During a hot discussion over the theory of conspiracy one of my friends has pointed me out to the mathematical model of conspiracy proposed by Dr. David Robert Grimes. I have found his attempt to explain the essence of this socio-political phenomenon extremely interesting but not unfaulty. Why?
In Mathematics if for some theoretical statement a counterexample contradicting it can be found then the whole one is considered wrong. My counterexample is the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact secretly signed in 1939 and officially disclosed in 1989. We have 50 (!) years of secrecy. All governments since 1945 knew about it but for the ordinary peoples of their countries this pact was a “sheer fantasy" for 50 years! The explanation was simple: the communists personalized in Soviets and the Nazis personalized in Germans that were the main antagonistic political powers fiercely fighting each other during WW2 could not by default strike a secret, mutually beneficial deal.
My opinion about the Dr. Grimes mathematical model is as follows. This counterexample convincingly refutes his views on the nature of such socio-political phenomenon as conspiracy. Furthermore, I am certain that the existence of this pact was officially recognized only due to Soviet Union collapsing. Otherwise no one can predict how long this conspiracy would last. Maybe it would take decades or even centuries more. All would depend on global political situation.
I think the math holds up. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was denied by the Soviet Union for 50 years, but after September 1939, it was no longer secret to anyone for long. Considering the amount of people involved in the execution, it would have been very hard to keep it secret after the division of Poland.
I was taught the facts of this pact in school in the eighties, and it can be found, with maps, in books from the 1950's.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/nsr/nsr-04.html#3
Dear Olof,
Thank you very much for expressing your opinion. I'd like you to be more specific. You think that the model is valid in this case. How specifically is it valid? What do I mean? Maybe it explains 50 years of the existence of the pact in the officially undisclosed status? Or publishing articles, books, making documentaries, etc. not containing the copies of the original documents is believed to be the sufficient condition of the official disclosure.
I'd like to make it clear how I understand the official disclosure of any secret intergovernmental treaty-conspiracy. First, the original documents must be publicly presented by the government of at least one of all the countries that have signed the secret treaty. Second, all these countries on governmental level must recognize the fact of the pact or treaty existence. Third, the corresponding joint press release disclosing the treaty must be issued by the governments of all the participated states. If all these requirements are not met then I cannot consider that the official disclosure has taken place and fantasies, personal opinions, guesses, assumptions have turned in the fact.
By the way, the most recent example of disclosing the secret national treaty in American history called "The Treaty of Temecula", which survived 164 years(!), can be found here. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/culture/history/13718-national-museum-of-the-american-indian-unveils-secret-treaty
Dear Olof,
As to Soviet denial of the pact, yes, this is the main reason why it wasn't disclosed until 1989. If one side of the secret pact insists on its existence but the other denies than the third neutral side should intervene in and judge the both. In our case this is something like United Nations or kind of international courts. Soviet Union was a superpower with the right to veto in UN Security Council. The initiation of the conflict with the superpower is fraught with a storm of serious consequences. It is just here my point. Soviet Union was a force majeure in this case. No one dared to take a risk challenging it for proving the truth of the grim past. To my eye it is this factor together with the others of the nature analogous to the one of Force Majeure that the Grimes model does not take account of.
The pact was what enabled Germany to attack Poland without fear of Soviet opposition, and as such was no secret once that fact was evident.
That there was a non-aggression pact was publicized the very next day (August 24, 1939 with front page picture on Pravda) and was very soon internationally known. The secret protocol with the spheres of interest was made public after the defeat of Germany but the content was clear from what happened in the war. Action speaks louder than words.
The pact was thus exposed to the world in 1939 and no longer secret. All details were known in 1945 when the documents were made available. The secret protocol was published in papers and books in the latter half of the 1940's. I don't see how you can call it a secret conspiracy after that. One side denying an agreement does not constitute a conspiracy.
In addition, the pact ended in 1941, so the conspiracy was then in effect void.
I think your other example also has problems, since the non-ratification of these treaties was surely no secret to the butchered Native Americans or the gold-diggers killing them off without fear of repercussions.
In my eyes, a secret conspiracy needs to be secret to everyone outside it, not just one side of a conflict or a more or less isolated group. I think you need to find better examples.
Best regards,
Olof Dahlberg
Thank you very much, Olof, for your opinion and your time. It was very interesting to know it. We have found the points where we differ in opinions and I am sure that it will help improve the model. Thank you again.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science