […] we all went into detention at the same time, which was basically June/July ’64. And everyone went through, the detentions were very much the same, they were not pleasant, they were very nasty, they were inclusive in terms of the number of people who were detained and Ivan was very much the auntie or maybe shop steward of the whole setup. And I think that people became aware of his capabilities without doing too much about it because Ivan just organised everything and was the person who was organising everything. This I got to know

7

PRISON LIFE

291

of once we were in prison together [...] because there was very much the divide between the communists in the Fischer trial and the rest of us.27

In the absence of Bram Fischer, “Ivan was sort of automatically in charge of the communists” who had been imprisoned. Hugh and Ivan’s close friendship, lasted until the latter’s death. Hugh reckoned that through Ivan’s good offices, some of the tensions between communist and non-communist prisoners were lessened.28 Ivan also served as a peacemaker between the various Red factions in prison. Some of these divisions were ideological, others arose out of petty prison regulations.29 Rowley Arenstein30 was shunned by many of the other communists because he did not hesitate to speak against elements of Party policy and because he was opposed to the armed struggle. Despite Bram Fischer’s insistence that he be boycotted, Ivan consistently refused to do so.31 And, because of the “ridiculous regulations”: you had for instance two people of the MK high Command having violent arguments about whether every month they could spend Five Rand on tobacco or Five Rand on sweets. […] Dave Kitson was the main person there because Kitson didn’t smoke, so he always argued fervently for better conditions, ie that he should be allowed to buy sweets instead of tobacco. You talk about it now and it sounds ridiculous but it applied and Aucamp used to apply it very strenuously.32

Ivan and Bram also intervened to mediate in personal disputes. According to Lesley, things were “very, very difficult” in Pretoria Central, “they had a very difficult time with food and all sorts of things”. Some of the warders would obtain information from prisoners or foster tensions among them by offering them “a bit of extra bread and a bit of extra food”. Ivan and, to a lesser extent, Bram “seem to have been the two that kept the oil on the water” while “the others were a little bit more sort of argumentative and pulled against each other”. Raymond Thoms33 was reportedly passing on titbits of information to the prison authorities in the hope of securing small privileges or a reduction of his sentence. This led the rest of the group of prisoners to ostracise him. Ivan and Bram found a way of bringing him back into the group. After his release, Ivan was loath to speak of his experiences in prison, not wanting to recount these tensions.34 This was Wolfie Kodesh’s recollection: “Ivan & Bram – two key characters in prison. Ivan was judge of character – His assessment

292

A. KIRKALDY

of people always tempered by compassion. We were boycotting Thoms. Ivan was all for helping Thoms – don’t let’s not talk to people. Ivan knew people”.35 Ivan and Bram negotiated with the prison authorities and outsiders such as Helen Suzman on behalf of the prisoners.36 Both Bram’s biographer Hannes Haasbroek and Hugh Lewin have stated that Ivan was particularly solicitous in his care for Bram. According to Hugh: “the person who really looked after […] Bram, was Ivan”.37 Raymond Eisenstein recalled that, while frequently supporting others, Ivan never allowed himself to appear to be down or depressed. He may have felt it but he never showed it to his fellow-prisoners, even his closest cellmates. “He was very upright”.38 Not all agreed with these positive views of Ivan’s character. Lewis Baker was in another faction. In his recollection, Ivan and Bram Fischer frequently “engaged in talking in the exercise yard” and could often be seen in “intense conversation” with Hugh Lewin. While Ivan “felt that he was in the leadership […] saw himself as a political person […]” and “People deferred to him”, it “would never have occurred to me to see him in that way”. In Baker’s opinion, Norman Levinson “was assumed by his peers (21 of us) to be leader”. A possible second in the leadership hierarchy was Fred Carneson.39 Baker had no doubts that “Ivan looked after Bram” and that “people went to him with […] problems”. Ivan “was not one to break confidences. He was cautious. Didn’t tell you a great deal”. But “Ivan was self-focussed. […] Ivan was about Ivan. Total fixation on his own matters. When Bram went underground it was ludicrous” as Ivan thought that he was now the main leader. Baker didn’t “remember having a conversation with Ivan” while they were in prison. He did remember that when he was released at the end of his sentence before Ivan: “I went away from prison seeing image of him fulminating & soldiering on”.40 Despite acting as a peacemaker and mediator, Ivan sometimes indulged the wicked side of his sense of humour to resort to a bit of shit-stirring among his comrades. According to Peter: Ja, they made jail a way of life, there was the music, everybody got a chance to choose music, so they used to do it to get at each other. So Ivan would bombard them with Joan Baez and then I read in his letters ‘Jesus, they playing that bloody opera again.’41

7

PRISON LIFE

293

The humour directed at those who, in Ivan’s, had sold out by fleeing overseas was more vitriolic. Raymond Eisenstein reminisced that many of the Communist Party members “who were in prison […] were very resentful, some more open and some less, with the people who had run”. While they could have run too—and some (such as Ivan) had been warned that they should—they had decided to stay both to continue the struggle and because the majority of their black comrades did not have this option. This resulted in divisions between the “stayers and the goers”. While some may have justified their departure as a means of ensuring that the struggle continued to be waged from overseas, rather than crushed completely internally, their decision to leave was often not made with any kind of meaningful consultation with their structures. Even while acknowledging that some could not take the pressures of house arrest and torture, many of those who stayed viewed those who left as cowards and even traitors. Raymond recollected that Ivan used to sing the following song lustily to the tune of the Red Flag as they marched around the exercise yard at Pretoria Local: The workers’ flag is getting pink It’s not as red as people think The working class can kiss my arse I’ve reached the English shores at last.42

By the time that he was imprisoned, Ivan had come to “despise” people like the Buntings and Joe Slovo who, in his opinion, were using the pretext of carrying on the struggle from underground outside the country “to justify comfortable personal choices”. In contrast, he hailed the example of Bram Fischer, who had come back from his Privy Council case to South Africa knowing that imprisonment would be the final result.43 Elizabeth Lewin had her recollection of Ivan’s attitude: He could become very judgemental and dismissive of people he thought had let the Movement down; He loved South Africa the land, the country, its peoples, and had made a commitment never to leave South Africa. He was thus deeply intolerant of those who left.44

At the same time “he was more complex than at these times he seemed to appear”. Faced with the hardships of prison life, he developed some compassion for the humanity of those who were simply not

294

A. KIRKALDY

strong enough to face arrest and interrogation or who broke in prison like Thoms had done.45 This was echoed by Raymond, who said that Ivan had helped Arthur Goldreich, Harold Wolpe and Lionel Gay to escape. In Ivan’s own words, “Wolpe was shitting in his pants”; Goldreich “on the other hand was very good and very courageous”. Gay would have cracked and become a state witness. It was thus better to get him out.46 Despite this, Ivan’s correspondence after his release makes it clear that he maintained the utmost loathing and contempt for those who had fled because, in his opinion, they were “bangbroeke”. Coupled with his growing disillusionment with the politics of the Soviet Union—in particular the invasion of Hungary—and his horror at the cult of personality around Stalin, it was those who fled leaving their black comrades behind that provided the major impetus behind his shift from a transnational to a much more African nationalist perception of politics and communism. The Routine of Prison Life Prison would eventually settle into a sort of routine. Ivan told Peter that he and other prisoners grew flowers (Ivan had always been a keen gardener) and played handball during their free time. They hated being locked up from 4 pm on Fridays until Monday mornings and loathed sewing mailbags, a task that they eventually managed to avoid. All the political prisoners gained permission to study through UNISA. Books had to be ordered from the CNA (Central News Agency) or from the university itself. This was a source of friction, with Ivan and his fellows frequently complaining that books which had been ordered had not arrived, either because they had been lost or had been intercepted by prison authorities.47 Lewis Baker remembered Ivan sewing mail bags – he was good at it – he could hold his own with the most intellectual of the bandiete. He had a grasp of what he was going for. He had a good instinct for survival. Good at sport – played volley ball – prison squash. Took some courses. Started reading.48

At Christmas the “politicals” would put on a play, some of them reportedly exhibiting considerable talent.49 Ivan was “infuriated” when the Special Branch offered him an early release if he would inform his colleagues. He was not for sale in any way.50 In Hugh Lewin’s recollection, conditions at Pretoria Local were extremely harsh—the regime

7

PRISON LIFE

295

there “was vicious and completely closed”. In some ways, the move to Pretoria Central “was Christmas for” them—“it was a fairly open jail in terms of the people’s sort of daily tasks and the way they were put into workshops and the way they were trundled around sort of fairly openly within the prison”. Instead of being separated from other prisoners, they formed part of the general prison population. Rather than sewing mailbags, like the convicts, they received basic training in carpentry, fitting and turning and as electricians. There were also plenty of opportunities to smokkel (smuggle contraband), particularly tobacco, sweets and small luxuries. They tried to smuggle letters in and out of the prison with little success—the convicts who controlled the smuggling networks were not really interested in this kind of item and found it more profitable to surrender them to the warders for reward than to pass them on. Despite the advantages of Central over Local, “the conditions were bad and everything was bad about the place, it was a terrible hanging jail” and this cast a shadow over all aspects of life there.51 Hugh argued that Ivan was particularly good at negotiating between the “politicals” and the other bandiete, as well as between prisoners and the warders. Fears about the possible escape of the “politicals” from Pretoria Central led to their being transferred back to Local after about eight months. These fears were not groundless, as plans for the escape of Denis Goldberg, the only Rivonia trialist in the group,52 were apparently at an advanced stage. In Local, they were again isolated from the other prisoners. Hugh emphasised that with this move, Ivan’s negotiating and mediation skills were tested even more than before. The group were again reunited with comrades such as Rowley Arenstein, who had not been transferred to Central. Numbers were now augmented by other communists and ARM members who had been sentenced in the interim. These included Bram Fischer, Issy Heymann and others. Rowley Arenstein and Dave Ernst (a medical practitioner from Natal who had been sentenced to five years under the Suppression of Communism Act) formed the Peking faction and Bram was “in the forefront of” the Moscow faction, playing out the predominant tensions in international communism at the time. Rowley managed to woo Paul Trewhela away from the Moscow faction to the Peking faction. “And Bram particularly was very uptight about the fact that Rowley filched this young recruit”. Baruch Hirson, the Trotskyite, remained out of factional disputes as he was extremely ill and “prison was the worst place to be” for somebody in this state. Hugh had no intentions

296

A. KIRKALDY

of joining the Party but was able to get on well with the Communists, largely because of the mediating role played by Ivan.53 A keen sense of what Ivan and his fellow-prisoners were experiencing may be gleaned from a reading of their cellmate Hugh Lewin’s poem “Touch”. His explanations of how he came to write this also provide a further example of the kind of respect that Ivan was accorded in prison by his fellow-prisoners: I wrote ‘Touch’ as a poem in about 1970, while still in prison, soon after we moved into the new section at Pretoria Local. I was just beginning to think of the impossible, of coming to the end of my seven-year stretch and being able to leave prison. I wrote a first draft of ‘Touch’ one evening and gave it on a rough sheet of paper to that father of all Pretoria political prisoners, Ivan Schermbrucker. Ivan stood at my cell door the following morning, waving the paper excitedly. ‘You’ve got to write more of this,’ he said, banging the bars of my grille. Ivan never did things quietly. ‘Much more! My God, they’ll come to regret they ever put us inside. You go tell it!’54

Hugh continued: I had been thinking about the senses and how they are affected in prison, the ways in which they are deadened by the experience. It was also the way that we were treated by the guards when we were transferred from our cells to the workshops and back. The routine involved being searched three or four times each day. It was horrible. You had to stand there while they slapped and prodded you. It seemed a complete contradiction of touch as a means of connection, as something that should be tender and comforting.55

He remarked on the thoughts and feelings that the poem conjured in him just over forty years later: It’s very emotional because the poem reminds me of so many aspects of what it was like being in prison: the violence, cruelty and brutality. Reading it remains an intense experience for me because the memories it evokes are still very strong. Prison remains a touchstone for me and is still very much part of my life, even though I was released in 1971. I still refer back to the experience, whether I want to or not. I recollect how we reacted to various incidents as prisoners and wonder what I would do if I was ever sent back. It was a terribly cataclysmic, but important part of my life.56

7

Touch, Hugh Lewin57 When I get out I’m going to ask someone to touch me very gently please and slowly, touch me I want to learn again how life feels. I’ve not been touched for seven years for seven years I’ve been untouched out of touch and I’ve learnt to know now the meaning of untouchable.58 Untouched- not quite I can count the things that have touched me One: fists At the beginning fierce mad fists beating beating till I remember screaming don’t touch me please don’t touch me Two: paws The first four years of paws every day patting paws, searching -arms up, shoes off

PRISON LIFE

297

298

A. KIRKALDY

legs apartprodding paws, systematic heavy, indifferent probing away all privacy. I don’t want fists and paws I want to want to be touched again and to touch I want to feel alive again I want to say when I get out Here I am please touch me.

Peter would comment that: It was only afterwards when he came out that he told you how cold it was or how they had to sew mailbags. But my father could make a huge production about just going to bed – and the blankets had to be this way and the matrass that way and the pillows this way.59

Lesley The Fort Lesley’s 300 days were spent in solitary confinement at the Fort Prison in Johannesburg (now part of the Constitution Hill precinct housing the Constitutional Court). She recalled her first night in solitary: Well, I had a cell all by myself. But the first time I was put in that cell it was very, very scary because there was a gap like this [indicates with hands] under the door and rats came in. Hooch, I screamed and screamed and screamed, these rats came in running around the place, running around the place. And I screamed so much that eventually the matron [Matron Lubbey] came with the keys and everything, opened up: ‘What’s going on here?’ And I told her. So she said: ‘Oh, we forgot to [...] give you

7

PRISON LIFE

299

blankets, you have to pack them under the door so the rats don’t come in.’60 […] They were grey blankets – rough and they were a bit smelly. […] But we did have a bed […] men didn’t have a bed. And understand that in the cells the white women prisoners were treated the best. [...] I had a sheet – just one – and I had a pillow [and a pillowcase] and this grey blanket […] and a bucket of course. But the bucket even had a lid (Fig. 7.2).61

The routine was soul-destroying. The cell was unlocked “in the morning and you came out with the bucket of your night stuff, you know, your excrement”, stood in a queue and then “emptied it into this open drain thing”. You then rinsed it under a tap in the prison yard. After this, you dumped some sheep dip (Jeyes Fluid) into the bucket and then returned to your cell. And sometime later they’d knock on the door and they’d bring the tin plate of porridge – but I like porridge so it was OK – And I’d have a little

Fig. 7.2 Isolation cells at the Fort Prison (Constitution Hill Archive)

300

A. KIRKALDY

milk in a tin cup and a cup of tea and a slice of bread with a bit of jam on it, that was breakfast.62

Lesley was only allowed out for an hour a day. “I was allowed to bath in that hour, wash a little bit of clothes and walk around that courtyard all by myself, and all the other prisoners were locked up. Just one hour a day”.63 For lunch, there: was a bit of meat, which I really didn’t eat even in those days, a dollop of samp mealies and a bit of pumpkin and a bit of cabbage, that sort of thing, on a tin plate and you had a mug with some tea in it [...]64

Supper was brought at five o’clock in the evening and consisted of soup and “a hunk of bread”. Because Lesley was in solitary, with all meals: “the person who brought it never said a word to you, […] passed it in, and then that was it, you ate it”.65 Supper time was also lock-up time. Lesley dreaded this. Asked by her grandson, Ben, if she started talking to herself, Lesley replied: “Yes, yes, very much so – I even find I talk to myself today. I talked to Ivan quite a lot”. What kept her sane? It was difficult. I think, you know, what keeps you going Alan is also that you have got a passion about this. You are convinced that this is the right thing to do. You see, you’ve got that, and I had it.66

To me, this seemed to be the kind of stock answer that one expected from incarcerated “struggle heroes”. I did not doubt her courage and tenacity but felt that there must have been deeper hidden emotions as well. This became clear in the early hours of 24 January 2014. On the previous day, we had been talking about her prison experiences. That night, she experienced extremely vivid nightmares where she dreamt she was back in prison. I was staying with her at the time. At about 3 am I had woken up and gone to make tea as I was struggling to get back to sleep. Lesley came through to the kitchen and started talking. So we went through to her sitting room. She recounted that what she had told me: earlier was just trying to put a good face on it – it was not reality. You forget just how bad it was. I woke up at about two thinking that I was back in prison and have been awake since then. I didn’t tell you earlier that in the Fort, when I heard that key turning in the lock, it was really

7

PRISON LIFE

301

terrible. I spent hours huddled under that grey blanket wondering ‘Will it ever end?’ I was even more worried about Ivan than myself. He had been detained, then spent time as an awaiting trial prisoner and then sentenced to five years. In all, he spent nearly seven years in prison. I wondered if they would ever release him.67

Her worry was not helped by the fact that she knew virtually nothing about the conditions of his imprisonment or his state of mind. Ivan had written to her the whole time that she had been in solitary confinement but the letters had not been passed on to her. The authorities only did so once she was leaving for Barberton.68 However, despite the isolation and the heartache, Lesley does recall that there were [very] isolated instances of kindness, particularly from Matron Lubbey, whom she obviously remembers with affection: Matron Lubbey brought me a piece of material and some threads for embroidery – she smuggled it in, saying ‘Don’t say a word to anybody.’ I made myself a small bag which I have still got. So there were some glimpses of kindness (Fig. 7.3).69

What stopped Lesley from cracking completely was being granted permission to study through UNISA. Having been sentenced in November, her permission to study only came through in February, leading to a rush to get her registered before the closing date—very difficult in solitary confinement: Jill helped me enormously with all that sort of thing. I forget who the other people were who helped to get me registered. And that definitely helped. I had a plan.70 […] It was an important lifeline but it was difficult because they did anything they possibly could to make it even harder. You would do the assignment, it would stay in that office there before they would send it off, and you would wonder well why haven’t you got some feedback, what’s happened. And eventually you plucked up courage to ask, and eventually you got the thing, and then you’d do it, but you do it in isolation, which is very hard […] and then the books, you’ve got to have the books to be able to do the assignment. They sent them from UNISA.71 […] I used my UNISA books and assignments as a way of passing the time and keeping mentally strong. But I would read the same passage over and over again. I can’t remember what I wrote in my assignments but the

302

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 7.3 The bag that Lesley made while in isolation (Schermbrucker family)

lecturers must have found some of it very strange. I did not read a novel for a whole year.72

After her brief move to Pretoria Central, Lesley was moved back to the Fort. From there, after the completion of her 300 days in solitary, she was transferred to Barberton to begin serving her second sentence.73 Barberton Moving to Barberton meant an end to solitary confinement and a return to close interaction with comrades. “Barberton was almost a relief. Although it was also awful, it was a relief”,74 but conditions were extremely hard there. In addition to the restrictions imposed by the prison authorities, there were no breaks from living in constant close proximity to comrades. This brought tensions, as did the fact that Lesley and some

7

PRISON LIFE

303

of the others had begun to re-think the nature of struggle and their role in it. Others were just as rigid in their beliefs in Communism as they had been before. In fact, it was as if the restrictions of prison made them even more doctrinaire. As Lesley recalled, she and Violet: “were taken to Barberton, and we joined the other people. And that was very, very stringent […] very, very stringent”. However, they were able to study through UNISA and there were a limited number of books in the prison library. There were also the other political prisoners “to discuss things with and so on”. As a D Category prisoner, she only got “one letter in six months” so you had to choose whose to receive. If Ivan wrote a letter and the children wrote a letter, you had to choose which one you wanted. “They tried hard [to break us] but, don’t forget, we were all passionate about this whole thing”.75 Lesley never managed to get higher than B category. This entitled her to visit once a month. Jill and Peter could not always manage to come once a month and so generally came every second month. It was horrible when they left: “you went to your cell and you cried. Especially because they had quite a lot of problems money wise and so forth, and where to live”. They were emphatic that they did not want to live with Agnes: “‘Don’t ever let us go and stay with Agnes please.’ She was a strict disciplinarian, and they were terrified of her”.76 Despite the hardships: it was a wonderful band of women there, seven of us out of that whole mob [...] And when I came they were in tatters – they’d had a very hard time. Their uniforms were all broken under the arms, it was part of [the authorities’ plan], to keep these people in a sort of humiliated, undignified state. And the tasks that they were given to do. The first task was to wash all of the prisoners’ washing, full of semen and full of blood and they had to wash it by hand. […] And then they protested. They just got together and they evidently just downed tools. And then they gave them another job of ironing.77

This was before Lesley got there. Their numbers included Sylvia Neame, Jean Middleton, Flo Duncan, Ann Nicholson, Esther Barsel and Molly Anderson. Sheila Weinberg had come for a short time, and they were joined by others for periods of up to six months from time to time. Matters were made worse by the fact that Barberton was isolated. Helen

304

A. KIRKALDY

Suzman managed to visit Pretoria regularly, but never managed to get up there. “It was a terrible trial for people to visit us all that way up”.78 Some of the women were accommodated in three-person cells, others in two-person cells and there was also a single cell where Lesley was placed when she first arrived. Prisoners were rotated, “so everybody had a chance to be on their own from time to time”. Lesley felt that “tensions arose when people had to share cells”. Commenting further, she said that: obviously you gravitate to people that you feel that you have a little more with, like Flo Duncan, [...] we struck a rapport. […] And then Esther Barsel and I did yoga exercises together. But you know, you can’t say that you liked everybody because you certainly didn’t. And Esther was one of the ones that I kept a little bit away from79 because she was a dyed in the wool communist and already I was beginning to think that this wasn’t altogether the way that I, I was beginning to change, definitely. And she had that line of straight to Moscow. Stalin, [...] very dogmatic but at the same time very staunch and she had a good rapport with administration – when we wanted things done and so forth she was a very good person to liaison with the front. But there was something and Esther and I didn’t get on very well together. And there’s a way that you can do it by being, just not getting too intimate or too close to people. […] Violet was lovely in jail, she had a joke for every day of the week. And she said I was the ideal person to tell jokes to because I forgot them and she could tell them to me all over again. So, on the whole, I think that it was a remarkable band of women, I really do think so. And they all had something to contribute. For instance [...] Ann Nicholson [...] ran drawing lessons, I was hopeless, I couldn’t even draw a table. […] They said we should have nude drawing, new figures. But there I’m a bit of a prude, [...] I couldn’t do anything like that. And they ragged me about it. You know, having been brought up in that very sort of Christian way there were certain things that you weren’t comfortable with. For instance, there was no way I could shower and everything in front of people naked, it’s just me.80 It’s not good, it’s not bad, it’s just me. [If anybody felt like fighting] they went off just by themselves, you know. And every day the Matron scooted us into this small area to walk round and round and round with this huge wall with the sun beating down on us […] if nothing else could kill you, it would be the sun.81

Shortly after Lesley’s arrival at Barberton, it was her turn to light the fire in the little coal stove one day:

