Tag Archives: Soviet Union

The Hiroshima Myth, by John V. Denson

The decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender were both motivated more by the Soviet Union than the exigencies of warfare. Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway and was more afraid of a Soviet invasion than they were of more bombs. The U.S. was positioning itself for postwar domination; most of the military brass was against the bombings. From John V. Denson at mises.org:

Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the “patriotic” political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to 1 million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90 percent) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.

The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for the New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy

was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war….Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, cost us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace.

Continue reading→

You Support Ukraine’s Independence? Then You Support Secession. By Ryan McMaken

Secession happens all the time all over the world, but people in the U.S. are forbidden from even discussing it. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

By now, it should be abundantly clear to all that the official US regime narrative on Ukraine is that one is supposed to be in favor of Ukrainian political independence. That is, we’re supposed to support the idea that Ukraine is a separate state that is politically independent from the Russian state. By extension, of course, the idea that Ukraine is a sovereign state also implies it is separate from all other states as well.

But how did Ukraine get that way? States, of course, don’t appear out of nowhere. They generally come into being through one of two ways, or a combination of both. States can be formed out of two or more smaller states through a process of conquest or voluntary union. And states can result when a part of a state secedes to form its own state.

Continue reading→

Russia Advises NATO to (Finally) Honor Its ‘Not One Inch Eastward’ Pledge, by Robert Bridge

When the Soviet Union dissolved, the U.S. government gave assurances to the new Russian government that NATO would not move one inch eastward. That pledge has been repeatedly broken since it was made in the 1990s. From Robert Bridge at strategic-culture.org:

Unlike in 1990, Russia has many options left to itself if NATO ignores its proposal for peace and continues to advance on the former Soviet space.

As NATO continues its mission creep inexorably towards the Russian border, Moscow issued a security proposal to the Western military bloc, which is in fact nothing less than an ultimatum: halt any further eastward military advances or Russia will be forced to act on behalf of its national interests.

The date February 9, 1990 will be forever remembered among historians as a ‘day of infamy’ as far as NATO-Russia relations are concerned. That was the date when U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, during glasnost-era talks on German unification that the Western military bloc would not advance “one inch eastward” towards Russia’s borders.

The level of deception contained in that empty pledge is easily discernible today as NATO membership has exploded since the Cold War times to 30 member states. In 2004, the former Soviet states of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined NATO at the 2004 Istanbul summit; Albania and Croatia became members in 2009, while North Macedonia joined in 2020.

Already, the Western military bloc abuts Russia’s northwestern border in the Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia. But now with the political tinderbox known as Ukraine actively seeking membership in NATO, Moscow has produced what amounts to an ultimatum, where the carrot is simply the preservation of peace among the world’s nuclear superpowers.

Continue reading→

Are You Ready To Be An American Kulak? by Revolver

The term Kulak evolved in the USSR to mean anyone the regime didn’t like and exterminated. From Revolver at revolver.com:

If one takes the ideologues who rule over America at their word, then the governing principles of this country’s reigning regime are things like fairness, equality, diversity, or “anti-racism.”

But of course, anybody with a brain today isn’t taking America’s rulers at their word. It is obvious, and has been for many years now, that there is no spirit of “fairness” or “anti-racism” in the heart of their ideology. Instead, the spirit at the heart of America’s leadership is bitter, envious, resentful, hateful.

Who is it hateful toward? You know who. The modern American regime is built on explicit, institutionalized hostility to the people who most resemble the great Americans of the past. It is anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-rural, and anti-middle class. The more of these traits a person has, the more worthy of hate they become. The more the Globalist American Empire decays and squanders the inheritance it was given, the more bile and hatred it directs against those who symbolize what came before.

But those on the receiving end of this new discriminatory regime may not appreciate its full scope or the ultimate fate that the Globalist American Empire has planned for them. They may see recent anti-white animus as a temporary spell, or a limited affair that can be waited out.

Continue reading→

30 Years After Communism Fell, Putin Offers Alternative to Globalism. That’s Why Our Ruling Class Hates Him, by Wayne Allensworth

Only since World War II has the idea of a nation going its own way become anathema to the people who presume to rule the US. From Wayne Allensworth at unz.com:

Thirty years ago this month, Communist hardliners in the Soviet Union launched the “August Coup” against Mikhail Gorbachev’s reformist government. It failed and instead the Communist Party itself was suppressed, after 74 years of totalitarian power. Hopefully the current communist coup in the U.S. will similarly fail—but it’s worth examining why our managerial globalist regime enabling it retains a hatred for Russian’s current ruler, President Vladimir Putin, that is as intense as it seems inexplicable.

From “Russiagate” to charges that anti-globalists are shilling for Putin, the shrill accusations of Russia being behind every nefarious activity the global managers can imagine, to the comparisons of Putin to Hitler…On and on the trail of hatred goes, for fear is behind it.