7

PRISON LIFE

305

I remember one day standing, we had just brought a coal sack through, you know, the black prisoners brought it to the door, we were never allowed to mix of course, and then four of us picked up the big coal sack and carried it through and you had to make your fire and so forth and I remember looking up here and I thought to myself ‘Crikey’ – and I never swear – and I said to myself ‘Two fucking years, what am I going to do here? […] What am I going to do? How did I get into this situation?’82

There were lighter moments: At Barberton we found a tortoise. Jean Middleton said how nice it was to find something living, implying that we were not really living anymore. You even became involved with beetles and other creeping things – they were alive! I could never stand those big hairy bobbejaan spiders though83

Outside tragedies also impinged on the lives of the inmates, providing a sense of solidarity. One of these was when Violet’s son died. They had all been excited for her as she was getting a special visit from her daughter, Sheila. “And then we heard this dreadful scream from the front”. She was not allowed to attend the funeral.84 Shared hard work under poor conditions added to this sense of solidarity. By the time that Lesley got there, the women had begun to protest against the huge loads of ironing that had replaced the washing: Then after the ironing, we all downed tools about the ironing, then they gave us huge piles of prisoners’ jerseys to mend. So what we used to do with the prisoners’ jerseys, we used to pile them up on the table like that [indicates with hand] and then read the books behind the jerseys. […] By then we were like a sort of solid group, you know. […] Of course, we also had to scrub out the place. You weren’t given mops or anything, you had to do it all on your hands and knees, […] and most of those people, I think, were not unused to that sort of life. Somewhere along the line they must have done, in their upbringing and that, you know, we weren’t a band of people who had everything shall I say. I didn’t get the feeling that anybody was wealthy or anything like that, sort of between working class and middle class and the middle class ones had managed to get to university.85

The prisoners were constantly fighting for any concessions that they could gain:

306

A. KIRKALDY

Also one of the things that helped to keep us sane was that we badgered them to give us bits of material and bits of knitting to knit, and that’s when I knitted that jersey.86 Mainly it’s because we pushed and nagged for it. They didn’t become like that, we just pushed and nagged for it, that’s what happened. And, of course, they issued us with new uniforms […] but we used to joke amongst each other and say ‘Well, you don’t need to think about what you’re going to put on, it’s a blue today.’87 But all of the cells had buckets, no one of the cells had a flush toilet I think, the one where three people were. But the other you came out with your buckets in the morning and spilled them into the thing there, the drain.88

Despite the hardships and the small hard-won concessions, life did have its occasional moments of pleasure. Jill sold a whole lot of things at home and managed to raise R60 to send a record player. The women spent many hours listening to music.89 Lesley continued her studies with a newfound vigour, revelling in opportunities for group study. Violet Weinberg, Esther Barsel and Lesley had not been to university. Molly Anderson, Jean Middleton, Sylvia Neame and Ann Nicholson had degrees and taught their colleagues while they were supposed to be working. They supplemented these with more formal lectures during rest periods. Lesley began a degree majoring in History and English Literature, also doing Psychology and Sociology in her first year. She reported that “that opened me up a hell of a lot too, I loved it, I loved it very much”. She would later chuckle about Ivan’s summation of Sociology as: “Ten pages to tell you there’s a loo down the street, down the road, in the back yard”. They had long passionate arguments about the books that they read, always giving a Leftist interpretation “because that’s the way you were thinking in those days”. Despite—probably because of—the joys of the studying, and the uplift of morale that it provided, the prison staff remained difficult, holding back assignments and delaying the delivery of books legitimately purchased.90 The food was dismal. Since Lesley was vegetarian, she had a boiled egg every day and a selection of dried fruit two or three times a week. She would share the egg with the others—there was no way that she could eat seven eggs a week, so she would eat it one day and then give it to the others in rotation on the second day. This diet had a lasting negative impact on her health as she got very little protein. She did try to drink whatever milk was left after the breakfast porridge but this was never enough. They had cabbage as a vegetable every day but “never saw raw

7

PRISON LIFE

307

vegetables” (her dietary staple of choice) until one time when the matron went on a course and her temporary replacement, named Badenhorst, brought them oranges and even some pawpaws and tomatoes. That was the only time that they had anything fresh. Otherwise, the other women “had the same meat every single day, some sort of tough stuff with bones in it” (Fig. 7.4).91 In an attempt to liven up the meals and life in general, they took Lesley’s dried fruit (which she alone got), put it in bottles in the bathroom and left it to ferment with black tea. Every now and again, they would have a drink of this wine, as they called it. This “went on for quite a few months”. However, one day there was a problem with the plumbing in the bathroom. They forgot to hide the bottles and these were discovered by the plumbers who came to fix it. They: “came out shouting ‘O

Fig. 7.4 Lesley’s prison “ticket”. Prisoners had to carry this little red book at all times. It contained personal information and details of their sentence. Even her dietary requirements were recorded (Schermbrucker family)

308

A. KIRKALDY

Gott, hulle maak bier!’ And that was the end of our whatsit and my dried fruit, they never gave me dried fruit again after that”.92 Jewish holidays provided the only real break in the monotony of the diet. Lesley argued that a good tip was: “if you do go to jail, you must go with a couple of people who are Jews. Not particularly religious Jews because of course none of them were but they were Jews and the Rabbi came up whenever there was a festival”. He would bring “a whole wealth of things for us to eat. […] It was wonderful”. The Rabbis were also clever enough to bring food for the staff. This meant that they would let the stuff in: “and we really had a wonderful time” eating tegelach, matzah, trays of fruits and nuts, little boxes of prunes or cakes and other forms of confectionery. For the sake of diversion, they went to Christian services held in the prison once a week: “but that fellow never brought us a peanut, even at Christmas time – I think we got a card”.93 Because of the poor diet, Lesley had to have a pile operation. She was sent to the hospital in Barberton for the surgery: “and I had a wardress sitting there all the time guarding me, in case, but my bottom was so sore that there was no way that I would have escaped. It was a terrible op but I suppose eventually it did help”. On her return to prison she found that she was plagued by constipation, a problem that she still suffers from today.94 Just as Agnes and Brann continued to support their brother in the limited ways that they could during his imprisonment, so Lesley’s sisters did not turn their back on her, however much they did not understand her politics. They wrote to her as often as possible. Enid and Muriel managed to secure permission for a visit. Enid had Peter for a holiday and told Jill that she would look after her and Peter if this became necessary. “Catherine, Stella and Joan sent love […] and said they couldn’t bear to see” Lesley “under those conditions”.95 Changing Ideology Lesley’s ideology changed in prison: I suppose that I can say that I went into jail with a commitment along the lines of communism and so forth but I certainly came out without it. And not really disillusioned […] but just a process of thinking it through.96

7

PRISON LIFE

309

She had a great deal of time to contemplate in prison and came out thinking more clearly about the world around her. When she went in, she “really thought that this communism was the answer to the world’s ills, it sounded wonderful”. In prison she came to realise that “people are not like that. […] I’m not sure whether Ivan would have still been a communist or not [today] but I certainly wasn’t [when I left prison]”.97 For Lesley the prison experience was bleak and depressing: The thing about prison is that all control is taken away from you – it is all decided for you. You never hear a child, you never hear music. You completely lose control over your whole life and they take away your independence. When you are out of jail, you think that jail will be a piece of cake and you will manage easily. Once you are in, you find that you can’t. You cling on to things that you may find – a matchstick, a piece of paper on the floor – they remind you that there is a world outside. There are no flowers, there is little or no green grass, there is no music, there is no sound of children. It feels as if everything is dead. All the things that you take for granted outside are whipped away. I’m not really a people’s person but it was terrible nobody around. Even that hour a day when I was out, I saw nobody, just walls. […] People who have written books about their time in jail during the struggle don’t reveal their inner feelings too much except for Hugh Lewin. You do have brave moments but they are few and far between. Things that you have taken for granted suddenly seem so precious. For example, you cannot even go and make a cup of tea. You cannot choose what to wear. As I was already convicted, I had to wear khaki uniform.98 You are stripped of everything. Ladies cannot even have a little face cream or shampoo, the things that make you feel good. There is only the continuous smell of carbolic soap and sheep dip [Jeyes Fluid]. You are endlessly cleaning and polishing your cell. There is nothing on the walls at all. They never put the lights out – there is a bare globe hanging from the ceiling. I think that it is because of this that I put up a black-out curtain in my room every night so that I am sleeping in the dark. One of the hardest things is the endless sameness of things all the time. Much as you try to keep up an endless brave front it is certainly not there all the time. Sometimes thinking of the others gives you strength and inspiration but at other times you just think “to hell with humanity”! […] Jail has a stink about it. For one, there is the bucket in the corner. During the time that you are locked up you are weeing into it and, yes I’ll say it now, shitting into it.99 So it smells and then after you rinse it, you

310

A. KIRKALDY

have to put sheep dip [Jeyes fluid] into it. I often thought: ‘What would my mother think of me?’ (She was dead by then). My sisters thought I was mad – they supported me because I was their sister but they didn’t know what it was all about. Our generation came out of two World Wars and so were imbued with the idealism of changing man, of building a new and better world. Now I laugh about it – it was prison that started this change in me. Now I think that, whatever schemes you put in place, some people will undermine it. People are capable of doing anything – good and bad – and we all have weaknesses. Unless what you do is partly for yourself, you will give it up.100

Gradually, the other prisoners completed their sentences until only Lesley and Violet were left. Prior to their release, they were returned to Pretoria Central where they had begun their second sentences. Although there for a very brief period, “four or five days or something”, Lesley “had another terrible attack of piles because that’s where you get that hard bread again”. She “came out of jail very thin, I think that’s what happened to all of us”.101 And when I came out of jail I looked mostly towards having […] life, doing things and that sort of thing, you know. And that’s why I decided not to go on studying anymore. I had got a lot out of it and it was enough.102

Notes 1. Hugh Lewin, Bandiet out of Jail, Cape Town, Umuzi, 2013, pp. 68 & 96; South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “Institutional Hearing: Prisons – Special treatment of political prisoners, sub-section 27”, testimony of General Andrew Masondo, Volume Four, Chapter Seven, at http:// www.stanford.edu/class/history48q/Documents/EMBARGO/ 4chap7.htm, accessed 1 April 2013; Robert Vassen, “Life as a Political Prisoner”, at South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid Building Democracy, http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/sid ebar.php?id=11&page=1, accessed 27 March 2013. 2. Eriwen Elizabeth René Oswald, “Writing in Hostile Spaces: A Critical Examination of South African Prison Literature”, PhD Thesis, University of Johannesburg, May 2005, p. 178; South

7

PRISON LIFE

311

African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, testimony of General Andrew Masondo; Vassen, “Life” (quotation). 3. Michigan State University, the Ahmed Kathrada Collection, at http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Kathrada/kathcollection.html, accessed 31 March 2013. 4. Vassen, “Life”. 5. Letter, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker, 17 March 1965, pp. 1–2; 18 March 1965, p. 1, in Letters, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker from the Schermbrucker family Archive and copied to DVD 6, The Sea of Ink, 4 October 1964 to 6 April 1965, in the possession of the author. 6. “Lesley and Ivan”, e-mail, Jeanne Daly to Alan Kirkaldy, 12 May 2020. 7. Anonymous [Lewis Baker], Untitled, undated reminiscences beginning “Don’t remember where I 1st met him” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, pp. 1–2. 8. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger [Elizabeth Franklin (formerly Lewin) to Hilary Hamburger], Sunday 19 April 1998 in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 2. 9. “Don’t remember”, p. 2. 10. John Laredo was born in Pretoria in 1932. His father was a civil servant and his mother was related to a former President of the Free State Republic. While his home language was Afrikaans, he spoke fluent English. He also spoke isiZulu and several European languages. In 1951, he went to Stellenbosch University, majoring in History and Native Administration. His studies led him to conclude that white hegemony was the cause of black poverty. Between 1955 and 1957, he read for a Master’s Degree in social Anthropology at King’s College, Cambridge. This “completed his conversion to socialism”. While there, he married another Stellenbosch graduate, Ursula Marx. They returned to South Africa in 1958. After lecturing in African Studies at UCT, Laredo moved to Durban in 1959. While doing anthropological fieldwork in KwaZulu, he became a sociology lecturer at the then University of Natal. The Laredos joined the Liberal Party, participating in peaceful demonstrations and anti-apartheid teach-ins. In 1963, while still continuing with his fieldwork, John became the head of Social Anthropology at Rhodes University. Detained for 110 days, he was sentenced to five years imprisonment after refusing to

312

A. KIRKALDY

give evidence against his comrades. As with Ivan, in prison, “His ability to find common ground was crucial in furthering solidarity between communists and non-communists”. After his release, house arrested and banned, he went into exile in Britain. From 1970 to 1971, was a visiting fellow at his old Cambridge College. He then joined the staff of the sociology department at Bradford University. Suffering from ill-health, he retired in 1993. John also worked for as number of causes, including the Labour Party and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Having divorced Ursula in 1972, after they had a daughter and two sons. John met Ailsa Swarbrick, an Open University lecturer in 1986. They remained together until his death in 2000. [“John Laredo, Afrikaner Campaigner Against Apartheid”, The Guardian, 18 October 2000, at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/ oct/18/guardianobituaries2, accessed 20 August 2019.] David Evans was born in Queenstown in the Cape Province. After completing high-school, he became a reporter for various South African, Zimbabwean and Zambian newspapers. Returning to South Africa, to work on the Natal Daily News, he became an anti-apartheid activist. As a result, he was banned and then sentenced to five years imprisonment. Evans completed a BA degree in English and History through UNISA while in prison. Placed under house arrest after his release, he went into exile in England. There he gained a postgraduate degree from Oxford and went on to become a lecturer in Creative Arts at Liverpool University. He subsequently became a full-time writer. [Anon. (about David Evans), at http://dbnweb2.ukzn.ac.za/cca/ima ges/tow/TOW2008/bios/evans.htm, accessed 12 February 2012; Anon. (about David Evans), at http://www.annettegreen agency.co.uk/davidevans_195670.html, accessed 12 February 2012; “A Time for Writers: 11th International Writers Festival”, at http://dbnweb2.ukzn.ac.za/cca/images/tow/TOW2008/ doc/Timeofthewriter2008CAT.pdf, accessed 12 February 2012.] 11. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein from Paris, 30 April 2015, p. 2. 12. Interview with Hugh Lewin, Johannesburg, 21 January 2012, p. 3. 13. Ibid., pp. 1–2. 14. Ibid., 21 January 2012, p. 2.

7

PRISON LIFE

313

15. Hugh Lewin, Bandiet, pp. 89–90. 16. Hannes Haasbroek,’n Seun soos Bram, Cape Town, Umuzi (Random House Struik), 2011, pp. 19–20; Lewin, Bandiet, pp. 89–90. 17. Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, p. 1. 18. Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010, pp. 5, 6–7. 19. Ibid., pp. 8–9. 20. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, pp. 3–4. 21. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 14. 22. Personal E-Mail communication, Paul Trewhela to Alan Kirkaldy, 26 October 2013. 23. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, p. 1. 24. Ibid., pp. 2 (quotation), 4. 25. Ibid., p. 5. 26. Denis Kuny, untitled address at Ivan’s funeral, 1981, pp. 5–6. 27. Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, p. 1. 28. Ibid., pp. 1, 4. 29. Ibid., p. 4. 30. Rowley Arenstein was born in 1918, the son of an immigrant Jewish family. A Durban attorney, he served as the chairperson of the COD in Natal and as a legal advisor to both SACTU and the ANC. In 1938 he joined the CPSA, going on to serve as an organiser for the Durban District branch for two years. In 1947, he resigned from active politics to concentrate on building his legal practice. He nevertheless participated in the activities of the Durban branch of the COD in the 1950s. Following the passage of the Suppression of Communism Act, Rowley worked closely with Chief Albert Luthuli and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Buthelezi had begun working at the Durban Commissioner’s Court to gain administrative experience for his future role as a chief. He and Rowley became friends and he was taken on as one of Arenstien’s articled clerks. The lawyer also helped the newly appointed chief to fight off an early legal challenge to his chieftaincy. Thereafter, he served as his legal adviser.

314

A. KIRKALDY

Arenstein was first banned in 1953, at a time when he was involved in establishing labour unions and in organising opposition to apartheid laws. He eventually suffered 33 years of banning orders. He also endured 18 years of house arrest. His wife, Jaqueline Arenstein, a journalist who was also a defendant in the Treason Trial, would be banned for 19 years and house arrested for 6. Despite his banning order, Arenstein continued to defend people on trial for political offences. Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela met Buthelezi at Rowley’s home on a number of occasions. Arennstein became increasingly critical of the autocratic leadership style of the SACP and, through it, the ANC. In the aftermath of the suppression of the Pondoland insurrection against Bantustan policies in 1960, Arenstein was approached for help by the community. At least eleven people had been killed and sixty wounded. Many had also been detained, together with Eastern Cape Communists. After challenging the police version that fewer people had been killed, Rowley was prohibited from leaving the Durban Magisterial District in October 1960. This prevented him from representing his clients. A delegation of Pondo leaders approached him, requesting that he facilitate the purchase of guns for them. Arenstein persuaded them to adopt peaceful tactics. In 1961, he led the fight in court for the release of leaders of the revolt who had been kidnapped from Lesotho by the South African Police. He vociferously opposed the adoption of the armed struggle, arguing that it would be disastrous for the SACP and ANC. According to him, he left the Party at this time. The Party itself insisted that he had been expelled. Arenstein was detained in 1960, went on a hunger strike and was subsequently released. When Bram Fischer went underground in 1965, he and Rowley re-established links with each other. In the following year, Arenstein was sentenced to four years imprisonment for furthering the aims of Communism. After his release, Rowley faced continuous banning orders and restrictions until 1986. Despite his banning order, Arenstein assisted in defence of the 13 accused in a terrorism trial in Pietermaritzburg in 1971. Struck off the role of attorneys because of his ongoing political activities, he was forced to practice as a so-called “business advisor and consultant”. He nevertheless continued to advise trade unions

7

PRISON LIFE

315

and, in 1983, was appointed as one of the legal advisors to the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). Buthelezi nominated him as one of his negotiators with the Pretoria regime in 1988. With the release of Mandela, Arenstein used his long-standing friendship with both him and Buthelezi to facilitate a meeting between them to attempt to bring an end to political violence between the ANC and Inkhata. This initiative was successful. Arenstein died in 1996. [“Rowley Arenstein, Friend of Mandela, Supporter of Buthelezi, Talks to R.W. Johnson”, London Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 4, 21 February 1991, pp. 22–23, at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v13/n04/rw-johnson/rowley-arenst ein-friend-of-mandela-supporter-of-buthelezi-talks-to-rw-joh nson, accessed 2 September 2019; South African History Online, “Rowley Israel Arenstein”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/peo ple/rowley-israel-arenstein, accessed 7 June 2019 (quotations).] 31. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, p. 2. 32. Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, p. 2. 33. In 1964, Marius Schoon, Mike Ngubeni and Raymond Thoms attempted to blow up a radio transmitter at a police station in Hillbrow. The operation had been set up by a police agent provocateur and they were quickly arrested and brought to trial. Sentenced to 12 yearsimprisonment, Schoon and Thoms served their sentences in Pretoria Local Prison. Ngubeni was sent to Robben Island. Thoms’ spirit broke in prison, hence his attempts to ingratiate himself with the warders to secure privileges and a possible reduction in sentence. On his release, he committed suicide. [Tim Jenkin, Escape from Pretoria (escape.pdf), http://www.anc.org.za/docs/ books/1987/escape.pdf, accessed 14 September 2014, p. 76; South African History Online, “Marius Schoon”, at http://www. sahistory.org.za/people/marius-schoon, accessed 14 September 2014; Paul Trewhela, “Obituary: Marius Schoon”, The Independent, 13 February 1999, at http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/obituary-marius-schoon-1070456.html, accessed 14 September 2014.] 34. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, p. 1.

316

A. KIRKALDY

35. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “Would billet us in houses/buildings” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. (p. 6). The “Thoms affair” is discussed more fully in Lewin, Bandiet, pp. 83–84. 36. Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, p. 2. 37. Haasbroek,’n Seun, pp. 19–20; Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, p. 4 (quotation). 38. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, p. 4. 39. Anonymous [Lewis Baker], Untitled, undated reminiscences beginning “Don’t remember where I 1st met him” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 2. 40. Ibid., pp. 2–3. 41. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 13. 42. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, pp. 2–3. 43. Ibid., 30 April 2015, p. 3. 44. “Ivan Piece”, p. 2. 45. Ibid., p. 2. 46. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein, 30 April 2015, p. 3. 47. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 13–14. 48. “Don’t remember”, p. 3. 49. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 13. 50. Ibid., p. 5; Informal conversation with Peter Schermbrucker after the interview at Arniston, 5 January 2011. 51. Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, pp. 2–3. 52. Denis Goldberg was born in Observatory, then a working-class suburb, in Cape Town in 1933. Sam and Annie, his parents, who had come from England, were both communists. Beginning school at Observatory Boys soon after Hitler’s invasion of Poland, he suffered anti-Semitic taunts from some of his teachers and fellow-pupils and was also victimised because of his parents’ politics. Interested in national and international politics from an early age, he believed that “racism in SA was ‘like the racism in Nazi Germany that we were supposed to be fighting against’”. Denis began studying engineering at UCT at the age of 16, graduating with a BSc in civil engineering in 1955. While

7

PRISON LIFE

317

studying, he was an enthusiastic rugby player. He also met Esme Bodenstein, a physiotherapist who treated a shoulder injury he sustained playing rugby. They shared a political ideology. She introduced him to the non-racial Modern Youth Society— a discussion group that helped to sell the Guardian newspaper. Denis and Esme married in 1954, continuing their political activism together. Goldberg joined the COD and was one of the organisers of the Congress of the People. He joined the Communist Party in 1957. During the 1960 State of Emergency, Denis and his mother were detained for four months. Fired from his engineering job on the railways after his release, he began working full time for the Party. He was a strong supporter of the armed struggle and was recruited into MK by Nelson Mandela in 1961. He became MKs technical officer, devising explosives and weapons. He also trained MK recruits. Mandela and Goldberg developed a close friendship. Called to Johannesburg by MK, Goldberg became the weapons maker for Operation Mayibuye, the armed resistance plan championed by Mandela. He was arrested in the Rivonia Raid, caught in possession of notes about making hand grenades and landmines. In the Rivonia Trial, he was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment under the Suppression of Communism and Sabotage Acts for planning violent revolution, assisted by “an armed invasion of the country by foreign troops”. The only white MK member to be sentenced, he was sent to Pretoria Central where he joined Ivan and his comrades. Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Andrew Mlangeni and three others were sent to Robben Island. Goldberg would spend 22 years in prison, being released in 1985. [Jonathan Ancer, “A White Man Who Didn’t Look the Other Way”, Sunday Times, 3 May 2020, 12; Chris Barron, “Up Yours to Tyranny” (Denis Goldberg obituary), Sunday Times, 3 May 2020, 11–12; South African History Online, Denis Theodore Goldberg, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/ professor-denis-theodore-goldberg, accessed 7 November 2013.] Having joined Esme and their two children in London after his release, Denis became a spokesperson for the ANC and represented it on the UNs anti-apartheid committee. He founded Community HEART in 1995. Based in London, this raised

318

A. KIRKALDY

large sums of money for the Rape Crisis Cape Town Trust, and donated more than 3-million books for underprivileged children. After Esme’s death in 2000 and his daughter, Hilary’s, death, he returned to South Africa. From 2002 to 2004, he worked as an adviser to the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, his old MK comrade, Ronnie Kasrils. He would subsequently become one of President Jacob Zuma’s most vociferous critics, arguing that the patronage system in the ANC was a serious threat to democracy and calling for “leadership renewal” in 2015. Diagnosed with lung cancer in 2017, he spent the remainder of his life establishing the Denis Goldberg Legacy Foundation Trust and fighting for human rights in Hout Bay, where he lived until he died in 2020. His second wife, Edelgard Nkobi, a German journalist, died in 2006. [Barron, “Up Yours”, 11–12.] 53. Interview with Hugh Lewin, 21 January 2012, p. 4. 54. Lewin, Bandiet, p. 189. 55. “The English Experience”, at http://www.englishexperience.co. za/hugh-lewin.htm, accessed 2 November 2011. “The English Experience is an independent South African publishing house that specialises in developing high-quality English and Life Orientation educational resources for IEB educators and learners”. 56. Ibid. 57. Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content. asp?CategoryID=11131&ArticleID=3060#letwin, accessed 11 February 2012. See also Lewin, Bandiet, pp. 191–192. 58. Lewin explained the meaning of the line: “I’ve learned to know the meaning of untouchable” as “It is, primarily, a reference to the Pariah or ‘Harijans’ in the Indian caste system […] who are considered ‘outcasts’ and ‘untouchables’—people who, literally, cannot be touched by others. Not only did this resonate quite strongly and personally with us as cut off, confined political prisoners, but it also echoes the experience of every black south African forced to carry a ‘dompas’ (passbook) during apartheid” [http://www.englishexperience.co.za/hugh-lewin.htm]. 59. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 7. 60. Ibid., p. 11. See also Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 4. 61. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 4.

7

PRISON LIFE

319

62. Ibid., p. 4. 63. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 11. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. Ibid. 67. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning, p. 13. 68. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 11. 69. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 4. 70. Ibid. 71. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 11. 72. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning, p. 13. 73. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 11; interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., pp. 4, 5. 74. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning, p. 14. 75. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 11. 76. Ibid.; interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., pp. 6, 8. 77. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 5. 78. Ibid. 79. Lesley also “didn’t get on with or have much to do with Jean Middleton”. In contrast, “Molly Anderson was easy”. [Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 9.] 80. Cf with Ludi’s picture of the depraved and licentious Left. 81. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., pp. 6–7. 82. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 10. 83. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning, p. 14. 84. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 6. 85. Ibid.

320

A. KIRKALDY

86. She knitted a very colourful jersey for Peter. Later Reviva had similar jerseys knitted for her sons Noah and Ben—a picture exists of them in their jerseys. 87. In Barberton, Lesley had worn khaki. [Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning, p. 13.] 88. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 7. 89. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 20 January 2014, n.p. 90. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., pp. 6–7 (quotation, p. 6). 91. Ibid., pp. 8–9 (quotations, p. 8). 92. Ibid., p. 9. 93. Ibid. 94. Ibid., p. 8. 95. Untitled, unpublished attempt at writing a personal biography by Lesley Schermbrucker in her possession, p. 16. 96. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 10. 97. Ibid., p. 6. 98. Khaki at the Fort, Blue at Barberton. 99. Lesley does not generally like, or use, bad language. 100. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning, pp. 13–14. 101. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., pp. 7, 9 (quotations, p. 9). 102. Ibid., p. 10.

CHAPTER 8

Aftermath

Lesley’s Release The apartheid state continued to harass activists even after their release from prison. On their release, Lesley and Violet Weinberg were banned for five years and placed under house arrest. They were confined to their homes between 6 p.m and 7 a.m. on weekdays, after 1 p.m. on Saturdays and on all Sundays and public holidays. They were also prohibited from attending any gatherings of more than two people and from leaving the Johannesburg magisterial district. They were required to report to the police station daily. First banned from 23 November 1968 to 30 November 1973, Lesley was subsequently banned from 29 November 1973 to 30 November 1978. Under the second banning order (and Violet’s third), the house arrest provisions of the two women were lifted. While still prevented from attending gatherings and leaving the Johannesburg magisterial district, they were allowed to leave their homes after dark. They also only had to report to the police station monthly and were allowed to receive single visitors at home (Fig. 8.1).1 Two weeks after her release from prison, Peter and Jill showed Lesley a letter from the Provincial Council expropriating their house to extend the grounds of the neighbouring school. Despite her banning order, she had to arrange for the sale and move to Rustenberg Flats in Fortesque Road in Yeoville.2 While they were paid compensation, this put the family back into debt again.3 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5_8

321

322

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 8.1 Lesley in the company of Davey Leigh on a rare trip out of the house after her release during her first period of banning and house arrest. Mini-skirts were first invented by Mary Quant in 1964. She had not owned one before being in prison (Schermbrucker family)

8

AFTERMATH

323

On 23 December 1968, Lesley was served with a communication from the Department of Justice informing her that she had fourteen days to appeal against her inclusion on a “list of persons who are or have at any time […] been office-bearers, officers, members or active supporters of the Communist Party of South Africa”.4 Despite her doubts which crystallised while she was in prison, Lesley did not deny her communist past. Lesley did not attempt to curb the freedom which Peter and Jill had enjoyed while she was in prison. Jill said: “When my mother came out, we went back home. It wasn’t that difficult, it was fine, I don’t remember thinking ‘I’m going back to a very strict sort of regime’”.5 On the same topic, Peter commented that: “you could tell her anything, you could get round her any day”.6 What had changed, certainly for Jill, was her relationship with her mother. Before she went to jail, Jill had seen her as “always sort of in the background”, focusing on things like her exercise classes. After Ivan was imprisoned, she had realised that her mother had been more involved than she had previously realised. It was only really once she played an active role in hiding Bram and refusing to give evidence against him that Jill had realised that Lesley was “actually very gutsy and brave”. She came to develop “a great deal of respect for her”.7 Banned, under house arrest, and carrying the stigma of being a convicted communist, Lesley found it extremely difficult to find work. She met Leah Pozniak, one of her exercise women in town. The women arranged a roster, whereby Lesley saw them one at a time at their houses. She charged R3 a time and this kept her going. Often, there would be a parcel of food, some groceries or something else to help.8 There were many women who remained with Lesley in the exercise classes and after her release, some of them for many years. These included Leah Pozniak, Myra Soloman and Irene Mennell, who trained with her before her arrest and still did so in 2014. Enid Shapiro joined after her release and also still trained with her at the time of the interview. Madge Moss and Rhoda Reichman trained from before Lesley’s arrest but have since died. Jackie Meyerowitz trained from before Lesley’s arrest until she departed for Australia after she and her husband Lolly were attacked in a robbery.9 This enabled the family to survive. In addition, Bram lent R12 000 (“a lot of money in those days”) that he had won from the Lenin Peace Prize to Ivan. Later, when Lesley attempted to pay this back to Ilse and Ruth, they refused to accept it.10

324

A. KIRKALDY

Before Ivan’s release, Jill stayed at home with her mother and Peter for about a year. Encouraged by Lesley, she was awarded a scholarship to do a postgraduate certificate in education at London University, going overseas to study. She spent two years away, returning home married to Alan Murray. A Rhodes Scholar reading Politics, he subsequently worked for Anglo American.11 Before his father’s release, Peter also moved out of home, living in communal houses with friends. He subsequently met, and married, Reviva. She was the daughter of George Jampolsky, born in Kiev (then in Russia) and Yehudith Yerushalmy, born in Israel. George had moved to South Africa with his parents as a young boy. They anglicised their family name to Jameson. George went to Israel to fight in the War of Independence. Having met, and married, Yehudith, he remained in Israel, adopting the Hebrew version of his name, Gershon. They moved back to South Africa when Reviva was five.12 Peter remembers his father’s release while Jill was overseas “because that was again a big production and he came out and before he even said hello to us he got his banning orders and was reading them and standing there” (Fig. 8.2).13

Fig. 8.2 Jill, Peter and Lesley in the year before Ivan’s release (Schermbrucker family)

8

AFTERMATH

325

Ivan’s Release Ivan Schermbrucker and Eli Weinberg were released from prison on the same day, 12 April 1970.14 Both were immediately issued with five-year banning orders which included house arrest. The conditions were the same as those imposed on their wives. Ivan was also “prohibited from entering any newspaper premises”.15 His banning order was renewed in 1970 and 1975 (expiring on 30 November 1978). The house arrest provision was lifted in May 1975.16 After his release, a group of exiles sent money to Ivan to buy a ticket to leave the country. He returned the money and “told them to stick it!!”17 Not only did he see them as cowards and sell-outs but Ivan: “always said ‘We had a hard time in jail but the Africans had it worse’”.18 Under house arrest Ivan could indulge his passions for gardening and classical music. Always a great reader, he began to collect Africana. He and Lesley also began to collect antiques.19 According to Peter: Well, they had lives, they had a life, so you felt you could leave them to themselves with their interests – [...] he made a life for himself out of jail and Lesley had her life and they were happy to see you but they had moved from the house by then [...] So there was only the flat […] in Yeoville, so it was really a very nice relationship because you would just visit and when you were visiting there would be supper and then you’d chat a bit and then off you’d go. I did stay with them from time to time but my father’s favourite occupation was to sit in a chair and read his books, have his drink and eat sweets.20

According to Reviva: When we got married it was the first party they had been to [they were still banned and had to get permission and Lesley] got a little bit drunk […] – she doesn’t drink at all. And then I would remember having supper with them and then there would be a knock on the door and Peter and I would pick up our plates and go and have supper in the bedroom. […] It was quite exciting really.21

Due to his declining health, Ivan’s heart specialist managed to get permission for him to take short trips to a lower altitude on two occasions—once to East London and once to visit Lesley’s sisters in Durban. They had to report to police stations while travelling and daily while away.

326

A. KIRKALDY

The rift between Ivan and his father was healed after the release.22 The old man was living in an Old Age Home in Johannesburg, where he died aged 84 in January 1971. Ivan was only finally given permission to attend the funeral about half an hour before it was due to start. As Agnes stated: “All that house arrest was a big strain, you know”.23

Disillusionment with Exiles and Cementing a More Nationalist Ideology Ivan’s youth in the rural Transkei, his fluency in isiXhosa, his experiences working with Africans caught up in the migrant labour system, his running of Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, his fundraising rips and his newspaper experience sensitised him to the plight of ordinary black people in South Africa to a far greater degree than that of his fellow whites in the leadership structures of the liberation movement. Prison further developed his contempt for those who fled into exile. He still seems to have accepted the idea that communism would eventually be victorious on a world scale, even if he may have been more cynical about this than in the past. However, his commitment shifted more towards the internal struggle and the plight of political prisoners. In his interpretation, for the exiles, the daily oppression and indignities of life under apartheid got lost under broader ideological goals and unquestioning commitment to the dictates of Party structures, rather than to the reality of the situation on the ground. Their conviction that the internal structures were in tatters and that it was they who were carrying on the real struggle infuriated him even further. This conviction about the cowardly exiles theorising and pontificating from abroad was strengthened by his impression that they felt that he no longer had a role to play in the struggle. He developed total contempt for them. That which he believed to have been lost, or deviated from, had always been at the very centre of his and Lesley’s commitment to communism and to the struggle. As Lesley would express it: The Communist Party and Liberal Party had been the only political groups in those days to be completely multiracial and that stood for a great deal in the eyes of the population – when it came down to really going the whole hog the whites mainly just melted away. A handful were instructed to go and the rest found excuses and justifications for their departure into exile. A small courageous band of white men and women went to jail.24

8

AFTERMATH

327

Peter recounted that when Ivan came out of prison, “he was the same […] he just wanted to take stock and then” see what his new role in the struggle would be. There had always been animosity between the exiles and those who remained—a tension which would last well into democracy—and he was apoplectically furious when they stated “that they didn’t think that he could serve any useful purpose”.25 Lesley later told Reviva that: He said ‘Now I’m out of jail, what do you want me to do, what’s my next task, give me my next brief.’ And they wrote back and said ‘Listen, you’ve done your time, you’ve been tumbled, so to speak, just sit tight.’ And he was furious that they didn’t want his services any more. [… He was] furious [with those who had left South Africa], it was a big bug-bear, he went on about and on about it.26

She would tell me that she “was amazed that so many just trickled out of, well, according to Ivan, they didn’t trickle, they shot out of the country as soon as they possibly could. They were falling over each other to take exit permits”. Commenting further on this, and life before and after prison, Lesley said that “it was a very, very full life. I feel like I’ve had two lives – one before and one after [prison]. But unfortunately the one after I’d so hoped would be more with Ivan and it just wasn’t”. She found it soul-destroying to watch his battle to live despite his declining health—“he so wanted to live, you know, see it through. But he was convinced Uhuru was coming and everything would be good”. She and Ivan were deeply disillusioned “that so many people had left” but found the example of Mandela and the Rivonia trialists, the dedication of the ARM activists, the financial contributions made to the struggle by ordinary people, the commitment of human-rights lawyers such as George Bizos and Denis Kuny, and growing international opposition to apartheid extremely uplifting.27 Picking up on Ivan and Lesley’s way of life, sense of betrayal and changing political thinking after their release, Jill stated that, in addition to her parents’ disillusionment with their former comrades, the late 1960s were a time when it became clear that “communism wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be, in fact it was a fairly disgusting system […] if the stars were going to fall from your eyes, they had to fall from your eyes in the sixties, and my father of course died a long time ago but my mother is no communist now. […] I think she’s become ideologically much more

328

A. KIRKALDY

Fig. 8.3 Ivan and Lesley at Peter and Reviva’s wedding in 1977. Reviva’s parents, George and Yehudith are on the left (Schermbrucker family)

sensible”.28 Peter also commented on the sense of betrayal by those who had fled overseas and changes in Ivan’s political thinking by then: “I think Ivan could have forgiven people for leaving him in the lurch […] but he couldn’t forgive people for leaving the Africans in the lurch”.29 In addition, his new “big thing” was the African middle class. Alter his release, Ivan told Peter that you could “see how many Black people owned cars now”. He reluctantly thought that “, the time has come and gone for socialism […] the middle class, the bourgeois, it was going to be that kind of society” (Fig. 8.3).30

Helping Those Left Behind in Prison Having changed ideologically while in prison, and arising from the humanism and practical politics that had always driven him, Ivan was by now sick of the “bangbroeke” in exile31 —what he saw as their squabbles, their fixation with outdated dogma and interpretations, their petty politicking, their clinging to bureaucracy and their neglect of the rights and

8

AFTERMATH

329

needs of individuals. He became a passionate and relentless worker “to help those prisoners he left behind”.32 This would bring him into serious conflict with a number of his former comrades, especially the Turoks. Commenting on this, Peter would say that, once he came out of prison, “he made it his pet thing to see that the other people in prison weren’t forgotten”. Despite the constraints of reporting to the police twice a day and his banning order, he organised visitors for them and did all that he could to alleviate their plight.33 One of the first families that Ivan contacted was the Carnesons, in exile in Britain. In May 1970, he wrote to Fred’s daughter, Lynn, “I feel very strongly that if it is possible your mother should come out to see Fred as soon as possible”. If the authorities hesitated to grant permission for this, Lynn should come herself, treating this as priority number one. […] Fred, like others, had a hard, hard time: the tough ninety-day period, followed by over a year in what was apparently also almost complete isolation had a devastating effect on his nerves. How any fellows survived this sort of ordeal I don’t know, and I don’t think that they did either. It has taken Fred long years to recover. I am very pleased however to tell you that when I left prison he was in better shape than he had been for a long time. But it must be borne in mind that as the numbers are getting fewer and fewer, the stresses and strains among the prisoners amongst the prisoners is going to grow, NOT diminish. With the smaller numbers there, the isolation is growing, and that is deadly. During the last four or five months the already strict censorship has even been increased, and has reached intolerable proportions. Whole pages have once again just been disappearing. It seems so absolutely senseless. Closer attention than ever must be paid to each prisoner, love and affection expressed through letters, reassurances that they are not forgotten, and above all the importance of visits.34

Denis Kuny would also comment on Ivan’s activities on behalf of those still in prison: When Ivan came out of gaol in 1970 he felt almost as if he was deserting those he left inside and so he was determined to do all that he could do to help prisoners and their families through the difficult times that they had to endure. In this too he stood by his promises magnificently. Drawing on his own experience of gaol and on the needs of prisoners he set about working for the welfare of political prisoners and he never tired or lost

330

A. KIRKALDY

his enthusiasm for the task he had set himself. He lobbied endlessly, wrote innumerable letters, raised money for families or to be used by prisoners for studies or books or other things which they might need, he worried about ensuring visits and visitors – and he never spared himself in the process.35

In a letter to his bankers discussing the disbursement of funds collected by Hugh Lewin on his behalf in the United Kingdom, Ivan explained that the money was to be used for: 1. Funding UNISA registration. 2. Purchasing books, study books and magazines. 3. Buying music records, other sundries and hiring films. 4. For extra medical expenses incurred and not covered by prison allowances.36 Ivan had a particular concern for Denis Goldberg—then serving a life sentence after the Rivonia Trial. Since the terms of his banning order and house arrest prevented him from communication with political prisoners or leaving Johannesburg to travel to Pretoria, he organised for Hilary Hamburger and Jeanne Daly to visit him and for funds to be raised to assist him with small things to make his life more bearable.37 Ivan had served five years alongside him. Hilary would later recall that she: “always believed that Denis’s separation from his comrades and their strong community on The Island added to the harshness of his incarceration. Even in prison, apartheid reared its ugly head by separating and dividing people”.38 Ivan was worried about him as his wife, Esme, “had gone into exile with their two children, Hilary and David”. He was estranged from his brother. Denis’ only visitor was his elderly father, Sam Goldberg—a listed communist. As a psychologist who has studied the effects of detention intensively, Hilary noted that: The link with the outside world through visitors was essential for a prisoner’s morale, which the authorities worked hard to destroy. He asked me if I would visit him. I agreed immediately, happy to have an opportunity to demonstrate my support for the struggle. And so began the many Sunday morning treks to Pretoria that marked the beginning of an unusual friendship.39

8

AFTERMATH

331

Jeanne and Hilary would take turns to collect Sam and take him to visit Denis. Jeanne would do this until she moved to Australia. Hilary continued to do so until Sam became too ill to come along. After his death in 1975, she continued her visits alone for ten years until Denis’ release.40 Even emigration did not let Jeanne off the hook. “Ivan gave me the task of raising money for political prisoners and their families in Australia. Quite often I was asked to arrange to lobby the Australian government over pressing issues. We supported disinvestment and boycotts, etc.”41 Commenting on this commitment to the welfare of prisoners, Lesley drew attention to the fact that many of them were very short of money. Ivan wrote overseas, attempting to get funds to assist them. With the exception of small amounts raised through Hugh Lewin then based in the United Kingdom (after being released before Ivan), these appeals had very limited success. John Matthews and his family in particular were experiencing financial difficulties.42 It was their case that sparked an irreconcilable split between Ivan, the Turoks and others in the exile community. Ivan wrote to Mary and Ben Turok in Zambia, “expecting a personal donation for friends in jail but in this he was bitterly disappointed”. Ben and Mary took “the official Party Line – no private funds were allowed to be sent to individuals etc. Ivan was furious, wrote back a stinking letter damning them all to hell”.43 In response to Ivan’s appeal for funds, Ben Turok replied in February 1979, expressing the hope that Ivan’s health issues were not “quite as nasty” as was feared. He and Mary regarded Ivan as “a tough guy, among the toughest. […] In addition your letters are a voice from reality, as opposed to this phoney life (in some respects anyway) that is our lot here outside”. Despite this concern, and the fact that they would have loved to have helped John, and were financially capable of making a donation (although substantially less than requested by Ivan), they were “unable to comply”. They had been called upon to do this several times in the past and had done so, but had faced “devastating consequences” as a result. Factions in the exile community had ruled that money should not be collected for private individuals—even if they were members of the Party (as Matthews was). We are sick and tired of being the butt of unjust accusations based on our deep and everlasting desire to do what is right, especially when it seems that none accepts the genuineness of our concern. [...] So old chap, the

332

A. KIRKALDY

answer is no. We have had it. Fight with the ‘right people’. They have it all and can meet your needs a million times over without feeling it.

Trying to maintain their former friendship, Ben ended with “Our very warmest love and affection to you and Les. We feel very close to you, and desperately unhappy about being so damn useless and unhelpful”.44 This letter infuriated Ivan. Writing to thank Hugh Lewin for having sent R490.67 to assist prisoners, he stated that he had just tried to “prise some of the Butcher millions” out of Ben and Mary: (Mary’s family were + maybe still are one of the wealthiest in Natal) so I wrote a very gentle little personal letter asking for a bit of help for old John, cause I’M SURE the Turoks are not short of bread. In reply I get a blast from Benny which knocked me flat and sideways, and I’M only just calming down now, how DARE the little shit think he can write to ME like that.45

He sent his smoking reply to the Turoks on the following day: I read your letter […] with increasing astonishment, and with increasing rage. If either of you had been within spitting distance then I would have spat at you – in fact please consider yourselves spat upon, utterly scorned, and utterly despised by me. Now you can proceed to throw this letter away, or if you have a little bit of guts left in you can go on reading and maybe learn a few home truths. Lets get a few things clear. Lets forget and leave alone my medically scarred heart and all its muscles, [...] cause in spite of all of this, it would appear that I still have a little humanity left in me, which seems to be now lacking in either of you. Lets also get it clear that I am not, have never been, and will never be interested in all the quarrels of the ‘bangbroeke’ who ran off overseas, and who should have stayed here. I accept the fact that in certain instances, both personal and political, that a few people were justified in leaving, but the wholesale exodus I have never accepted – not that maybe we are not a lot better off than the whole bloody lot of you. Goddammit Benny, ALL I DID was to write to you a simple little human letter reminding you that ‘poor’ and I mean materially poor, and now ‘old’ going on 70 years John Matthews, was coming HOME after 15 long long years, and that a couple of us here felt that it would be a nice gesture to give him a little present of money on a purely personal basis, to tide him over a time when he is going to have great difficulty in adjusting and

8

AFTERMATH

333

finding his feet. (I NEVER RAISED the suggestion of organizations – I don’t know any organizations any longer, NOR am I particularly interested in any organizations, having, so to speak done my short little dash) John and Dulcie and the family have had a long and hard 15 years, though they would be the last to admit it, a son has died, a son in law is seriously retarded as a result of a car accident, a daughter is largely put together with plastic ‘goodies’ as a result of an accident, there have of course been the usual other family ups and downs --- but I mention this just by the way --- the gesture is to be for John – a little token of our love, our admiration and esteem for the dignified and honourable manner in which he has conducted himself, and as I have no doubt will continue to do to the end of his days. You two now choose [...] to vent all your spite, venom, hatred and bitterness and all the iron in your souls on me? on John? on others like us who have stuck it out here? You have the cheek to insult all of US, for that is what your letter amounts to. You know Benny, when the ‘bitterness’ starts eating you away you would be better off dead, for then your enemies have indeed succeeded in destroying you. One can become disillusioned (are there any of us who havent) yes, [...] but to let all the hatred and bitterness destroy you like a cancer, then indeed there is no place left to hide. You two, like I am sure many others, must have been relieved when Bram [Fischer] died and now, by and large, you only have to get rid of me, before perhaps, in the somewhat distant future, perhaps the question will arise as to whether our unlamented exiles should be allowed to return or not [...] I can tell you here and now, that you stand more of a chance with Jimmy Kruger and P.W.B. [P.W. Botha] of being allowed back, than you do if I have even the remotest right to express an opinion [...]46 I guess you now gather, if you have read this far, how I feel about your attitude --- I loathe and despise you --- you are weak and filled with gall --so you Benny, seeing you seem to be the controller of the Turok household and financial adviser, take all your money, of which I have believed you two to have quite a lot of, and stick it slowly and painfully UP YOUR BUM, and you Mary, YOU take a pencil and paper and YOU draw up a social science ‘means test’ report (and make it a long one, I believe social scientists do) and you stick that slowly and painfully UP YOUR BUM. [...] I DON’T want to hear from either of you again, I DON’T even want to see either of you again .. finis, klaar and finite. I used to say to my children and to friends ‘don’t worry, if you ever get into real trouble, and Benny and Mary are around, go to them they will always be helpful and reliable’ ha ha ha. and don’t you dare to change

334

A. KIRKALDY

your twisted little minds and send a note or ANYTHING to John cause I shall get it and tear it up. I AM SO ASHAMED OF YOU BOTH ………. may you rot in hell47

Other Activities and Making a Living in Defiance of Restrictive Measures According to Peter, Ivan started looking: “for a lot of answers in South African History. I think he was looking a lot at [things] like Bishop Colenso and reading and trying to find answers in the past”.48 In his funeral oration, Denis Kuny remarked that Ivan was: Always an avid reader, Ivan read particularly about South Africa and its history and people. He was a passionate collector of Africana and loved his collection which, unlike many collectors, he actually read and knew intimately. He was a member of the Van Riebeek Society, the Historical Society and the South African Library, and I believe that he loved visiting museums and never lost an opportunity to visit one wherever he happened to be.49

From a personal interest in his family history, Ivan also spoke about the Colonel a lot, made notes about him and collected material on him, showing a sense of belonging in South Africa.50 Speaking an African language was an important way of reinforcing this well-established South African identity. For Jill: You know, I knew that politics was the whole life of my parents but I still find it difficult to see ‘what did they actually do?’, you know ‘what were they actually doing’ […] But I was always very much aware that my parents [...] were completely, absolutely fluent in a black language, when they spoke a black language you couldn’t tell that it wasn’t [a black person speaking …] and they were very unusual in that. […] And their upbringing was rural, it was a rural upbringing. You know, my father in the Transkei riding a horse […] and my mother in Babalanga and Melmoth […] their childhood was totally remote from anything that I could imagine. […] So, as I say, speaking a black language, deep-seated roots in South Africa was a big thing.51

8

AFTERMATH

335

Vernon Berrangé had picked up on this at Ivan’s trial in attempting to explain why Ivan felt for the oppressed majority52 : As a child did you learn to speak any of the vernacular languages? --- Yes, I learnt to speak Xhosa fluently. And I take it like at the Cape so often in those days, many of your playmates were African children? --- Yes, they were.53

In addition to his work on behalf of those still in prison, Ivan was a devoted grandfather. By this stage, Jill and her husband Alan had returned from London so that she could study medicine. She became a pathologist with a public health background, moving into research and teaching after a year in private practice. Alan Murray continued working for Anglo American, effecting a transfer.54 Peter became a fitter and turner and worked for the Cape Town Municipality.55 Ivan struggled to get a job after his release, and they relied on Lesley’s exercise money.56 Finally, through the intervention of his old friend Zach de Beer, he was employed by Consolidated Share Registrars Limited, a division of Anglo American.57 This was a real irony—the liberal and the arch-capitalist firm with which he was associated coming to the rescue of the committed communist! His record of service testifies that he worked there from July 1970 to December 1980.58 While working at Anglo, Ivan continued actively to raise money to assist those still in prison. Cecil Williams was “worth millions” and Ivan successfully approached him among others.59 In a 1979 letter to Hugh Lewin and Baruch Hirson, Ivan wrote: anyone who themselves owns a share in a public company can come along and ask to examine the registers of that company, and anyone can then see at a glance just who has how much money shares etc., I often hear people moaning about how much money they haven’t got, and then the next day I go look them up […] hell I’m sure there are more millionaires in South Africa than anywhere else on earth! Anyway Hugh, Cecil has a lot of lolly a hellevu hellevu lot of lolly, if only I had the tiniest fraction of some of it I would have stopped working 50 years ago, well, some folks have all the luck hey.60

Peter commented that, at first, the new job interested Ivan “because he was always interested in money and finance and who owned what and who got what. […] I must say he tackled that with the same enthusiasm

336

A. KIRKALDY

as he did Arnold’s Christmas Hampers or the newspaper”. However, as he became more ill, he grew to hate it and “didn’t want to go to work any more. Then his new thing was his illness”.61

Declining Health and Death Ivan’s health continued to deteriorate—he suffered three heart attacks and had to undergo a bypass operation in 1980.62 Lesley remarked how he fought against death with all he had. He nevertheless became so weak that she found it difficult to leave him. Peter’s parents-in-law, Gershon/George and Yehudith Jameson would prove invaluable at this stage, allowing Lesley to drop him off with them from time to time. Ivan died on 24 July 1981, seventeen years to the day after his arrest.63 Until his death, he believed that there would be political change in his and Lesley’s lifetime. Lesley continued to believe this right through until it actually occurred. Reflecting comments he made to Lesley quoted earlier in this book, Jill would later recall that: I think that they very much felt that there would be political change in their lifetime. I mean, my mother always used to say ‘Ivan, you know, we need some sort of a pension’ and he would say ‘Don’t worry, there’s going to be change in our lifetime.’ […] This [apartheid state] definitely couldn’t go on. And exactly how it was going to happen was uncertain […] but there would be change without a question because the society, this was not sustainable. […] I don’t think that they thought that it was going to be this kind of relatively peaceful change.64

According to Jill, what really pleased them was even by the time of Ivan’s death—and more particularly afterwards with the rise of the Mass Democratic Movement during the 1980s—was that the SACP and ANC in exile had very little to do with the way that things went after 1976: It wasn’t at their instigation, it wasn’t under their control, I think that they were quite encouraged by that because they were certainly able to see that what was going to come out of London was going to be pretty rotten, […] and I think that it has been pretty rotten, and I think that they were quite encouraged by [… these developments.] But exactly what form it was going to take I don’t think they were really able to see.65

On 31 October 2002, Lesley would record that:

8

AFTERMATH

337

At the Book Launch of Hugh Lewin’s ‘Bandiet’ I met Jock Strachan (who lives in Durban) and he had this to say about Ivan: ‘Ivan was a lovely man – the most balanced and altogether person I’ve ever known. He was so steady and stable in jail and absolutely adamant about staying in the country – our place is here he used to say forcefully and how right he was; why did he bloody well have to go and die just when we needed him, especially after 1994.’66

In the aftermath of Ivan’s death and Lesley’s withdrawal from political activism, relations between the internal and external wings of the liberation movement were strengthened. As Gay Seidman has argued, from the mid-1970s, and particularly during the 1980s, community protests and industrial action within the country escalated. Many ANC activists, supported by their comrades in the SACP, came to believe that it was unlikely that the guerrilla movement itself would be able to overthrow the state militarily. Instead, they focused their energies on supporting popular mobilisation and building clandestine networks between activists within the country and the ANC leadership-in-exile. Guerrilla attacks played an exceptionally important symbolic role in the culture of resistance which culminated in the achievement of democracy, even if their military effectiveness was less tangible. They thus increased in frequency during the collapsing years of apartheid.67 It is easy to gloss over the tensions which remained—and persisted into the post-apartheid period—but there was a discernible shift in tactics and relationships. Commenting on how Ivan would likely have felt about political developments since then in 2014, Lesley said to me: “I don’t know how he would have coped with all these people at the moment – I think he would have kicked their butts”.68 Writing in 1998, Elizabeth Lewin said that: His commitment to South Africa, both the land and its people, was deep and wide. He loved South Africa, the land, the country, passionately. He hated with fury the injustice and cruelty meted out to people of colour. Prison and awaiting trial in gaol, was very tough for him, because while in there he could not help people, but could only worry about them. He worried terribly about the welfare of others, the families of political prisoners and their financial well-being. He worried about people who were in 90 day imprisonment, and how they were suffering and being tortured. He did all this with an intensity that I think in the end damaged his heart.69

338

A. KIRKALDY

Well, this book is finished. In his funeral oration for Ivan, Denis Kuny said that: When the history of South Africa is one day re-written I believe that Ivan will figure prominently as one of its important figures, never seeking the limelight, never conspicuous, but always pitching in with his hard work, sound judgement and, above all, his warmth, love, concern and compassion.70

In a telephonic interview conducted in April 2015, Raymond Eisenstein summarised Ivan’s importance: “I think it’s a good idea that you’re writing about Ivan because, as I say, he represented a different direction”. He was much more constructive and humane than his fellows and, had there been more like him, the Communist Party and the ANC may indeed have built a better life for all after the achievement of democracy.71 With a combination of money that Ivan and Lesley had managed to put aside, and money that Jill saved, the family placed a deposit on a house in Sandringham for Jill. At first it was intended that Lesley would move in together with her after Ivan’s death but, on reflection, they decided that, because of the children and the dogs, it was better if they built on a small granny flat for her. Lesley moved from the flat where she and Ivan had stayed in his final years into this in 1982, the year after Ivan’s death.72 In 1985, Lesley married Vernon Spiller, a retired airline pilot. She feels that their years together are a separate chapter in her life which have no place in this book. In 1991, they moved into Randjies estate retirement village in Johannesburg. Vernon had bought life rights in their cottage. He passed away in September 2012 and Lesley has continued to remain there, intending to do so until her own death. Besides continuing with a limited number of her long-time exercise women, she assists in running a charity and second-hand shop in the retirement complex for residents who struggle to make ends meet. Any leftover food, clothing and other goods are given to charities and the needy through institutions such as schools, Headway (an NGO assisting people with head injuries) and the SPCA. When I phoned her during the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020, she was upbeat about the prolonged lockdown, telling me that it was nothing compared to detention, imprisonment and house arrest. Utilising the lens of a dual biography, I have argued that Ivan and Lesley’s political lives illuminate aspects of the tensions between transnationalism and African nationalism during the struggle years in South

8

AFTERMATH

339

Africa. They also spanned a period of significant developments in the changing nature and tactics of the struggle. The dilemma of Stalinism in the CPSA/SACP, tensions between “internal” and “external” opposition to apartheid, the role of armed struggle versus other forms of activism, issues of gender and the question of language are also explored. At its core, socialism is a transnationalist ideology. The CPSA and its successor, the SACP, had strong transnationalist links and—at least in theory—was committed to the worldwide revolutionary struggle. Even the African National Congress, which would become its ally, had strong transnational links with arms of the worldwide anti-apartheid movement. Whatever the overarching ideology of these—and other—liberation movements in South Africa, apartheid impacted on the daily lives of citizens—in particular the black oppressed majority—in numerous ways, both blatantly oppressive and pettily irksome. For both the leadership of the liberation movements, and the mass of their followers, transnational ideologies and linkages jockeyed with the struggle for the achievement of national liberation through a much more locally focused national democratic struggle. While some foregrounded either the transnational or the national in their activities and ideologies, for many (if not the majority), the situation was far more fluid. Some vacillated between the two, others changed their focus over time. At their start of their political lives, Ivan and Lesley were captivated by aspects of the transnational nature of the struggle. Over time, with increasing disillusionment with Stalinism and the politics of the USSR and—perhaps more importantly—with the development of utter contempt for the (particularly white) activists who fled into exile and the rivalries of exile politics and the tensions between the “stayers” and the “leavers”, like many of their contemporaries, they became much more committed to a more national democratic—and humanitarian— conception of the nature of struggle. This raised questions about the role of armed struggle which, in my reading, Ivan cautiously accepted but Lesley was less supportive of. Through these developments, Ivan still retained some conception of the eventual victory of socialism on a world scale. Lesley abandoned her belief in communism totally but remained committed to the achievement of democracy. Their changing ideology and focus were heavily influenced by their fluency in isiXhosa and isiZulu, respectively, and their rural upbringings which, together with other life experiences, developed an identification with the daily life experiences of—and relationship with—the oppressed majority. Details of their detention, trials and imprisonment illustrate aspects of the experience of white

340

A. KIRKALDY

political prisoners ignored in other accounts of this period. In addition, in line with recent scholarship on the lives of individual communists, I have attempted to go beyond portrayals of activists as cardboard cut-out revolutionaries and heroes of the struggle. In doing so, I set out to show that ordinary people, with all their contradictions, inconsistencies and foibles can, though commitment and compassion, live deeply meaningful lives, achieving great things. They can leave a name behind them. I hope that I have written a history which is a triumph of the everyday, rather than a trumpeting of the powerful and the glorious.

Notes 1. Interviews with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010, pp. 9 & 10 and Johannesburg, 20 January 2014, n.p.; “147 Are Still on the Banned List”, Rand Daily Mail, 12 July 1975, 3; “House Arrest Lifted from Ban Orders”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 December 1973, IDAF Research Department, Prisoners of Apartheid: A Biographical List of Political Prisoners and Banned Persons in South Africa, London and New York, International Defence & Aid Fund in cooperation with United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, October 1978, p. 153; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70, Notes and Documents, May 1970, This is Apartheid, II”, at http://www.avoiceonline.org/assets/txu-diggs194-f14-01/txu-diggs-194-f14-01.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, pp. 8–9 (quotations). 2. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 8; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 11. 3. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 11. 4. Communication, Department of Justice, Republic of South Africa to Mrs. L.E. Schermbrucker, 175 Francis Street, Observatory, Johannesburg, 13 December 1968, Reference No. 2/1/1691 “Communist Party of South Africa”, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 5. Interview with Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), Arniston, 5 January 2011, p. 5. 6. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 9. 7. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 6.

8

AFTERMATH

341

8. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 27 December 2010, p. 10. 9. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 20 January 2014, n.p. 10. Ibid. 11. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, pp. 6–7. 12. Interjection by Reviva Schermbruckert to Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 10; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p.10. Also, Informal conversation with Gershon/George and Yehudith Jameson, Johannesburg, 21 January 2014; Telephone conversation with Reviva Schermbrucker, 28 February 2014. George, Yehudith and Lesley were all born in the same year, 1926. 13. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 9. 14. Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010, p. 7; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, p. 8; Untitled, unpublished attempt at writing a personal biography by Lesley Schermbrucker in her possession, p. 29. Lesley would later note that Ivan “had served 5 yrs plus nine months awaiting trial and 90 days detention before that” [Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 29]. 15. “147 Are Still”; “Released Treason Trialist Seeks Job”, Rand Daily Mail, 16 April 1970, 7; “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70”, pp. 8–9 (quotations). 16. IDAF, Prisoners, p. 153. 17. “Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker”, notes by Hilary Hamburger in her possession, n.d., p. 3. 18. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 19. “Extra notes on Ivan for Alan & Ben”, written communication from Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, n.d. (29 August 2010), pp. 4–5; Denis Kuny, untitled address at Ivan’s funeral, 1981, p. 5; Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 13. 20. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 11. 21. Interjection by Reviva Schermbrucker to Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, pp. 10–11. 22. Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, pp. 6–7. 23. Untitled, undated notes on the biography of Ivan Schermbrucker beginning “Ivan Schermbrucker was the great grandson” prepared by Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 7; Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28

342

A. KIRKALDY

August 2010, p. 7 (quotation). For death notices, see “Deaths”, Rand Daily Mail Classified, 21 January 1971, n.p. 24. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 29–30. 25. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 26. Interjection by Reviva Schermbrucker to Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 27. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 10. 28. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, pp. 7–8. 29. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 12. 30. Ibid., p. 4. 31. Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Ben and Marty Turok, 5 March 1979 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker, p. 1. 32. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, p. 29. 33. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 13. 34. Quoted in Lynn Carneson, Red in the Rainbow: The Life and Times of Fred and Sarah Carneson, Cape Town, Zebra Press, 2010, pp. 213–214. 35. Kuny, untitled address, p. 7. 36. Letter, I.F. Schermbrucker, 34 Rustenberg Flats, 57 Fortesque Road, Yeoville, Johannesburg to The Manager, Barclays National Bank Ltd., Raleigh Street, Yeoville, Johannesburg,” I.F. Schermbrucker A/c No 1794884, re Payment from Foreign Exchange Branch”, 8 November 1979, in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. 37. Hilary Hamburger, “A story for Denis - an unusual friendship”, undated, unpublished account in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, pp. 2–3; “Lesley and Ivan”, e-mail, Jeanne Daly to Alan Kirkaldy, 12 May 2020. 38. Hamburger, “A story”, pp. 2–3 (quotation, p. 3). 39. Ibid., p. 3. See also Peta Thornycroft, “Sam will never see his favoured son free of the traitor’s brand”, Sunday Express, 9 December 1979, 7. 40. Hamburger, “A story”, pp. 3–5; “Lesley and Ivan”. 41. “Lesley and Ivan”. 42. John Matthews was one of the accused in the “Little Rivonia trial” of November 1964. He, Laloo Chiba, Dave Kitson, Mac Maharaj and Wilton Mkwayi were found guilty of sabotage. Matthews was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.

8

AFTERMATH

343

[South African History Online, “African National Congress Timeline 1960–1969”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/africannational-congress-timeline-1960-1969, accessed 3 March 2014.] Matthews was nine years old when his father came back from the 1922 white Miners’ Strike, blacklisted and unable to find employment. He made a small living on a makeshift forge in the family’s back garden, passing on a love working with his hands on to John. One of the “backroom boys” of the struggle, Matthews assembled the stage for the Kliptown Congress of the People. In addition to making furniture, he assembled bombs for MK operations. During his imprisonment in Pretoria Central, he made things for his fellowprisoners. He died in 1998. [AfricaBookClub.com, “Walking on Air – The Story of ANC Activist John Edward Matthews (by Colleen Matthews)”, at http://www.africabookclub.com/?p= 3738, accessed 3 March 2014; Jeremy Cronin, “Walking on Air”, at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.southafrica.afrikaans/3pIHdSFIm0k, accessed 3 March 2014.] 43. Untitled attempt at writing a personal biography, pp. 29–30. 44. Letter, Ben Turok to Ivan Schermbrucker, 23 February 1979, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 45. Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Hugh Lewin, 4 March 1979, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 46. Ironically, Ben and Mary Turok would return to South Africa with the process of political change. Ben served as an ANC member of the National Assembly from 1995 to 2014. On his retirement, the ANC declared him a “stalwart”. [Chris Barron, “From Loyal Cadre to Crusty Old Critic”, Sunday Times, 2 March 2014, 19 (quotation); who’swho southern Africa, “Ben Turok”, at http:// whoswho.co.za/benjamin-turok-7711, accessed 7 March 2014.] 47. Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Ben and Marty Turok, 5 March 1979 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker, pp. 1–2. 48. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 16. 49. Kuny, untitled address, p. 5. 50. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 16. 51. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 8. 52. This was in fact not axiomatic. Many who had similar upbringings could still become racist and even oppress their former playmates.

344

A. KIRKALDY

53. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964 – 1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 2, Record of Evidence of the Accused, p. 1942. 54. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, pp. 6–7. 55. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 15. 56. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 20 January 2014, n.p.; “Released treason trialist”. 57. “Released treason trialist”. The medical practitioner, politician and businessman, Zacharius de Beer (1928–1999), was one of the United Party members who broke away to form the Progressive Party. With the exception of Helen Suzman, they would lose their seats in the 1961 elections. Suzman became the PP’s sole Member of Parliament for thirteen years. After working in advertising, De Beer joined Anglo American in 1968. He became a manager, and then the managing director, of Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines in Zambia. From 1974 to 1988 he served as an executive director of Anglo. De Beer returned to parliament in 1977. He led the Progressive Federal Party(the renamed PP) and its successor, the Democratic Party, from 1987 to 1994. [Paul Trewhela, “Obituary: Zach de Beer”, The Independent, Thursday 3 June 1999, at http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertain ment/obituary-zach-de-beer-1097732.html, accessed 29 January 2014; Stanley Uys, “Zach de Beer: South Africa’s Youngest-Ever MP and Keeper of the Liberal Flame”, The Guardian, 1 June 1999, at http://www.theguardian.com/news/1999/jun/01/guardiano bituaries1, accessed 29 January 2014. The family do not know how Ivan and Zach first became friends. Lesley says that Ivan was friendly, or at least on good terms with, a wide range of people who were anti-apartheid but not necessarily communists. The friendship probably grew out of this shared desire for change. Helen Suzman was one of the people that Ivan liked and respected. Lesley raised the possibility that they may have met through her. [Telephone conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, 18 April 2016.]

8

AFTERMATH

345

58. Consolidated Share Registrars Limited, GS(C)/HKW/VS, Record of Service, Mr Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker, 29 December 1980, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. 59. Informal conversation with Peter Schermbrucker after the interview at Arniston, 5 January 2011. 60. Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Hugh Lewin and Baruch Hirson, Sunday 18 March [1979] in the possession of Peter and Reviva Schermbrucker, p. 1. 61. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, 5 January 2011, p. 11. 62. “Extra notes”, p. 7; Kuny, untitled address, pp. 3, 6–7;“Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker”, p. 3. Hilary incorrectly states that he had five heart attacks. 63. “Extra notes”, p. 1; Interview with Agnes Abercrombie, 28 August 2010, p. 10; “Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker”, p. 3. For Ivan’s death notices, see “9. Deaths”, Rand Daily Mail, 28 July 1981, 22. 64. Interview with Jill Murray, 5 January 2011, p. 7. 65. Ibid., 5 January 2011, p. 8. 66. Untitled document written by Lesley Schermbrucker beginning “They came for Ivan on July 24th 1964”, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker, p.3. 67. Gay Seidman, “Guerrillas in their Midst: Armed Struggle in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement”, Mobilization: The International Journal of Research and Theory about Social Movements, Protest, and Contentious Politics, 6, 2, 2001, 119–120. 68. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m., p. 10. 69. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger [Elizabeth Franklin (formerly Lewin) to Hilary Hamburger], Sunday 19 April 1998 in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, p. 3. 70. Kuny, untitled address, p. 9. 71. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein from Paris, 30 April 2015, pp. 5–6. 72. Telephone conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, 18 April 2016.

References

Archival Sources A2729 NEAME, Sylvia, Copyright 2008, Historical Papers, UWL, University of the Witwatersrand, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventory.php? iid=6364, accessed 17 March 2012. AC/2001/230, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Amnesty Committee, “Application in Terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995, Paul Erasmus, Applicant (AM3690/96)”, at http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/decisions%5C2001/ac21230.htm, accessed 18 September 2014. African National Congress Leaflets, “The ANC Spearheads Revolution. Leballo? No!”, at http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4703, accessed 19 October 2014. African National Congress Press Statements, “The Death of Mannie Brown”, 21 November 2003, at http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=6499, accessed 27 September 2014. African National Congress, “Statement on Reinstatement of Lewis Baker”, 7 September 2005, at http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=5374, accessed 17 March 2012. African National Congress of South Africa (African Nationalists), “In Defence of the African Image and Heritage. Reply to the Central Committee of the South African Communist Party statement entitled ‘The Enemy Hidden under the Same Colour’. Issued in February 1976”, Dar Es Salaam, 1976, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/archive-files3/boo 19760200.026.021.000.pdf, accessed 17 January 2020. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5

347

348

REFERENCES

ANC Archives, “Sadie Forman”, at http://ancarchives.org.za/sadie-forman-2/, accessed 29 April 2014. Anti-apartheid News, published by the Anti-apartheid Movement, February 1966, at http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document. aamp2b2400002.pdf, accessed 30 January 2018. BC1253: AH Murray Papers, Donated to UCT Libraries by Professor Christina Murray, A List Compiled by André Landman, Cape Town, UCT Libraries, 2009, at http://srvrhldig001.uct.ac.za/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id= 7516&local_base=GEN01, accessed 20 March 2012. Case no 554/86 In the Supreme Court of South Africa (Appellate Division) Between Lindiwe Monica Nkwentsha (Appellant) and The Minister of Law and Order, Republic of South Africa (First Respondent) and The Commissioner, South African Police (Second Respondent), Coram: Rabie ACJ et Van Heerden, Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier JJA, Heard 23 February 1988, Delivered 30 March 1988, Judgement, W. Vivier JA, pp. 2–33, Nkwentsha v Minister of Law and Order, Republic of South Africa and Another (554/86) [1988] ZASCA 33; [1988] 2 All SA 420 (A) (30 March 1988), at http://www.saf lii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1988/33.html, accessed 12 January 2012. Cohen, Jonathan (SAHO Public History Internship), “1967 Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/1967-terrorism-act-no83-1967, accessed 25 February 2013. Communication, Department of Justice, Republic of South Africa to Mrs. L.E. Schermbrucker, 175 Francis Street, Observatory, Johannesburg, 13 December 1968, Reference No. 2/1/1691 “Communist Party of South Africa”, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Consolidated Share Registrars Limited, GS(C)/HKW/VS, Record of Service, Mr Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker, 29 December 1980, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. 8 of 1953, at http://www.disa.ukzn.ac. za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19530304.028.023.008, accessed 29 September 2014. “Evidence of Jeffrey David Rudin given on 10.8.66 in Trial of: State vs. V. Weinberg and L. Schermbrucker”, University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers, p. 1, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventories/inv_pdft/ AD1897/AD1897-B7-01-jpeg.pdf, accessed 25 March 2015. “Indemnity Act 61 of 1961”, at http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/ 1961-061.pdf, accessed 3 March 2013. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, “World Federation of Trade Unions Records, Collection Number 5595”, at http:// rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/KCL05595.html, accessed 31 April 2019.

REFERENCES

349

Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Hugh Lewin, 4 March 1979, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Hugh Lewin and Baruch Hirson, Sunday 18 March [1979] in the possession of Peter and Reviva Schermbrucker. Letter, I.F. Schermbrucker, 34 Rustenberg Flats, 57 Fortesque Road, Yeoville, Johannesburg to The Manager, Barclays National Bank Ltd., Raleigh Street, Yeoville, Johannesburg,”I.F. Schermbrucker A/c No 1794884, re Payment from Foreign Exchange Branch”, 8 November 1979, in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. Letter, Ivan Schermbrucker to Ben and Marty Turok, 5 March 1979 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Letters, Lesley Schermbrucker to Ivan Schermbrucker from the Schermbrucker family Archive and copied to DVD 6, The Sea of Ink, 4 October 1964 to 6 April 1965, in the possession of the author. Letter, Ben Turok to Ivan Schermbrucker, 23 February 1979, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Michaelhouse, “Paul Trewhela: St. Michael Award Citation, 6 June 2008, at http://www.my-english-writing.com/courage/paul_trewhela.html, accessed 17 March 2012. Michigan State University, the Ahmed Kathrada Collection, at http://globetrot ter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Kathrada/kath-collection.html, accessed 31 March 2013. O’Malley Archives, “General Law Amendment Act No 37 of 1963”, at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv01538/ 04lv01828/05lv01829/06lv01908.htm, accessed 23 February 2013. O’Malley Archives, “01 Nov 2002: Maharaj, Mac”, at http://nelsonmandela. org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv03445/04lv03689/05lv03714/06lv03 741.htm, accessed 25 March 2012. O’Malley Archives, “The Riotous Assemblies Act No 17 of 1956”, at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv01538/ 04lv01828/05lv01829/06lv01875.htm, accessed 2 October 2014. O’Malley Archives, “1962. Sabotage Act General Laws Amendment Act No 76”, at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv01 538/04lv01828/05lv01829/06lv01908.htm, accessed 23 February 2013. “On the Closing of the Soviet Consulate”, Statement issued by the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union (Signed by the Chairman, the Rev. D.C. Thompson), 1 February 1956, in University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers website, Collection Number AD1812, Records relating to the ‘Treason Trial’ (Regina vs F. Adams and others on Charge of High Treason, etc.), 1956, 1961, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventories/inv_pdfo/AD1 812/AD1812-Ex2-4-2-4-001-jpeg.pdf, accessed 2 May 2014.

350

REFERENCES

The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, “Citation for the award of the National Order of the Companions of O.R. Tambo in Silver to Vernon Berrange for His excellent contribution to the struggle against racial oppression in South Africa”, at http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/national-orders/ recipient/vernon-berrange, accessed 27 February 2018. The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, National Orders, The Order of Luthuli in Bronze, “Rica Hodgson (1920–)”, at http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/ pebble.asp?relid=7936, accessed 28 September 2014. The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, “Profile of Mr Sathyandranath Ragunanan “Mac” Maharaj” for the presentation of The Order of Luthuli in Silver, at http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/national-orders/recipient/sathya ndranath-ragunanan-%E2%80%9Cmac%E2%80%9D-maharaj, accessed 7 May 2019. Rivonia Trial Collection, AD1844, Bd8.1, “Statement by Vernon Berrange in answer to a questionnaire presented to him by the Minister of Justice and after he had made a further application to have his name removed from the Liquidator’s list of named communists”, 15 October 1962, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventories/inv_pdft/AD1 844-Bd8-1-text.pdf, accessed 18 September 2014. ROSSOUW v SACHS, South African Law Reports [1964] 3 All SA 84 (A), pp. 85–95, at http://lexisnexis.ru.ac.za/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=def ault.htm$vid=mylnb:10.1048/enu accessed 11 March 2014. Schermbrucker v Klindt NO 165 (4) SA 606 (A): dictum at 616A appl 2002 (2) SA 262 (N)—South African Law Reports, with Which Are Amalgamated the All South Africa Law Reports, Cape Town, Juta + Co, 2002 (1965 (4) SA), pp. 606–627. Slovo, Joe, “Has Socialism Failed?”, SACP discussion document, January 1990, at http://www.sacp.org.za/docs/history/failed.html, accessed 28 January 2021. South African Communist Party, “The role of the Party and its role in the national liberation movement”, discussion document, 1980, BC 1081, Manuscripts and Archives Department, University of Cape Town Libraries, Digital Innovation South Africa, at https://www.aluka.org/stable/pdf/10. 5555/al.sff.document.cir19800000.026.021.000, accessed 19 January 2020. South African Communist Party, “South African Communist Party Documents, 1928: The South African Question”, at https://www.marxists.org/his tory/international/comintern/sections/sacp/1928/comintern.htm, accessed 2 April 2016. South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R., “For Peace and Friendship. News About Life in the Soviet Union” by the South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the U.S.S.R. (AFRICA, South), 1951, at http://books.google.co.za/books/about/For_Peace_and_Friend

REFERENCES

351

ship_News_about_life.html?id=maHuMgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y, accessed 1 May 2014. South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “Institutional Hearing: Prisons—Special Treatment of Political Prisoners, Sub-section 27”, testimony of General Andrew Masondo, Volume Four, Chapter Seven, at http:// www.stanford.edu/class/history48q/Documents/EMBARGO/4chap7.htm, accessed 1 April 2013. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463 (9 reels microfilm (positive): 35 mm), Reel 1, Charges. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others”, “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 1, List of Accused. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 1, Trial record. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 2, Record of Evidence of the Accused. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 3, Judgement, Sentence and Appeal. “The State versus Abram Fischer and 13 others: judgement, sentences and appeal in the Magistrate’s Court; Fischer’s preparatory examination and charge in the Supreme Court, 1964–1965 / Abram Louis Fischer et al. (defendants)”, Marshalltown, Microfile, n.d., in Cory Library, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Cory Library Microfilm MIC 463, Reel 3 (Continued), State v Abram Fischer, Preparatory Examination & Charge in Supreme Court.

352

REFERENCES

“In the Supreme Court of South Africa (Appellate Division), In the enquiry concerning Violet May Weinberg, Enquiry in terms of Section 212 of Act 56 of 1955, and arising out of the proceedings in the matter between The State and I. Heymann and M. Dingake”, at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac. za/inventories/inv_pdfo/AD1901/AD1901-51-1-01-jpeg.pdf, accessed 25 March 2014. SV.4. In The Supreme Court of South Africa. (Transvaal Provincial Division) Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice DE WET, Judge-President. In the matter of The State vs. Nelson Mandela & Ors. 17th February 1964. Extract of Evidence—Ronald Martin First. s.s., at http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac. za/inventories/inv_pdft/AD1844-A17-9-text.pdf, accessed 1 April 2012. St. John’s Preparatory School, “Newsletter Number 1”, 1 February 2013, at http://www.stjohnscollege.co.za/pdfs/newsletters/preparatory/ 2013_prepnews01.pdf, accessed 5 December 2013. Suppression of Communism Act, Act No. 44 of 1950, at http://www.disa. ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19500717.028. 020.044, accessed 29 September 2014. “Torture in South Africa”, Extracts from the Report of the UN Special Committee on the policies of Apartheid of the Govt. of the Republic of South Africa, A/5825, 8 December 1964, in Transition, No. 50 (October 1975– March 1976), pp. 52–57, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935000?origin= JSTOR-pdf&, accessed 8 March 2012. TRC Final Report, Volume 2, at http://sabctrc.saha.org.za/reports/volume2/ chapter2/subsection33.htm, accessed 11 March 2014. United Nations Centre against Apartheid, Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Opponents to Apartheid Subjected to Banning Orders in South Africa, Alternative title, Notes and Documents—United Nations Centre Against Apartheid No. 18/69, October 1969, accessed through Aluka digital library, at http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document. nuun1969_13_final.pdf, accessed 12 August 2020. United Nations Centre against Apartheid, Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Banning Orders Against Opponents of Apartheid in South Africa, Alternative title, Notes and Documents—United Nations Centre Against Apartheid No. 25/75, July 1975, accessed through Aluka digital library, at http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document. nuun1975_25_final.pdf, 5 June 2018. “Unit on Apartheid Papers, No. 14/70, Notes and Documents, May 1970, This is Apartheid, II”, at http://www.avoiceonline.org/assets/txu-diggs-194-f1401/txu-diggs-194-f14-01.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012. “University of the Witwatersrand Hilda and Rusty Bernstein Papers”, at http:// www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/inventory.php?iid=9010, accessed 12 March 2013.

REFERENCES

353

The Unlawful Organisations Act, No 34 of 1960, at http://disa.ukzn.ac. za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19600407.028.020.034, accessed 1 October 2014.

Unpublished Manuscripts, Notes, Addresses and Recollections Anonymous [Lewis Baker], Untitled, undated reminiscences beginning “Don’t remember where I 1st met him” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. “Early Years”, notes on her life written by, and in the possession of, Lesley Schermbrucker, n.d. “Extra Notes on Ivan for Alan & Ben”, written communication from Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, n.d. (29 August 2010). Hamburger, Hilary, “A Story for Denis—An Unusual Friendship”, undated, unpublished account in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. “Ivan Schermbrucker”, written communication from Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 30 August 2010. “Ivan Frederick Schermbrucker”, notes by Hilary Hamburger in her possession, n.d. Kuny, Denis, untitled address at Ivan’s funeral, 1981. “Lesley”, undated notes prepared by Hilary Hamburger in her possession. Untitled, undated document on the Bernsteins beginning: “Just before the Rivonia trialists were released”, written by Lesley Schermbrucker and in her possession. Untitled piece on Lesley Schermbrucker and her marriage to Ivan Schermbrucker by Hilary Hamburger in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d. Untitled, undated notes on the biography of Ivan Schermbrucker beginning “Ivan Schermbrucker was the great grandson” prepared by Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. Untitled, undated reminiscences on the life of Ivan Schermbrucker beginning “Ivan was born on 22nd Feb 1921” produced by Agnes Abercrombie in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. Untitled document written by Lesley Schermbrucker beginning “They came for Ivan on July 24th 1964”, in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Untitled, unpublished attempt at writing a personal biography by Lesley Schermbrucker in her possession.

Interviews Interview with Agnes, M. Abercrombie, Ivan’s sister, East London, 28 August 2010.

354

REFERENCES

Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Fred Carneson by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “I called myself a Communist when I was 16” in the possession of Hilary Hambruger, n.d., n.p. Telephonic interview with Raymond Eisenstein from Paris, 30 April 2015. Interview with Rica Hodgson, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “No more liberation politics” in the possession of Hilary Hambruger, n.d., n.p. Unpublished interview notes of an interview with Wolfie Kodesh by Hilary Hamburger/Kuny beginning “Would billet us in houses/buildings” in the possession of Hilary Hamburger, n.d., n.p. Interview with Denis Kuny, Johannesburg, 22 January 2014. Ruth First Papers project, “Interview with Hilary Kuny and Luli Callinicos”, part 1, An interview conducted by Don Pinnock c. 1992. Part of a series carried out at Rhodes University and held at the UWC/Robben Island Mayibuye Archive. Republished in 2012 by the Ruth First Papers Project, at http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4520/2/Hilary_ KUNY_and_Luili_CALLINICOS_1.pdf, accessed 2 April 2013. Interview with Hugh Lewin, Johannesburg, 21 January 2012. Ruth First Papers Project, “Interview with Ismael Meer Part 2” at http://sasspace.sas.ac.uk/4580/2/Ismael_MEER_2.pdf, accessed 3 December 2013. Interview with Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), Arniston, 5 January 2011. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Kenilworth, 27 December 2010. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 23 January 2014, 5 p.m. Interview with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 24 January 2014, early hours of the morning. “Lesley Schernmbrucker, Jill Murray & Mildred Holo, of toy boxes and meetings”, excerpt of an interview by Jim [James] Zug with Lesley Schermbrucker and her daughter Jill Murray, Johannesburg, 22 January 1994, in Voices of liberation Project: Kasigo Publishers, communication from Hildegarde Fast and Bastienne Klein (editor) to Jill Murray, 23 December 1997 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “Lesley Schernmbrucker, Jill Murray & Mildred Holo, Where you should be”, excerpt of an interview by Jim [James] Zug with Lesley Schermbrucker and her daughter Jill Murray, Johannesburg, 22 January 1994, p. 2, in Voices of liberation Project: Kasigo Publishers, communication from Hildegarde Fast and Bastienne Klein (editor) to Jill Murray, 23 December 1997 in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. Interview with Peter Schermbrucker, Arniston, 5 January 2011. Ruth First Papers Project, “Interview with Hilda Watts and Rusty Bernstein, Part 3”, an interview conducted by Don Pinnock c. 1992. Part of a series

REFERENCES

355

carried out at Rhodes University and held at the UWC/Robben Island Mayibuye Archive, at http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4568/4/Hilda_WATTS_ Rusty_BERNSTEIN_3.pdf, accessed 27 September 2014.

Personal Communications Informal conversation with Hilary Hamburger, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014. Informal conversation with Rica Hodgson at the time of the interview with her, Johannesburg, 20 January 2014. Informal conversation with Gershon/George and Yehudith Jameson, Johannesburg, 21 January 2014. Informal conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 21 January 2014. Informal conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, Johannesburg, 22 January 2014. Informal conversation with Peter Schermbrucker after the interview at Arniston, 5 January 2011. “Ivan Piece”, e-mail, Peleia to tony.hamburger [Elizabeth Franklin (formerly Lewin) to Hilary Hamburger], Sunday 19 April 1998 in the possession of Hilary Hamburger. “Lesley and Ivan”, e-mail, Jeanne Daly to Alan Kirkaldy, 12 May 2020. Personal E-Mail communication, Paul Trewhela to Alan Kirkaldy, no subject, 26 October 2013. Telephone conversation, Hugh Lewin, 17 March 2014. Telephone conversation, Jill Murray (Schermbrucker), 14 March 2014. Telephone conversation, Lesley Schermbrucker, 11 July 2013. Telephone conversation, Lesley Schermbrucker, 3 March 2014. Telephone conversation with Lesley Schermbrucker, 18 April 2016. Telephone conversation, Peter Schermbrucker, 12 May 2016. Telephone conversation with Reviva Schermbrucker, 28 February 2014.

Newspaper Articles “2 Jailed for Red Activities”, Rand Daily Mail, 16 August 1966, 4. “9. Deaths”, Rand Daily Mail, 28 July 1981, 22. “12 Nusas Supporters Elected to Wits S.R.C.”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1966, 13. “59 Homes Were Raided in Pre-dawn Swoop”, Rand Daily Mail, 4 May 1961, 2. “90-Day Law Is Part of a Cold War—Margo”, Rand Daily Mail, 27 August 1965, 4.

356

REFERENCES

“90-Day Man’s Wife Can Now Appeal”, Rand Daily Mail, 27 February 1965, 3. “147 Are Still on the Banned List”, Rand Daily Mail, 12 July 1975, 3. “180-Day Detainee Refuses To Talk”, Rand Daily Mail, 28 January 1966, 6. Ancer, Jonathan, “A White Man Who Didn’t Look the Other Way”, Sunday Times, 3 May 2020, 12. “Agent Ludi Was a Provocateur, Says Defence”, Rand Daily Mail, 13 March 1965, 3. “Agent Q018 Recalled in Communism Hearing”, Rand Daily Mail, 2 March 1965, 11. “Agent Q018 Tells of Love Note to Malay Girl”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 December 1964, 4. “Appeal of Fischer Trialists Dismissed in Pretoria”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1965, 5. “Bail Refused for Red Trial Men”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 December 1964, 2. Barron, Chris, “From Loyal Cadre to Crusty Old Critic”, Sunday Times, 2 March 2014, 19. Barron, Chris, “Rica Hodgson, Firebrand Who Dedicated Her Life to the Freedom Struggle 1920–1928”, obituary, Sunday Times, 21 January 2018, 19. Barron, Chris, “Sarah Carneson: Feisty Communist Harassed and Exiled for Her Beliefs”, obituary, Sunday Times, 8 November 2015, 19. Barron, Chris, “Up Yours to Tyranny” (Denis Goldberg obituary), Sunday Times, 3 May 2020, 11–12. “Beyleveld Lied, Says Red Trial Accused”, The Star, 8 February 1965, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “Beyleveld’s Loyalty”: ‘Traitor’ clash in Fischer trial”, The Star, 18 November 1965, 5. “Bid to Clear Red Trial Man Refused”, Rand Daily Mail, 5 February 1965, 13. Chisolm, Jill, “Punishment Without End”, Rand Daily Mail, 25 January 1969, 11. “Col Schermbrucker: Eloquent Tribute by the Cape Premier”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 April 1904, 7. “Communism Case: Minister Forbids Certain Evidence”, Rand Daily Mail, 9 December 1964, 4. “Court Denies Bail for Alleged Reds”, Rand Daily Mail, 2 October 1964, 3. “Court Hushed as Wife Says Police Cruel to Detainee”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 August 1964, 1. “Cruelty to Detainee Alleged”, newspaper report [August 1964] from the Mayibuye Centre collection in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker (no publication details included). “Deaths”, Rand Daily Mail Classified, 21 January 1971, n.p.

REFERENCES

357

“Detainee Cannot Go to Court—Judge”, Rand Daily Mail, 15 August 1964, 7. “Detainee Gives Details of Communist High Command”, in Rand Daily Mail, 29 January 1966, newspaper cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “Detainees in Court Today”, Rand Daily Mail, 28 September 1964, 13. Detainee’s Wife May Appeal”, Rand Daily Mail, 22 August 1964, 2. “Detectives Raid ‘Advance’ Staff Offices, Homes”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1954, 9. “Expert Tells Red Trial of Communism”, Rand Daily Mail, 18 December 1964, 3. “Fischer and 13 Go on Trial Today”, Rand Daily Mail, 16 November 1964, 3. “Fischer Trial Surprise”, The Star, 17 November 1964, 1, 3. “Full Text of Note”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 August 1964, 1–2. Hazelhurst, Peter, “Why I Turned on My Friends—Mrs. Wentzel”, Rand Daily Mail, 3 December 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “House Arrest Lifted from Ban Orders”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 December 1973. “I Am Ready Lord—Blaxall”, Rand Daily Mail, 8 October 1963, 2. “I Was Kept Awake 4 Days—Mrs. Weinberg”, The Star, 18 May 1966, 1, 3. “I Was Never a Communist, Barsel Tells Court”, Rand Daily Mail, 13 February 1965, 5. “Judge Assumes Truth of Mrs. Weinberg’s Torture Charge”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 May 1966, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “London Sent R16,000 to Help; S.A. Reds, Court Told”, Rand Daily Mail, 17 November 1964, 2. “Ludi Smiles as 12 Reds Are Found Guilty”, Rand Daily Mail, 3 April 1965, 3. “Ludi Tells of Police Reports on Malay”, Rand Daily Mail, 14 January 1965, 13. “Ludi Tells of (Illegible in copy), Revolted—But It Was ‘Part of My Job’, Star, 8 December 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “Manager of ‘Advance’ Protests”, Rand Daily Mail, 1 September 1954, 9. “Not Only The Reds Oppose Apartheid Court Told”, Rand Daily Mail, 18 August 1965, 13. Pincus, David “Ludi Tells of Love-Life on bo[cut off] of Colour Line”, Sunday Times, 13 December 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “Poison Pen Letter Vilifies Detainee”, Express, 16 August 1964, cutting in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker. “Q018 Not Licensed To Love—Spengler”, Rand Daily Mail, 4 February 1965, 11. “‘Red’ Trial Man: I Was Never a Communist”, Rand Daily Mail, 9 February 1965, 11.

358

REFERENCES

“Red Was a Reliable Witness Court Told”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 August 1965, 13. “Released Treason Trialist Seeks Job”, Rand Daily Mail, 16 April 1970, 7. “Schermbrucker Can’t Tell Court of Charges”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 September 1965, 7. “Secret Agent Q 018 Tells His Story”, Rand Daily Mail, 25 November 1964, 1. “Security Men Raid ‘Spark’ Offices”, Rand Daily Mail, 2 March 1963, 3. “Sensation as Bram Fischer Trial Opens, Beyleveld Gives Evidence for the State”, The Star, 17 November 1964, 3. “State Begins the ‘He Led Reds from Hiding’”, Rand Daily Mail, 27 January 1966, 8. “Subversion by Christian Action Aid Fund Denied”, Rand Daily Mail, 29 January 1966, 6. Thornycroft, Peta, “Sam Will Never See His Favoured Son Free of the Traitor’s Brand”, Sunday Express, 9 December 1979, 7. “Three More Held Under 180-Day Clause”, Rand Daily Mail, 19 November 1965, 1. “Trialists Now Appealing Were Evasive—State”, Rand Daily Mail, 26 August 1965, 15. “Twelve Are Guilty in Fischer Trial”, The Star, 2 April 1965, 1. “Twelve in Fischer Trial Are to Be Sentenced Today”, Rand Daily Mail, 13 April 1965, 2. “Two Change Plea in Red Act Trial”, Rand Daily Mail, 11 August 1966, 11. “Two Change Plea to Guilty in Red Party Case”, The Star, 10 August 1966 (clipping in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker). “Women Given Two Years in Red Case”, The Star, 15 May 1966, clipping in the possession of Lesley Schermbrucker.

Journal Articles Ballard, Charles, “The Role of Trade and Hunter-Traders in the Political Economy of Natal and Zululand, 1824–1880”, African Economic History, 10, 1981, 3–21. Beichman, Joseph H., Zucker, Kenneth J., Hood, Jane E., DaCosta, Granville A., Akman, Donna and Cassavia, Erika, “A Review of the Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse”, Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 1, 1992, 101–118. Beinart, William, “Soil Erosion, Conservationism and Ideas About Development: A Southern African Exploration, 1900–1960”, Journal of Southern African Studies 11, 1, 1984, 52–83. Bunting, Brian, “How the YCL Began”, The African Communist, 169, 2005.

REFERENCES

359

Callinicos, Luli, “The Communist Party During the War Years: The Beginnings of Grass-Roots Politics”, South African Labour Bulletin, 15, 3, 1990, 101– 107. De Wet, Chris, “Betterment Planning in a Rural Village in Keiskammahoek, Ciskei”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 15, 2, 1989, 326–345. Drew, Allison, “Events Were Breaking Above Their Heads: Socialism in South Africa, 1921–1950”, Social Dynamics, 17, 1, 1991, 49–77. Drew, Allison, “Writing South African Communist History”, Science & Society, 61, 1, 1997, 107–113. Ellis, Stephen, “Nelson Mandela, the South African Communist Party and the Origins of Umkhonto We Sizwe”, Cold War History, 16, 1, 2016, 1–18. Everatt, David, “Alliance Politics of a Special Type: The Roots of the ANC/SACP Alliance, 1950–1954”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 18, 1, 1991, 19–39. Goedertier, Wouter, “The Quest for Transnational Authority, the Anti-apartheid Movements of the European Community”, Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 89, 3–4, 2011, 1249–1276. Hendricks, Fred T., “Loose Planning and Rapid Resettlement: The Politics of Conservation and Control in Transkei, South Africa, 1950–1970”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 15, 2, 1989, 306–325. Hirson, Baruch, “Socialism—Has It Failed? Or Joe Slovo’s Apologia for Mr Gorbachev”, Searchlight South Africa, 2, 1, 1990, 14–29. Israel, Mark and Adams, Simon, “‘That Spells Trouble’: Jews and the Communist Party of South Africa”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 26, 1, 2000, 145–162. Johanningsmeier, Edward, “Communists and Black Freedom Movements in South Africa and the US: 1919–1950”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 30, 1, 2004, 155–180. Kirkaldy, Alan, “Very Ordinary Communists. The Life of Ivan and Lesley Schermbrucker”, South African Historical Journal, 69, 3, 2017, 418–451. Klotz, Audie, “Transnational Activism and Global Transformations: The Antiapartheid and Abolitionist Experiences”, European Journal of African Relations, 81, 1, 2002, 49–76. Krikler, Jeremy, “Women, Violence and the Rand Revolt of 1922”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 22, 3, 1996, 349–373. Lambourne, Brigid, “Sowing the Seeds of Alliance: The Evolution of Colonialism of a Special Type: 1952–1954”, Africa Perspective, December 1993, 47–61. Landau, Paul S., “The ANC, MK and ‘The Turn to Violence’ (1960–1962)”, South African Historical Journal, 64, 3, 2012, 538–563. Leftwich, Adrain, “I Gave the Names”, Granta, 78, 2002, 11–31. Lodge, Tom, “Secret Party: South African Communists Between 1950 and 1960”, South African Historical Journal, 67, 4, 2015, 433–464.

360

REFERENCES

McAllister, P.A., “Resistance to ‘Betterment’ in the Transkei: A Case Study from Willowvale District”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 15, 2, 1989, 346– 368. Meer, Shamin, “Freedom for Women: Mainstreaming Gender in the South African Liberation Struggle and Beyond”, Gender and Development, 13, 2, 2005, 36–45. Meintjies, Sheila, “The Women’s Struggle for Equality During South Africa’s Transition to Democracy”, Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 30, 1996, 47–64. Morgan, Kevin, “Labour with Knobs on? The Recent Historiography of the British Communist Party”, Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen 27, 2002, 69–84. Molver, Zoë, “‘But He Didn’t Know How to Read It...’: The Editing of Harold Strachan’s ‘Way Up, Way Out’”, English in Africa, 34, 2, 2007, 51–66. Morgan, Kevin, “Socialists and ‘Mobility’ in Twentieth-Century Britain: Images and Experiences in the Life Histories of British Communists”, Social History, 36, 2, 2011, 143–168. Motlanthe, Kgalema, “The History of the SACP is the History of Us All”, African Communist, 184, 2011, “Celebrating 90 Years of South African Communism”, 18–23. Nkosi, Z. [Brian Bunting] “The ‘Fischer’ Trial”, The African Communist, 22, 1965, 46–55. Pillay, Devan, “The South African Communist Party”, South African Labour Bulletin, 14, 6, 1990, 29–37. Raman, Parvhati, “Yusuf Dadoo: Transnational Politics, South African Belonging”, South African Historical Journal, 50, 1, 2004, 27–48. Roos, Neil, “The Springbok and the Skunk: War Veterans and the Politics of Whiteness in South Africa”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 35, 3, 2009, 643–661. Roth, Mia, “Eddie, Brian, Jack and Let’s Phone Rusty: Is This the History of the Communist Party of South Africa (1921–1950)?”, South African Historical Journal, 42, 2000, 191–209. Seidman, Gay, “Guerrillas in their Midst: Armed Struggle in the South African Anti-apartheid Movement”, Mobilization: The International Journal of Research and Theory about Social Movements, Protest, and Contentious Politics, 6, 2, 2001, 111–127. Simpson, Thula, “The ANC at 100”, South African Historical Journal, 64, 2013, 381–392. Steyn, Phia, “A Greener Past? An Assessment of South African Environmental Historiography”, New Contree, 46, 1999, 7–27. Unterhalter, Elaine, “Women in Struggle: South Africa”, Third World Quarterly, 5, 4, 1983, 886–893.

REFERENCES

361

van der Walt, Lucien, “The First Globalisation and Transnational Labour Activism in Southern Africa: White Labourism, the IWW, and the ICU, 1904–1934”, African Studies, 66, 2–3, 2007, 223–251. van Heyningen, Elizabeth, “The Voices of Women in the South African War”, South African Historical Journal, 41, 1999, 22–43. Wells, Julia “Why Women Rebel: A Comparative Study of South African Women’s Resistance in Bloemfontein (1913) and Johannesburg (1958)”, Journal of Southern African Studies, 10, 1, 1983, 55–70. Whelan, Debbie, “Memory, Identity and Inheritance Amongst Zululand Traders”, Natalia, 39, 2009, 79–93. White, B., “The Role of the Springbok Legion in the Communist Party of South Africa’s Common Front Strategy, 1941–1950”, African Historical Review, 25, 1, 1993, 95–109.

Books Andrews, Geoff, Fishman, Nina and Morgan, Kevin (eds.), Opening the Books: Essays on the Social and Cultural History of the British Communist Party, London, Pluto Press, 1995. Beinart, William and Coates, Peter, Environment and History: The Taming of Nature in the USA and South Africa, London, Routledge, 1995. Boehmer, Elleke, Nelson Mandela: A Brief Insight, New York, Sterling, 2008. Bundy, Colin, The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry, London, Heinemann Educational Books, 1979. Bundy, Colin (ed.), The History of the South African Communist Party, Department of Adult Education and Extra-Mural Studies University of Cape Town, 1991. Bunting, Brian, Moses Kotane, South African Revolutionary: A Political Biography, London, Inkululeko Publications, 1975. Carneson, Lynn, Red in the Rainbow: The Life and Times of Fred and Sarah Carneson, Cape Town, Zebra Press, 2010. Clingman, Stephen, Bram Fischer: Afrikaner Revolutionary, Cape Town, David Philip, 1998. Davenport, T.R.H., South Africa: A Modern History, Bergvlei, Southern Books, 1988. De Baets, Antoon, Censorship of Historical Thought: A World Guide 1945–2000, Westport, CT and London, Greenwood Press 2002 de Kiewiet, C.W., A History of South Africa Social and Economic, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1941. De Wet, Chris, Moving Together, Drifting Apart: Betterment Planning and Villagisation in a South African Homeland, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1995.

362

REFERENCES

Drew, Allison, Discordant Comrades: Identities and Loyalties on the South African Left, Pretoria, University of South Africa Press, 2002. Dugard, John, Human Rights and the South African Legal Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978. Frankel, Glenn, Rivonia’s Children: Three Families and the Price of Freedom in South Africa, Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball, 1999. Haasbroek, Hannes, ’n Seun soos Bram, Cape Town, Umuzi (Random House Struik), 2011. Hepple, Bob, Young Man with a Red Tie, A Memoir of Mandela and the Failed Revolution, Sunnyside, Jacana, 2013. Herbstein, Denis, White Man, We Want to Talk to You, New York, Africana, 1979. Hirson, Baruch, Revolutions in My Life, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1995. Hodgson, Rica, Foot Soldier for Freedom: A Life in South Africa’s Liberation Movement, Johannesburg, Picador Africa, 2010. Horrell, Muriel (comp.), A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa 1964, Johannesburg, South African Institute of Race Relations, 1965. Horrell, Muriel (comp.), A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa, Johannesburg, South African Institute of Race Relations, 1969. Horrell, Muriel (comp.), A Survey of Race Relations in South Africa, Johannesburg, South African Institute of Race Relations, 1970. Horrell, Muriel (comp.), Laws Affecting Race Relations in South Africa: (to the end of 1976), Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations, 1978. Houston, Gregory, The Post-Rivonia ANC and SACP Underground, Pretoria, HSRC, 2004. IDAF Research Department, Prisoners of Apartheid: A Biographical List of Political Prisoners and Banned Persons in South Africa, London and New York, International Defence & Aid Fund in cooperation with United Nations Centre Against Apartheid, October 1978. Kasrils, Ronnie, “Armed and Dangerous”: My Undercover Struggle Against Apartheid, Oxford, Heinemann, 1993. Klein, Martin A. (ed.), Peasants in Africa: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1980. La Hause, Paul, Brewers, Beerhalls and Boycotts: A History of Liquor in South Africa, Johannesburg, Ravan Press, 1988. Lerumo, A. [Michael Harmel], Fifty Fighting Years: The Communist Party of South Africa 1921–1970, London, Inkululeko, 1971. Lewin, Hugh, Bandiet Out of Jail, Cape Town, Umuzi, 2013. Ludi, Gerard, The Communistisation of the ANC, Alberton, Gaglago, 2011. Ludi, Gerard and Grobbelaar, Blaar, The Amazing Mr Fischer, Nasionale Boekhandel, Cape Town, 1966.

REFERENCES

363

Marks, Shula (ed.), “Not Either an Experimental Doll”, The Separate Worlds of Three South African Women, Pietermaritzburg, University of Natal Press, 1987. Middleton, Jean, Convictions: A Woman Political Prisoner Remembers, Randburg, Ravan Press, 1998. Ntantala, Phyllis, A Life’s Mosaic: The Autobiography of Phyllis Ntantala, Berkley, University of California Press, 1992. Pampallis, John, Foundations of the New South Africa, Cape Town, Maskew Miller Longman, 1991. Roos, Neil, Ordinary Springboks: White Servicemen and Social Justice in South Africa 1939–1961, Burlington, Ashgate, 2005. SACP, The Red Flag in South Africa: A Popular History of The South African Communist Party 1921–1990, Johannesburg, SACP, 1990. Seedat, Rahid and Saleh, Razia (eds.), Men of dynamite: Pen Portraits of MK Pioneers, Lenasia, Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, 2009. Simpson, Thula, Umkhonto we Sizwe: The ANC’s Armed Struggle, Cape Town, Penguin Books, 2016. Sinclair, Upton (ed.), The Cry for Justice, An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest, New York, Upton Sinclair, 1915. Slovo, Gillian, Every Secret Thing, My Family, My Country, London, Little Brown, 1997. Slovo, Joe, Slovo: The Unfinished Autobiography, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996. Thompson, Mike, Traders and Trading Stations of the Central and Southern Transkei, 3rd Edition, Ashburton, Brevitas, 2013. Thörn, Hâkan, Anti-apartheid and the Emergence of as Global Civil Society, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Turok, Ben, Nothing But the Truth: Behind the ANC’s Struggle Politics, Cape Town and Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball Publishers, 2003. Walker, Cherryl, Women and Resistance in South Africa, Cape Town, David Philip, 1991. Wells, Julia, We Now Demand! The History of Women’s Resistance to Pass Laws in South Africa, Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1993. Wieder, Alan, Ruth First and Joe Slovo in the War Against Apartheid, New York, Monthly Review Press, 2013. Zug, James, The Guardian: The History of South Africa’s Extraordinary Antiapartheid Newspaper, Michigan, Michigan State University Press and Pretoria, UNISA Press, 2007.

364

REFERENCES

Chapters in Books Beinart, William, “Women in Rural Politics: Herschel District in the 1920s and 1930s”, in Belinda Bozzoli (ed.), Class, Community and Conflict: South African Perspectives, Johannesburg, Ravan Press, 1987, pp. 324–357. Beinart, William and Bundy, Colin, “State Intervention and Rural Resistance in the Transkei, 1900–1965”, in Martin A. Klein (ed.), Peasants in Africa: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1980, pp. 271– 315. Bradford, Helen’ “‘We Are Now the Men’: Women’s Beer Protests in the Natal Countryside, 1929”, in Bozzoli (ed.), Class, Community, pp. 292–323. Morgan, Kevin, “Parts of People and Communist Lives”, in John McIlroy, Kevin Morgan and Alan Campbell (eds.), Party People, Communist Lives, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 2001, pp. 9–28.

Unpublished Articles Karon, Tony, “Fascism, War and National Liberation: The Comintern and the United Front in South Africa 1928–1939”, unpublished mimeograph, Cape Town (?), Department of Economic History, August 1985. Lodge, Tom, “Class, Conflict, Communal Struggle and Patriotic Unity: The Communist Party of South Africa during the Second World War”, unpublished African Studies Institute seminar paper, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 October 1985. Mort, Sophie, “Some Indications of CPSA/SACP Activity in the Early ’50s as Evidenced by ‘Leftist’ Newspapers of That Period”, paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Congress of the Association for Sociology in Southern Africa held at the University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, 29 June–2 July 1987. Ozinsky, Max, “‘For Land and Freedom’, the Communist Party of South Africa and the Strategy of United Fronts in the 1930s”, Long Paper, South African Economic History, 1983.

Theses and Dissertations Burman, Tony, “The South African Congress of Democrats: 1953–1962”, BA Honours dissertation, University of Cape Town, March 1981. Burns, Catherine, “An Historical Study of the Friends of the Soviet Union and the South African Peace Council”, BA Honours dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, November 1987.

REFERENCES

365

Drew, Allison, “Social Mobilization and Racial Capitalism in South Africa, 1928– 1960”, PhD thesis in Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1991. Everatt, David, “The Politics of Nonracialism: White Opposition to Apartheid, 1945–1960”, PhD thesis in Modern History, Lincoln College, University of Oxford, 1990. Habib, Adam Mahomed, “The Politics of the South African Communist Party 1962–1990: A Critical Analysis of Aspects of its Theory and Strategy”, MA thesis in Political Studies, University of Natal (Pietermaritzburg), 1991. Lissoni, Arianna, “The South African Liberation Movements in Exile, c. 1945– 1970”, PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, January 2008. Oswald, Eriwen Elizabeth René, “Writing in Hostile Spaces: A Critical Examination of South African Prison Literature”, PhD Thesis, University of Johannesburg, May 2005. Plint, Graeme Wesley, “The Influence of Second World War Military Service on Prominent White South African Veterans in Opposition Politics, 1939–1961”, Masters in Military Science thesis, Stellenbosch University, 2021. Timmermans, Herman Gerald, “Rural Livelihoods at Dwesa/Cwebe: Poverty, Development and Natural Resource Use on the Wild Coast, South Africa”, M.Sc. thesis, Rhodes University, 1994.

Internet Sources Adam, Heribert and Moodley, Kogila, The Opening of the Apartheid Mind: Options for the New South Africa, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993, Chapter 4, “Dilemmas and Contradictions in the ANC Alliance, Stalinism Reconsidered”, at https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view? docId=ft958009mm&chunk.id=s1.4.3&toc.id=ch4&brand=ucpress, accessed 28 January 2021. AfricaBookClub.com, “Walking on Air—The Story of ANC Activist John Edward Matthews (by Colleen Matthews)”, at http://www.africabookclub.com/?p= 3738, accessed 3 March 2014. Akhalwaya, Ameen, “Obituary: Helen Joseph”, at http://www.independent.co. uk/news/people/obituary-helen-joseph-1565649.html, accessed 1 October 2014. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, “Committee Opinion: Adult Manifestations of Childhood Sexual Abuse”, Number 498, August 2011, at http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/CommitteeOpinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Adult-Man ifestations-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse, accessed 7 March 2016.

366

REFERENCES

Amnesty International, at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?Catego ryID=11131&ArticleID=3060#letwin, accessed 11 February 2012. Anon. (about David Evans), at http://dbnweb2.ukzn.ac.za/cca/images/tow/ TOW2008/bios/evans.htm, accessed 12 February 2012. Anon. (about David Evans), at http://www.annettegreenagency.co.uk/davide vans_195670.html, accessed 12 February 2012. “Rowley Arenstein, Friend of Mandela, Supporter of Buthelezi, Talks to R.W. Johnson”, in London Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 4, 21 February 1991, pp. 22–23, at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v13/n04/rw-johnson/rowley-arenst ein-friend-of-mandela-supporter-of-buthelezi-talks-to-rw-johnson, accessed 2 September 2019. “Arrest of Abram Fischer”, Tribune Magazine, 26 November 1965, at http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/26th-november-1965/16/ arrest-of-abram-fischer, accessed 1 November 2011. “A Time for Writers: 11th International Writers Festival”, at http://dbnweb2. ukzn.ac.za/cca/images/tow/TOW2008/doc/Timeofthewriter2008CAT. pdf, accessed 12 February 2012. Baker, Steven, “Villa Baker—Eulogy to a Fallen Comrade”, South African Communist Party, at http://www.sacp.org.za/main.php?ID=2354, accessed 17 March 2012. Barron, Chris, “Obituary: Mannie Brown”, Sunday Times, 30 November 2003, at http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid= 6409, accessed 27 September 2014. Barsel, Esther, “Friends of the Soviet Union”, Communist University, 29 July 2006, at http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/Friends+of+the+Sov iet+Union,+Esther+Barsel+and+Mosie+Moolla, accessed 17 March 2012. Benson, Mary, “A True Afrikaner”, at http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/NAM/new afrre/writers/fischer/Benson%20on%20Fischer.pdf, accessed 11 March 2012, p. 3. Originally Published in Granta, no. 19, 1986. Beresford, David, “Chief Justice Isamael Mahomed”, Obituary in The Guardian, Wednesday 21 June 2000, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/jun/ 21/guardianobituaries.davidberesford, accessed 19 March 2013. Cameron, Justice Edwin, “Judicial Independence—A Substantive Component”, paper presented to the Middle Temple and SA Conference on Judicial Independence, December 2010, pp. 24–29, at http://www.sabar.co.za/law-jou rnals/2010/december/2010-december-vol023-no3-pp24-29.pdf, accessed 11 March 2014. Clingman, Stephen, “Writing the South African Treason Trial”, Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa, 1 July 2010, pp. 44– 46, at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Writing+the+South+African+treason+ trial.-a0244951480, accessed 20 March 2012.

REFERENCES

367

Cohen, Jonathan, (SAHO Public History Internship), “1967 Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/1967-terrorism-act-no83-1967, accessed 25 February 2013. Collen, Jean on Wordpress, “Life in Kensington and Johannesburg Fifty Years Ago”, at http://jeancollen.wordpress.com/tag/john-orrs/, accessed 7 May 2013. Cronin, Jeremy, “Walking on Air”, at https://groups.google.com/forum/#! topic/soc.culture.south-africa.afrikaans/3pIHdSFIm0k, accessed 3 March 2014. Davis, Rebecca, “Adrian Leftwich, the Unforgiven”, Daily Maverick, 22 April 2013, at http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-04-22-adrianleftwich-the-unforgiven/#.U9DZvk-KDyA, accessed 24 July 2014. De Baets, Antoon, Censorship of Historical Thought: A World Guide 1945–2000, Westport, CT and London, Greenwood Press 2002, p. 54. DefenceWeb, Africa’s Defence and Security Portal, “Fact File: 1 Special Service Battalion”, at http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_con tent&view=article&id=6910:fact-file-1-special-service-battalion&catid=79: fact-files&Itemid=159, accessed 25 February 2014. Edemariam, Aida, “The Cost of Survival”, The Guardian, at https://www.the guardian.com/world/2004/mar/05/southafrica.bookst, accessed 31 January 2021. Ellis, Stephen, “Mandela, Communism and South Africa”, Open Democracy, 25 July 2011, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/mandela-commun ism-and-south-africa-stephen-ellis-open-democracy-25-july-2011-south-africa, accessed 2 February 2021. Evans, David, “Adrian Leftwich: Leading Anti-apartheid Activist Who Turned State Witness”, The Independent, 28 May 2013, at http://www.independent. co.uk/news/obituaries/adrian-leftwich-leading-antiapartheid-activist-who-tur ned-state-witness-8633563.html, accessed 24 July 2014. “Fact File: 1 Special Service Battalion”, at http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6910:fact-file-1-special-servicebattalion&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159, accessed 25 February 2014. Geiger, Jack, “The Cause Came First”, The New York Times on the Web, 25 May 1997, at https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/ 05/25/reviews/970525.25geigert.html, accessed 16 February 2021. Goldberg, Denis, “Arthur Goldreich 1929–2011 An Appreciation”, 3 July 2011, n.p. (p. 3), at http://chutzpahonline.blogspot.com/, accessed 30 March 2012. Gordimer, Nadine, “Obituary: Barney Simon”, The Independent, 4 July 1995, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-barney-simon-158 9772.html, accessed 17 July 2013.

368

REFERENCES

“Harold Hanson, South African Barrister, Zionist Leader, Dead at Age 68”, in JTA, the Global News Source, 27 February 1973, at http://www.jta.org/ 1973/02/27/archive/harold-hanson-south-african-barrister-zionist-leaderdead-at-age-68, accessed 17 March 2015. Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust, “About Harold Wolpe”, at http://www.wolpet rust.org.za/main.php?include=13&menu=1, accessed 6 October 2014. Herbstein, Denis, Obituary “Brian Bunting”, The Guardian, 9 July 2008, at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/09/southafrica.pressandp ublishing, accessed 1 May 2014. Herbstein, Denis, “Fred Carneson: The Great Escaper of South Africa’s Freedom Struggle”, Obituary, The Guardian, 18 September 2000, at http:// www.theguardian.com/news/2000/sep/18/guardianobituaries, accessed 14 September 2014. Herbstein, Denis, “Arthur Goldreich Obituary”, The Guardian, 29 June 2011, at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/29/arthur-goldreich-obi tuary, accessed 27 September 2014. Herbstein, Denis, “Esther Levitan: Taking on Apartheid with Chutzpah”, The Guardian Obituaries, 3 December 2003, at http://www.theguardian.com/ news/2003/dec/03/guardianobituaries.southafrica, accessed 19 May 2016. Herbstein, “Jean Middleton Obituary”, The Guardian, 3 January 2011, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/jean-middleton-obituary, accessed 17 March 2012. Hunter, Ian, “Biography, Baruch Hirson (1921–1999)”, at http://www.mar xists.org/archive/hirson/biography.htm, accessed 26 February 2014. Internet Archive, “Full Text of ‘Peer Gynt: A Dramatic Poem’”, at http://arc hive.org/stream/peergyntdramatic00ibseuoft/peergyntdramatic00ibseuoft_ djvu.txt, accessed 4 December 2013. Jenkin, Tim, Escape from Pretoria (escape.pdf), http://www.anc.org.za/docs/ books/1987/escape.pdf, accessed 14 September 2014. “John Laredo, Afrikaner Campaigner Against Apartheid”, The Guardian, 18 October 2000, at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/oct/18/gua rdianobituaries2, accessed 20 August 2019. Joseph, Helen, Side by Side (Autobiography), Chapter III, “The World Outside”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/chapter-iii-world-outside, accessed 22 March 2012. “The Kaffraria Germans”, at http://www.safrika.org/kaffraria_en.html, accessed 1 April 2014. Karis, Thomas and Carter, Gwendolen, M., From Protest to Challenge: A Documentary History of African Politics in South Africa, 1882–1964, Volume 2, p. 68 n. 28, at http://books.google.co.za/books?id=owGpAAAAQBAJ& pg=RA4-PA68&lpg=RA4-PA68&dq=the+transvaal+peace+council+1951& source=bl&ots=2kdOitBWiw&sig=d3cyZIod0-7gxw3_I6CWxyotID0&hl=

REFERENCES

369

en&sa=X&ei=8vpkU_3qL9SO7Qaj1IGQBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=one page&q=the%20transvaal%20peace%20council%201951&f=false, accessed 3 May 2014. Kendall-Tackett, Kathleen, “The Long Shadow: Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse”, Chapter from The Hidden Feelings of Motherhood: Coping with Mothering Stress, Depression and Burnout, Oakland, CA: New Hampshire, 2001, at https://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/docs/librariesprovider16/defaultdocument-library/the-long-shadow-adult-survivors-of-childhood-abuse.pdf? sfvrsn=0The%20Long%20Shadow, accessed 7 March 2016. “King Kong, the First All African Jazz Opera 1956”, at http://soulsafari.wor dpress.com/2009/08/10/king-kong-the-first-all-african-jazz-opera-1959/, accessed 28 September 2014. Kotze, Karen, “Anti-apartheid Activist Turok Remembered”, False Bay Echo, 12 December 2019, at https://www.falsebayecho.co.za/news/anti-apartheid-act ivist-turok-remembered-39114108, accessed 19 April 2020. Krawitz, Steven “SA Jews: The Original Communists”, South African Jewish Report, 4 May 2017, at https://www.sajr.co.za/news-and-articles/2017/05/ 04/sa-jews-the-original-communists, accessed 30 January 2019. “Legendary Heroes of Africa, Esther Barsel”, citation for Liberian stamp series commemorating Jews and the South African Liberation Struggle, at http:// legendaryheroesofafrica.com/Esther_Barsel.html, accessed 17 March 2012. “Legendary Heroes of Africa, Hymie Barsel”, citation for Liberian stamp series commemorating Jews and the South African Liberation Struggle, at http:// legendaryheroesofafrica.com/Hymie_Barsel.html, accessed 3 March 2013. “Legendary Heroes of Africa, Eli Weinberg”, citation for Liberian stamp series commemorating Jews and the South African Liberation Struggle, at http:// legendaryheroesofafrica.com/Eli%20Weinberg.html, accessed 17 March 2012. Levy, Norman, “The Final Prize: My Life in the Anti-Apartheid Struggle”, downloaded from South African History Online at, http://www.sahistory.org.za/ archive/final-prize-norman-levy, 15 April 2016. Maisela, Letepe, “The ANC Was Never About Race”, City Press, 17 August 2016, at https://city-press.news24.com/Voices/the-anc-was-neverabout-race-20160812, accessed 26 February 2019. Makinana, Andiswe, “Outspoken ANC Veteran Ben Turok Dies, Aged 92”, Times Live, 9 December 2019, at https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/southafrica/2019-12-09-anc-veteran-ben-turok-dies-aged-92/, accessed 19 April 2020. Maru-a-Pula School, Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/maruapula/ info, accessed 5 December 2013. “Mary Butcher Turok”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/mary-butcherturok, accessed 19 April 2020.

370

REFERENCES

McNeil, Donald G. Jr., “Barney Simon, 63, Producer; Used Art to Fight Apartheid”, Obituary in New York Times Theater, 1 July 1995, at http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/01/obituaries/barney-simon-63-pro ducer-used-art-to-fight-apartheid.html, accessed 17 July 2013. Monick, S, “Profile of an Army: The Colonial and Imperial Forces of the Zulu War of 1879”, Military History Journal, 4, 5, June 1979, The South African Military History Society, at http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol045sm. html, accessed 1 April 2014. Moses Kotane Institute, “The Origins of Our Name”, at http://www.moseskota neinstitute.com/our-name.html, accessed 20 February 2019. Naidoo, Phyllis, “One of the Forgotten Stalwarts”, The Witness, 24 October 2008, at http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global%5B_id% 5D=15189, accessed 10. February 2012. Neame, Sylvia, “On Trial in South Africa”, Tribune Magazine, 18 August 1967, at http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/18th-august-1967/ 6/on-trial-in-south-africa, accessed 20 March 2012. North West Provincial Government, “Profile of Mr Moses Mauane Kotane, 9 August 1905–19 May 1978”, at http://www.nwpg.gov.za/Documents/Spe eches/Kotane%20Profile%20Leaflet.pdf, accessed 20 February 2019. The Patriot Files: Dedicated to the Preservation of Military History, “South African Army 1939–40”, at http://www.patriotfiles.com/index.php?name= Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=6707&page=1, accessed 25 February 2014. Pogrund, Benjamin, “From Braam Fischer to Stanley Mogoba”, Mail & Guardian Online, 20 December 1996, at http://mg.co.za/article/1996-1220-from-braam-fischer-to-stanley-mogoba, accessed 17 March 2012. Rhodes University, Helen Joseph House, “Helen Joseph: 1905–1992”, at http://www.ru.ac.za/helenjosephhouse/whoishelenjoseph/, accessed 1 October 2014. “Rugby 365, School Profiles, St John’s College”, at http://www.rugby365. com/article/39118-st-john-s-college, accessed 5 December 2013. Shaw, Gerald, Obituary “Wolfie Kodesh”, The Guardian, 13 November 2002, at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/nov/13/guardianobit uaries, accessed 1 May 2014. Slovo, Gillian, “Daughter of the Struggle”, Salon Magazine, 30 June 1997, at https://www.salon.com/1997/06/30/slovo970630/, accessed 16 February 2021. Slovo, Joe, “A Tribute to Yusuf Dadoo”, at http://www.sacp.org.za/docs/his tory/dadoojs.html, accessed 24 April 2014. South African History Online, “African National Congress Timeline 1960– 1969”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/african-national-congress-tim eline-1960-1969, accessed 3 March 2014.

REFERENCES

371

South African History Online, “1946 African Mineworkers Strike”, at http:// www.sahistory.org.za/topic/1946-african-mine-workers-strike, accessed 14 April 2016. South African History Online, “Rowley Israel Arenstein”, at https://www.sahist ory.org.za/people/rowley-israel-arenstein, accessed 7 June 2019. South African History Online, “Esther Barsel”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/ people/esther-barsel, accessed 17 March 2012. South African History Online, “Vernon Celliers Berrange”, at http://www.sah istory.org.za/people/vernon-celliers-berrange, accessed 25 May 2014. South African History Online, “Pieter Beyleveld”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/pieter-beyleveld, accessed 8 March 2012. South African History Online, “Arthur William Blaxall”, at https://www.sahist ory.org.za/people/arthur-william-blaxall, accessed 11 April 2020. South African History Online, “Brian Percy Bunting”, at http://www.sahistory. org.za/people/brian-percy-bunting, accessed 1 May 2014. South African History Online, “Fred Carneson”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/fred-carneson, accessed 14 September 2014. South African History Online, “Sarah Carneson”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/sarah-carneson, accessed 19 February 2016. South African History Online, “Congress of Democrats”, at http://www.sahist ory.org.za/organisations/south-african-congress-democrats-cod, accessed 17 March 2012. South African History Online, “Dr Yusuf Mohamed Dadoo”, at https://www. sahistory.org.za/people/dr-yusuf-mohamed-dadoo, accessed 7 June 2019. South African History Online, “General Law Amendment Act (Sabotage Act) No 76 Commences”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/generallaw-amendment-act-no-76-commences, accessed 25 February 2013. South African History Online, “Denis Theodore Goldberg”, at http:// www.sahistory.org.za/people/professor-denis-theodore-goldberg, accessed 7 November 2013. South African History Online, “Arthur Goldreich”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/arthur-goldreich, accessed 27 September 2014. South African History Online, “Baruch Hirson”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/baruch-hirson, accessed 26 February 2014. South African History Online, “History of Women’s Struggle in South Africa”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-womens-strugglesouth-africa, accessed 26 January 2021. South African History Online, “Helen Joseph”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/ people/helen-joseph, accessed 1 October 2014. South African History Online, “Wolfie Kodesh”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/wolfie-kodesh, accessed 1 May 2014.

372

REFERENCES

South African History Online, “Norman Levy”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/ people/norman-levy, accessed 17 March 2012. South African History Online, “Sathyandranath Ragunanan ‘Mac’ Maharaj”, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/satyandranath-mac-maharaj, accessed 7 May 2019. South African History Online, “Ismael Mahomed”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/ismail-mahomed, accessed 19 March 2013. South African History Online, “Jean Clarice Middleton”, at http://www.sahist ory.org.za/people/jean-clarice-middleton, accessed 5 March 2013. South African History Online, “Poqo”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/organi sations/poqo, accessed 11 March 2012. South African History Online, “The Riotous Assemblies Act Commences”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/riotous-assemblies-act-com mences, accessed 2 October 2014. South African History Online, “Marius Schoon”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/marius-schoon, accessed 14 September 2014. South African History Online, “Segregationist Legislation Timeline 1960– 1969”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/segregationist-legislation-tim eline-1960-1969, accessed 25 February 2013. South African History Online, “South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU)”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/organisations/south-african-con gress-trade-unions-sactu, accessed 9 March 2012. South African History Online, “A History of the Springbok Legion”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/history-springbok-legion, accessed 30 March 2014. South African History Online, Ben Turok, at https://www.sahistory.org.za/peo ple/ben-turok, accessed 19 April 2020. South African History Online, “Eli Weinberg”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/ people/eli-weinberg, accessed 12 March 2012. South African History Online, “Harold Wolpe”, at http://www.sahistory.org. za/people/harold-wolpe, accessed 6 October 2014. South African History Online, “Young Communist League of South Africa (YCLSA)”, at http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/young-communist-leaguesouth-africa-yclsa, accessed 31 October 2016. South African Journal of Photography, “Eli Weinberg”, at, http://saphot ojournal.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:eli-wei nberg&catid=27:photographers-profiles&Itemid=88, accessed 12 March 2012. South African Press Association, “HRC Submits Apartheid Repression Book to Truth Body”, Johannesburg, SAPA, 27 May 1997, at http://www.justice.gov. za/trc/media%5C1997%5C9705/s970527b.htm, accessed 26 May 2016.

REFERENCES

373

SAWW [South African Women for Women], “Phyllis Ntantala”, at http://www. interlog.com/~saww/phyllisntantala.html, accessed 16 March 2016. Spencer, Shelagh O’Byrne, “The European Settler Population of Natal Up to 1860, and Their Influence Beyond the Borders of the Colony”, at http://she laghspencer.com/influence/, accessed 21 April 2016. Survivors of Incest Anonymous, “The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse on the Adult Survivor”, at http://www.siawso.org/page-5143, accessed 7 March 2016. “The English Experience”, at http://www.englishexperience.co.za/hugh-lewin. htm, accessed 2 November 2011. “Today in History: The 1956 Treason Trial Came to an End in 1961: Reliving the Trial’s Key Moments”, Roodepoort Record, 29 March 2018, at https:// roodepoortrecord.co.za/2018/03/29/today-in-history-the-1956-treasontrial-came-to-an-end-in-1961-reliving-the-trials-key-moments-web/, accessed 12 February 2021. Trerwhela, Paul, “Obituary: Zach de Beer”, The Independent, Thursday, 3 June 1999, at http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-zachde-beer-1097732.html, accessed 29 January 2014. Trewhela, Paul, “Obituary: Marius Schoon”, The Independent, 13 February 1999, at http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-mar ius-schoon-1070456.html, accessed 14 September 2014. Uys, Stanley, “Zach de Beer: South Africa’s Youngest-Ever MP and Keeper of the Liberal Flame”, The Guardian, 1 June 1999, at http://www.theguardian. com/news/1999/jun/01/guardianobituaries1, accessed 29 January 2014. Vassen, Robert, “Life as a Political Prisoner”, at South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid Building Democracy, http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/sid ebar.php?id=11&page=1, accessed 27 March 2013. “Eli Weinberg”, Obituary in Sechaba, September 1981, at http://www.sacp.org. za/main.php?include=docs/biography/2006/eweinberg.html, accessed 12 March 2012. Who’s Who Southern Africa, “Ben Turok”, at http://whoswho.co.za/benjaminturok-7711, accessed 7 March 2014. Young Communist League of South Africa, “YCL History”, at http://www.ycl. org.za/docs/history.html, accessed 31 October 2016.

Index

A Abercrombie, Agnes, 4–6, 43–47, 51, 78, 80, 90, 105, 163, 265, 273, 288, 303, 308, 326 Abercrombie, Jim, 90, 273 Abrahams, Liz, 33 Advance, 8, 214, 215 AEIS, 22 African Education Movement (AEM), 228 African Mineworkers’ Strike (1946), 17, 89, 97, 99, 126 African Mineworkers’ Union, 99 African Resistance Movement (ARM), 91, 92, 156, 196, 243, 244, 267, 274, 289, 295, 327 Afro-Asian Conference (Bandung, 1955), 20 Agyros, Michael, 259 Aktiekomitee Zuiderlijk Afrika (AKZA), 22 Alexander, Ray, 33, 171 All Africa People’s Conference (Accra, 1958), 20

Allen, S.C. (Regional Court Magistrate), 202, 220–222, 265, 266 Amnesty International, 149, 189, 208, 209, 216, 217 ANC Youth League, 15, 17, 99 Anderson, Molly. See Doyle (Anderson), Molly Anglo American, 324, 335, 344 Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM), 19–21, 24, 25, 219, 234, 312, 339 Anti-Apartheid Trade Union Committee, 85 Anti-pass protests, 26, 27, 30, 32, 35, 70, 111, 123, 206 Arenstein, Jaqueline, 33, 314 Arenstein, Rowley, 291, 295, 313–315 Arnold’s Christmas Hampers, 3, 5, 107–109, 145, 148, 151, 157, 179, 207–209, 217, 226, 274, 326, 336

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Kirkaldy, Everyday Communists in South Africa’s Liberation Struggle, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83921-5

375

376

INDEX

Asiatic Land Tenure and Representation Act (1946), 30 Asvat, Zainad, 34 Aucamp, Colonel, 287, 288, 291 B Baard, Francis, 33, 36 Badenhorst (Matron), 307 Baker, Lewis, 100, 101, 103, 128, 129, 145, 191, 194, 202, 221, 223, 239, 284, 285, 287, 290, 292, 294 Baker, Villa, 101, 128, 129 Bandung conference of Third World leaders, 127 Bantu Authorities Act (1951), 70, 165 Bantu Education Act (1955), 123, 228 Barberton Prison, 232, 234, 238, 283, 288, 301–305, 320 Barsel, Esther, 190, 191, 194, 202, 221, 223, 231–233, 303, 304, 306 Barsel, Hymie, 192, 194, 202, 221, 222, 231, 232 BCM, 22–24, 34 Beer hall protests, 27, 28 Benjamin, Pixie, 190, 191 Benson, Mary, 193 Bernstein, Hilda, 33, 34, 114, 117, 124, 146, 148–151, 158, 161, 163, 187, 194, 195, 200, 216, 236 Bernstein, Lionel, 82 Bernstein, Rusty, 114, 117, 124, 147–151, 158, 159, 161, 163, 174, 187, 200, 216 Bernstein, Toni, 162, 187, 200 Berrangé, Vernon, 195, 196, 199, 202–204, 207, 209, 241–243, 335

Betterment planning, 42, 43, 70 Beyleveld, Piet, 38, 146, 150, 166, 189, 192–199, 201–205, 208, 215, 221–223, 234, 239, 240, 270 Biko, Steve, 22, 34 Bizos, George, 327 Black Consciousness Movement. See BCM Black Parents’ Association (BPA), 34 Black People’s Convention (BPC), 34 Black Sash, 112, 128, 169 Blaxall, Reverend Arthur William, 220, 222, 254 Botha, Judge, 155 Boycott Movement. See Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) Brann, Elizabeth Rebecca (Ivan’s grandmother), 43, 44, 47, 89, 90 Brann, William Bernard (Uncle Bill), 43, 44, 47, 90 Breytenbach (Special Branch), 263 British Defence and Aid Fund (DAF), 21, 133. See also Defence and Aid; International Defence and Aid Broodryk, Lieutenant, 264 Brown, Mannie, 175–177, 216 Bunsee, Bennie, 235 Bunting, Brian, 51, 52, 82, 84, 88–90, 129, 130, 181, 192, 196, 204, 206, 210, 211, 230, 293 Bunting (Isaacman), Sonia, 33, 89, 90, 293 Bunting, Rebecca, 88, 105, 114, 130 Bunting, S.P. (Sidney), 88, 211 Bureau of State Security (BOSS), 144 Buthelezi, Mangosuthu, 313–315 C Cachalia, Amina, 33, 35

INDEX

Callinicos, Luli. See Zampetakis (Callinicos), Luli Cape Guardian, 8 Carneson, Fred, 51, 83–86, 107, 123, 204, 208, 210, 211, 292, 329 Carneson, Lynn, 329 Carneson (Rubin), Sarah, 51, 84–86, 329 Central Committee of the Communist Party, 3, 17, 52, 85, 89, 90, 145–147, 157, 164, 184, 194–196, 198, 202, 215, 240, 257–259, 276, 280 Chamber of Mines, 12, 49, 52, 204, 206 Charlotte (Ivan and his siblings’ nursemaid), 43 Chiba, Laloo, 342 Christians in Action, 147 Clarion, 8 Cold war, 20, 155, 211 Collins, Canon John, 147, 260 Coloured People’s Congress, 18, 148 Comintern, 13–16, 66, 67, 94 Communist International. See Comintern Congress Alliance, 3, 18, 30–32, 70, 72, 132, 148, 197, 210, 211, 251 Congress movement, 22, 70, 83, 87, 164, 183, 206, 210, 212, 215, 216, 218 Congress of Democrats (COD), 18, 31, 33, 65, 70–72, 75, 106, 132, 193, 197, 201, 209, 210, 215, 216, 228, 233, 235, 236, 238, 240, 276, 313, 317 Congress of Industrial Organizations, 252 Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), 24, 36

377

Congress of the People, 31, 71, 75, 112, 132, 229, 232, 240, 251, 254, 276, 317, 343 Consolidated Share Registrars, 335 Constitutional Court, 182, 211, 249, 298 Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), 36, 184 Cope, Jack, 211 Council of Non-European Trade Unions (CNETU), 15 CPSA/SACP Policies “A Time for Re-Assessment”, 164, 166 Black Republic, 14 Colonialism of a special type, 14, 18, 19, 113 Criminal Law Amendment Act (1953), 106 Criminal Procedure Act (1955), 106, 140 Criminal Procedure Amendment Act (1965), 142 Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Act (1955), 106 Cross, Sholto, 149, 261

D Dadoo, Yusuf, 89, 107, 108, 131 Daly, Jeanne, 6, 102, 129, 311, 330, 342 Daniels, Eddie, 244, 284 Davies, Father, 261 de Beer, Zacharius (Zach), 335, 344 Defence and Aid, 5, 21, 132, 133, 147, 189, 208, 217, 260. See also British Defence and Aid; International Defence and Aid Defiance Campaign, 17, 18, 20, 30, 69, 70, 127, 228

378

INDEX

Democratic Party, 344. See also Progressive Federal Party (PFP); Progressive Party Denis Goldberg Legacy Foundation Trust, 318 De Wet, J.P. (Judge President of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal), 223 Dnibe, Conrad, 107 Doyle (Anderson), Molly, 192, 194, 202, 221–223, 238, 239, 281, 303, 306, 319 Doyle, Gerry, 238, 273, 281 Duncan, Florence (Flo), 190, 192, 194, 202, 221, 223, 237, 238, 303, 304 Durban strikes (1973), 22 E Ebrahim, Ismail Ebrahim, 208 Economic sanctions, 21, 22, 25, 72 Eisenstein, Raymond, 6, 53, 91, 92, 205, 267, 286, 288, 289, 292–294, 338 Erasmus, Paul, 242 Ernst, Dave, 295 Evans, David, 286, 289, 312 Explosives Act (1956), 72 Exsteen, Joyce Wood, 107, 151 F Fighting Talk, 51, 82, 89, 149, 216, 254 First, Ruth, 33, 52, 82, 87, 89, 97, 100, 107, 112, 117, 122, 123, 149, 150, 163, 199, 200, 208, 211, 216, 236, 237, 274, 323 First World War. See World War I Fischer, Bram, 3, 4, 38, 64, 97, 104, 110, 111, 114, 115, 122, 124, 128, 145–147, 149–151, 157,

158, 173, 189, 191–194, 196, 199, 200, 203, 216, 220–222, 229, 237, 240, 257–270, 277, 278, 280, 283, 289–293, 295, 314, 323, 333 Fischer, Ilse, 76, 149, 257, 261, 273, 275, 323 Fischer, Molly, 76, 97, 104, 110, 111, 114, 115, 124, 149, 220 Fischer, Paul, 273 Flegg, Hilary, 110 Flegg, Norman, 110, 135 Food and Canning Workers’ Union (FCWU), 31, 108 Forman, Sadie, 108 Franklin (Pitman, Lewin), Elizabeth, 5, 119, 121, 146, 149, 154, 217, 224, 285, 293, 337 Freedom Charter, 18, 31, 36, 71, 111, 112, 124, 214, 215, 219 Friends of the Soviet Union (FSU), 15, 51, 67, 68, 189, 206, 209, 213, 231, 233, 252. See also South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union (SASPFSU) Fugard, Athol, 176 G Galgut, Judge J., 223 Gandhi, Ela, 35 Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, 16, 30 Garment Workers Union (GWU), 33, 75, 128 Gay, Lionel, 145, 294 Gazides, Constantinos (Constantine, Costa), 190, 191, 194, 200, 202, 221–223, 235, 287 Gelb, Trudy, 104, 130 General Law Amendment Act, 140–142, 236

INDEX

Getcliffe. See Veglio, Gabrielle (Ann Getcliffe) Goldberg (Bodenstein), Esme, 317, 318, 330 Goldberg, Denis, 5, 145, 173, 174, 287, 295, 316–318, 330, 331 Goldberg, Sam, 330 Goldreich, Arthur, 146, 173–178, 243, 294 Goldreich, Hazel, 173, 174, 177 Goldsmith, Minnie, 114 Goldstein, Tony, 262 Gordimer, Nadine, 176 Gqabi, Joe, 171, 208 Great Depression, 28, 42, 54, 84, 86 Greeff, Arnoldus Johannes, 174, 175, 177 Greys (Special Branch Headquarters), 153, 263, 265 Group Areas Act, 34, 70, 165, 206, 207 Guardian, 3, 5, 8, 52, 53, 61, 82, 85, 87–89, 99, 103–108, 110, 111, 123, 130, 135, 147, 148, 171, 202, 204, 206–208, 210, 211, 215, 317 Gxowa, Bertha, 33 H Hamburger (Kuny), Hilary, 5, 145, 176, 204, 252, 330 Hani, Chris, 232 Hanson, Harold, 196, 245 Harmel, Michael, 148, 208 Harmel, Ray, 148 Harris, John, 156, 244 Hepple, Bob, 173 Heymann, Issy, 257, 258, 268, 289, 295 Hirson, Baruch, 91, 92, 237, 267, 295, 335 Hirson, Denis, 275

379

Hirson, Yael, 274 Hlapane, Bartholomew, 199, 270, 280 Hodgson, Jack, 3, 82, 114, 132, 133, 148, 219 Hodgson, Rica, 3, 5, 107, 114, 115, 121, 122, 124, 132, 133, 147, 186, 204, 219, 220, 252, 258 Hooper, Rev Charles, 176 Hungary, Soviet invasion of, 49, 62, 63, 205, 294 I Immorality Act, 200 Indemnity Act (1961), 140 Indian National Council, 34 Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU), 13, 99, 238 Internal Security Act (1982), 145, 184 International Committee of the Red Cross, 287 International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, 253 International Defence and Aid Fund (IDAF), 21, 133. See also British Defence and Aid; Defence and Aid International Fellowship of Reconciliation, 254 Isacowitz, Jock, 82 isiXhosa, 3, 17, 37, 42, 47, 49, 52, 112, 166, 204, 326, 335, 339 isiZulu, 3, 41, 42, 57, 311, 339 J Jameson (Jampolsky), George, 324, 336 Jameson (Yerushalmy), Yehudith, 324, 336 Jassat, Abdulhai, 174, 175

380

INDEX

Joesph, Helen, 33 Johannesburg Medical Aid for Russia, 231 John Orr’s, 3, 157, 158, 260, 268 Joint Revolutionary Council, 19 Jordan, Pallo, 79, 237 Joseph, Adelaide, 191 Joseph, Billie, 75 Joseph, Helen, 31, 33, 36, 75, 76, 139, 141, 151, 197, 198, 201, 228 Joseph, Paul, 177, 191 K Kantor, Jimmy, 146, 147, 219 Kasrils, Ronnie, 208, 318 Kathrada, Ahmed, 121, 173, 238, 284 Kazi, Dr Azizullakhar, 34 Kgositsile, Baleka, 34 King Kong (Jazz Opera), 132, 133, 173 Kitson, Dave, 287, 291, 342 Klindt, Colonel George, 154, 155 Kodesh, Wolfie, 51, 86–88, 103, 107, 108, 208, 220, 291 Komape, Linda, 35 Kotane, Moses, 3, 87, 99, 126, 127, 205 Kramer, Winnie, 107, 108, 114 Kuny, Denis, 5, 102, 111, 119, 159, 176, 193, 198, 205, 223, 240, 252, 265, 289, 290, 327, 329, 334, 338 Kwa Magwaza Mission station, 56 L Labour Party, 13, 240, 312 La Guma, Alex, 211 Land Acts (1913 and 1936), 42 Land Bank, 58 Laredo, John, 286, 289, 311

Laredo (Marx), Ursula, 311, 312 Latie, Sid, 285 Leftwich, Adrian, 196, 243–245 Leigh, Davey, 105, 114, 130 Leigh, Eric, 105 Leigh, Richard, 105 Leigh, Stella, 105, 114, 130 Letlalo, Thomas, 107 Levinson, Norman, 292 Levitan, Esther, 169 Levitan, Jack, 145, 169 Levy, Leon, 228, 229 Levy, Maish, 114 Levy, Norman, 64, 148, 190, 191, 194, 202, 221, 223, 228–230, 239, 287 Levy, Ruth, 103, 114, 151 Lewin, Hugh, xii, 5, 92, 186, 190, 244, 267, 283, 287, 290–292, 294–297, 309, 330–332, 335, 337 Liaison Group of National Anti-apartheid movements (1988), 25 Liebenberg, J.H. (State Prosecutor), 193, 209, 210, 212, 214–220, 260, 265 Liquor Act (1928), 27 Little Rivonia trial, 183, 342 Lollard, Stanley, 147, 148 London Education Committee of the ANC, 178, 229 Lubbey (Matron), 298, 301 Ludi, Gerald, 6, 111, 145, 148, 166, 172, 179, 193, 199–201, 204, 223, 234, 246, 247, 254, 276, 279, 319 Luthuli, Albert, 113, 313 Lutz, Phillipa, 114 M Mabetsha, Transkei, 77

INDEX

Magladela, Arthur “McClipper”, 158 Maharaj, Mac, 3, 123, 156, 183, 184, 216, 342 Maharaj, Ompragash, 183 Mahbubia School, 75 Mahomed, Ismail, 203, 223, 248 Makabeni, Gana, 14 Makeba, Miriam, 132 Makgothi, Henry, 133 Mandela, Nelson, 15, 17, 18, 24, 76, 87, 97, 99, 100, 113, 173, 174, 213, 219, 233, 234, 314, 315, 317, 327 Mandela, Winnie, 34, 36, 76, 97, 100, 233 Mandela, Zenani, 76 Mandela, Zinzi, 76 Manika, William, 153, 227 Margo, C.S. (QC), 155 Market Theatre, 176 Maru-a-Pula School, 271, 281 Masekela, Hugh, 132 Maseko, Tim, 133 Mashaba, Andrew, 261 Mashaba, Bertha, 33 Mashaba, Tshintsheng Caroline, 260, 261 Mashinini, Emma, 35 Matomela, Florence, 33 Matthews, Dulcie, 333 Matthews, John, 331–333, 342, 343 Mbeki, Govan, 123, 173, 211, 317 Mbeki, Moeletsi, 237 Mbeki, Thabo, 89, 211, 237 Mdeledle, Nasthan, 132 Meer, Fatima, 34, 35 Melmoth, 56, 58, 334 Mennell, Irene, 323 Meyerowitz, Jackie, 323 Meyerowitz, Lolly, 323

381

Middleton (Strachan), Jean, 190–194, 197–199, 201–203, 221, 223, 233, 234, 303, 305, 306, 319 Milindton, R. (Madam Raymond), 122, 123, 136, 258, 259 MK, 3, 19, 21, 34, 72, 85, 88, 89, 113, 132, 133, 139, 141, 145, 164, 171, 173, 183, 184, 194, 198, 199, 204, 205, 208, 236, 241, 261, 268, 291, 317, 318, 343 Mkwayi, Wilton, 197, 342 Mlambo, Pumzile, 35 Mlangeni, Andrew, 317 Mntwana, Ida Fiyo, 33 Mohamed, Joyce Watson, 107–109, 151, 190 Molefe, Joe, 220 Mompati, Ruth, 33 Monro, Miss, 261 Moodley, Mary, 33, 108, 190 Moolla, Mosie, 174, 175 Moorhouse, Ruby (Lesley’s aunt), 56, 58 Morley, Johnny, 107 Moscow Gold, 3, 53, 147, 148, 258 Moss, Madge, 323 Mpanza, James, 29 Mtshali, Esther, 107 Murray, Alan, 324, 335 Murray, Professor Andrew, 204, 215, 249, 250 Murrell, Philippa, 148, 229

N Naicker, M.P., 208 Naidoo, Phyllis, 141, 192 Natal Indian Congress (NIC), 15, 35, 231 National Party, 17, 24, 27, 30, 47, 104, 106, 107, 156, 207

382

INDEX

National Union of South African Students (Nusas), 34, 172, 236, 243, 272, 281 National Union of Teachers (London), 86 Native Affairs Department, 52, 99, 206 Native Laws Amendment Act (1952), 30 Native Recruiting Corporation (NRC), 12, 49 Ncembu trading station, 38, 43, 44, 77, 80 Ncube, Sister Bernard, 36 Ndzanga, Rita, 36 Neame, Sylvia, 190–192, 194, 202, 221–223, 238, 303, 306 New Age, 8, 85, 88, 103, 107, 109, 111, 121, 122, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 183, 201, 214, 215, 254 Ngoyi, Lilian, 33, 75 Ngqeleni, Transkei, 43, 44, 77 Ngubeni, Mike, 315 Ngudle, Looksmart, 241 Ngwenya, James, 261 Nicholson, Ann, 190, 191, 194, 202, 221, 223, 235, 303, 304, 306 Nkobi, Edelgard, 318 Nkosi, Agnes, 107 Nkosi, Z. See Bunting, Brian Ntantala, Phyllis, 41, 79 Nyerere, President Julius, 177 O O’Bell, Gita, 105 O’Connor (later Schermbrucker) Dorothy, 44, 80 Ogilvie Thompson, Judge, 155 O’Mera, John, 82 Operation Mayibuye, 317 Operation Vula, 184

P Pact government, 13, 28 Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), 21, 22, 24, 25, 33, 113, 123, 124, 139–141, 166, 220, 235, 254 Passive resistance, 16, 27, 30 People’s World, 8 Planetarium, Johannesburg, 158 Plettenberg Bay, 114, 121 Podbrey, Joe, 82 Pondoland insurrection, 314 Poqo, 21, 139, 141, 166, 236 Potgieter, J.T. (Magistrate), 268 Pozniak, Leah, 262, 323 Pretoria Central Prison, 85, 283, 285, 287, 291, 295, 302, 310, 317, 343 Pretoria Local Prison, 229, 283, 285, 287–289, 293–296, 315 Programme of Action (ANC, 1949), 99 Progressive Federal Party (PFP), 344. See also Democratic Party; Progressive Party Progressive Party, 344. See also Democratic Party; Progressive Federal Party (PFP) Q Quaker Service, 147, 189, 208, 261 R Radford, Betty, 89 Radio Liberation, 145, 205, 220 Ramphele, Mamphela, 34 Rape Crisis Cape Town Trust, 318 Red Flag , 293 Reichman, Rhoda, 323 Resha, Robert, 208 Rhodean (school), 118, 272 Riekert Commission, 35

INDEX

Riotous Assemblies Act (1956), 106, 140 Riverview, Transkei, 77, 78 Rivonia Raid, 17, 146, 174, 317 Rivonia Trial, 21, 111, 145, 149, 174, 199, 233, 237, 241, 275, 295, 317, 327, 330 Robben Island, 171, 183, 260, 283, 284, 315, 317 Rosenberg, Bertha, 114, 135, 150, 274 Rosenberg, Izzy, 114, 135, 150, 274 Rossouw v Sachs , 155, 181, 182 Rudin, Jeffrey David (Saayman, A.), 258, 259, 268, 269 Rumpff, Judge, 155 Rural protests against traders, 28 S Saayman. See Rudin, Jeffrey David Sabotage, 21, 85, 92, 132, 139, 140, 144, 166, 171, 174, 183, 197, 204, 213, 243, 244, 261, 267, 317, 342 Sachs, Albie, 52, 181, 208, 211 Scheppel (Warder), 288 Schermbrucker, Agnes (Ivan’s sister). See Abercrombie, Agnes Schermbrucker, Ben, 5, 262, 300, 320 Schermbrucker, Brann (Ivan’s brother), 43–45, 80, 288, 308 Schermbrucker (Brann), Marie Sarah (Ivan’s mother), 38, 43, 47, 78 Schermbrucker, Colonel Friedrich Xavier, 37, 38, 40, 203, 217, 334 Schermbrucker, Lionel Edward (Ivan’s father), 38, 44, 46, 47, 57, 77, 80, 90, 326 Schermbrucker, Noah, 320 Schermbrucker, Reviva, 5, 266, 275, 320, 324, 325, 327

383

Schoon, Marius, 287, 315 Schroeder, Constable Klaus, 201 Second World War. See World War II Selby, Arnold, 107, 108, 133 Separate Representation of Voters Act (1951), 70 Sepel, Minnie, 257, 261 Sepel, Ralph, 257, 261 Shapiro, Enid, 323 Sharpeville massacre (1960), 21, 33, 85, 108, 123, 173, 183, 235, 236, 243 Shope, Gertrude, 260, 261 Silver, Carole, 230 Simon, Barney, 176 Sing, Debi, 33 Sisulu, Albertina, 33, 36, 97 Sisulu, Walter, 15, 17, 18, 97, 99, 123, 133, 145, 173, 314, 317 Sita, Maniben, 36 Slovo, Gillian, 100 Slovo, Joe, 3, 4, 23, 62, 63, 89, 95, 97, 100, 117, 163, 173, 175, 199, 216, 237, 274, 293 Slovo, Ruth, 275 Small, Adam, 249 Smith, Bea (Ivan’s primary school teacher), 46 Snyman, Judge, 154, 182 Sobukwe, Robert, 141, 142 Soloman, Myra, 323 Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College, 133, 178, 229 Solwandle, Looksmart, 208 South African Christian Council, 254 South African Committee for Higher Education, 277 South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU), 18, 209, 228, 240, 251, 313

384

INDEX

South African Indian Congress (SAIC), 17, 20, 30, 31, 33, 68, 70, 132 South African Indian Council, 34 South African Institute of Race Relations, 260, 261 South African People’s Congress, 70 South African Society for Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union (SASPFSU), 68, 210, 252. See also Friends of the Soviet Union (FSU) South African Students’ Organisation (SASO), 34 South African Trades and Labour Council (SATLC), 251 South African Zionist Federation, 245 Soviet Consulate, 18, 67, 68 Soweto uprising (1976), 22, 24, 34, 133, 171 Spark, 9, 88, 107, 109 Special Branch (Security Police), 83, 87, 89, 105, 106, 109, 110, 122, 124, 139, 143–145, 148, 150–152, 156, 157, 166, 177, 180, 184, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198–201, 215, 222, 232, 233, 237, 240, 242, 244, 245, 257, 258, 263, 267, 294 Spengler, Colonel Att, 199, 200 Spiller, Vernon, 338 Springbok Legion, 48, 49, 51, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89, 132, 206, 209, 216, 219, 240, 241 Stalinism, 1, 2, 11, 40, 49, 61–65, 91, 95, 112, 113, 163, 175, 289, 294, 304, 339 States of Emergency, 25, 33, 36, 72, 85, 89, 124, 127, 128, 132, 141, 171, 175, 198, 229, 317 Steyn, Judge, 155

St. John’s College, 118, 135, 270, 272 Stock limitation laws. See Betterment planning Strachan, Harold, 64, 233, 337 Strasburg, Ivan, 162, 187 Suppression of Communism Act (1950), 17, 70, 82, 85, 89, 106, 127, 128, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 154, 171, 191, 192, 223, 238, 241, 249, 251, 254, 295, 313 Suppression of Communism Act (1967), 142 Suzman, Helen, 287, 292, 304, 344 Swanepoel, “Rooi Rus”, 150, 263, 264 Swarbrick, Alisa, 312 T Tambo, Adelaide, 97, 100 Tambo, Oliver, 23, 97, 100, 139 Terrorism Act (1967), 142–145 Textile Workers’ Union, 240 The Fort Prison, 283, 285, 290, 298, 300, 302, 320 The Natives Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act (1952), 30 The University of South Africa. See UNISA Thimbela, Christina, 190 Thoms, Raymond, 291, 292, 294, 315, 316 Torture, 85, 106, 139, 141, 142, 144, 149, 150, 153–156, 164, 165, 189–191, 195–197, 215, 221, 222, 264, 293 Trade Union Co-ordinating Committee, 251 Trade Union Council of South Africa (TUCSA), 251

INDEX

Transvaal Indian Congress, 15, 132 Treason Trial, 17, 21, 32, 72, 89, 111, 124, 126, 127, 132, 204, 220, 229, 232, 240, 241, 250, 314 Trewhela, Paul, 6, 190, 192, 202, 221, 223, 235–238, 287, 289, 295 Trollip, Judge, 155 Trotskyism, 2, 7, 62, 65, 91, 274, 289, 290, 295 Trouw & Trouw, Transkei traders, 77 Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), 144, 242 Tucker, Doreen, 114, 147, 157, 257–261, 263, 264, 267, 269, 276, 278 Turok, Ben, 22, 71–73, 148, 163, 199, 329, 331–333, 343 Turok (Butcher), Mary, 72, 148, 149, 163, 208, 329, 331–333, 343 U Umkhonto We Sizwe. See MK Umsebenzi, 19, 234 Umtata High School, 46, 204 UNISA, 4, 79, 285, 294, 301, 303, 312, 330 United Democratic Front (UDF), 24, 35, 36 United Nations (UN), 20, 166, 237 Arms embargo, 22, 24 Commission on the Racial Situation in South Africa, 20 International Labour Organization (ILO), 21, 230 Security Council, 21, 24 United Party, 48, 85, 207, 240, 272, 344 Unity Movement, 24 University of Cape Town (UCT), 71, 72, 79, 249, 311, 316

385

University of the Western Cape (UWC), 88, 178, 230, 249 University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), 88, 158, 172, 229, 235, 245, 248, 249, 273, 281 Unlawful Organisations Act (1960), 140 V van den Bergh, Hendrik, 139 Van Dyk, Special Branch Policeman, 244 Veglio, Gabrielle (Ann Getcliffe), 258, 259, 268 Verwoerd, H.F., 32, 139 Viedge Brothers, Transkei traders, 38 Vorster, B.J., 34, 35, 139, 167 W Wallace, Mary, 259, 277 Weinberg, Eli, 76, 145, 148, 157, 170, 171, 191, 194, 195, 199, 202, 221–223, 287, 289, 325 Weinberg, Sheila, 76, 273, 303, 305 Weinberg, Violet, 76, 148, 157, 171, 257–261, 267–269, 280, 303–306, 310, 321 Wentzel, Rosemary, 267 White Miners’ Strike (1922), 13, 93, 128, 343 Wiehan Commission, 35 Wild Coast, Transkei, 47, 114 Williams, Catherine Eunice (Lesley’s sister), 53, 58, 59, 308 Williams, Cecil, 219, 220, 335 Williams, Enid Valeria (Lesley’s sister), 53, 58, 308 Williams, Eric Lesley (Lesley’s father), 53, 56–58, 61 Williams, Joan Elsie (Lesley’s sister), 53, 56, 308

386

INDEX

Williams, Maurice Ainsley (Lesley’s brother), 53, 57, 58, 124 Williams (Millar), Catherine Elizabeth (Lesley’s mother), 53, 54, 56–59, 114, 124 Williams, Muriel Audrey (Lesley’s sister), 53, 308 Williamson, Craig, 272 Williamson, Judge, 155 Williams, Stella Elizabeth (Lesley’s sister), 53, 56, 308 Willie Wylie, Transkei trader, 77 Witwatersrand Native Labour Association (WNLA), 12 Witwatersrand Technical College, 59 Wolpe, Harold, 146, 172–178, 219, 243, 294 Wolpe (Kantor), AnnMarie, 147, 173, 178 Women’s Auxiliary Airforce, 75 Women’s Charter, 31, 36, 75 Women’s Food Committees, 29 Women’s March (1956), 26, 32, 75, 128, 232 Women’s Organisations Alexandra Women’s Council (AWC), 29 ANCWL, 29–33 Bantu Women’s league (BWL), 27 Federation of Transvaal Women (FEDTRAW), 33, 35, 36 Natal Organisation of Women (NOW), 33, 35, 36 National Council of African Women (NCAW), 27 Native and Coloured Women’s Association, 27 The Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW), 31–33, 35, 36, 75, 228

Transvaal All-Women’s Union, 31 UDF Women’s Congress, 36 United Women’s Congress (UWCO), 33, 35 Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), 27 Women’s Enfranchisement Association of the Union (WEAU), 27 World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa (1979), 25 World Campaign for the release of South African Political Prisoners (1964), 21 World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), 214, 252 World War I, 28, 57, 170 World War II, 2, 11, 15, 17, 26, 40, 47–49, 51, 63, 67, 68, 75, 82, 84, 87, 88, 91, 94, 104, 119, 128, 189, 204, 217, 231, 235, 239, 241, 316 World War II, Italian Communists and Partisans, 49, 51

Y Yates, Deane, 135, 270 Yeoville Boys’ High School, 118, 272 Young Communist League (YCL), 61, 93, 173, 228, 231

Z Zampetakis (Callinicos), Luli, 157, 258, 259 Zuma, Jacob, 185, 318 Zwarenstein, Fred (S.C.), 268, 269