Understanding the obsessive fear and loathing of Putin’s Russia requires historical memory, something our society is woefully short on, but it’s necessary for anyone seeking such understanding to back up to the end of the Cold War and recall the circumstances that gave rise to globalism.

The Fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The Soviet Union remained standing, but was fragile, reeling from Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”), which had unleashed a firestorm of previously pent-up popular frustrations. The Soviet economy was in shambles. The Soviets were losing their Eastern European satellites and nationalism was pulling the USSR apart at the seams.

Continue reading

John Pilger: The Great Game of Smashing Nations

From 1978 until 1996, Afghanistan had a reformist government and women, in particular, made great strides. It was however, aligned with the Soviet Union, so the US funded and armed the mujahideen who rebelled against it and eventually won. From John Pilger at consortiumnews.com:

As a tsunami of crocodile tears engulfs Western politicians, history is suppressed. More than a generation ago, Afghanistan won its freedom, which the United States, Britain and their “allies” destroyed.

In 1978, a liberation movement led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) overthrew the dictatorship of Mohammad Dawd, the cousin of King Zahir Shah. It was an immensely popular revolution that took the British and Americans by surprise.

Foreign journalists in Kabul, reported The New York Times, were surprised to find that “nearly every Afghan they interviewed said [they were] delighted with the coup.” The Wall Street Journal reported that “150,000 persons … marched to honor the new flag … the participants appeared genuinely enthusiastic.”

The Washington Post reported that “Afghan loyalty to the government can scarcely be questioned.” Secular, modernist and, to a considerable degree, socialist, the government declared a program of visionary reforms that included equal rights for women and minorities. Political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.

Under the monarchy, life expectancy was 35; 1-in-3 children died in infancy. Ninety percent of the population was illiterate. The new government introduced free medical care. A mass literacy campaign was launched.

For women, the gains had no precedent; by the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up 40 percent of Afghanistan’s doctors, 70 percent of its teachers and 30 percent of its civil servants.

Continue reading→

The Soviet Union Is Gone, but the Young Yearn for Socialism, by Richard Ebeling

It’s one of the more pitiful aspects of contemporary education that most young people have no clue about the twentieth century horrors of socialism, and think it would actually be a desirable system under which to live. For their sake, and our own, let’s hope they never get their wish. From Richard Ebeling at aier.org:

This August marks the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the end to the Soviet Union. During August 19-21, 1991, hardline members of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB attempted a coup d’état in Moscow to prevent the political and economic reforms introduced over the prior five years from going any further. The coup failed, and on Christmas Eve, 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and disappeared from the political map of the world.

The events of those days are especially imprinted on my mind because I was in Moscow at the time, watching and, indeed, even participating in those August 1991 events. Frequently traveling to the Soviet Union on privatization and market reform consulting work, especially in the, now, former Soviet republic of Lithuania and in Moscow, I witnessed the failed coup attempt and its immediate aftermath.

The Soviet regime had ruled Russia and the other 14 component republics of the U.S.S.R. for nearly 75 years, since the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917 led by Vladimir Lenin and his communist cadre of Marxist followers. During that almost three-quarters of a century, first under Lenin and especially Joseph Stalin and then their successors, historians have estimated that upwards of 64 million people – innocent, unarmed men, women and children – died at the hands of the Soviet regime in the name of building the “bright, beautiful future” of socialism.

Mass Murder and Slave Labor Under Soviet Socialism

The forced collectivization of the land under Stalin in the early 1930s, alone, is calculated to have cost the lives of nine to twelve million Russian and Ukrainian peasants and their families who resisted the loss of their private farms and being forced into state collective farms that replaced them. Some were simply shot; others were tortured to death or sent to die as slave laborers in the concentration and labor camps in Siberia or Soviet Central Asia known as the GULAG. Millions were slowly starved to death by a government-created famine designed to force submission to the central planning dictates of Stalin and his henchmen.

Continue reading→

From Psyop To Mindwar, by Cynthia Chung

Since Hiroshima, there’s always been whack-jobs in the US government who think a nuclear war is “winnable.” From Cynthia Chung at southfront.org:

From PSYOP to MindWar

Illustrative Image

“MindWar must be strategic in emphasis, with tactical applications playing a reinforcing, supplementary role. In its strategic context, MindWar must reach out to friends, enemies, and neutrals alike across the globe…through the media possessed by the United States which have the capabilities to reach virtually all people on the face of the Earth…State of the art developments in satellite communication, video recording techniques, and laser and optical transmission of broadcasts make possible a penetration of the minds of the world such as would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. Like the sword of Excalibur, we have but to reach out and seize this tool; and it can transform the world for us if we have the courage and integrity to enhance civilization with it. If we do not accept Excalibur, then we relinquish our ability to inspire foreign cultures with our morality. If they can then desire moralities unsatisfactory to us, we have no choice but to fight them on a more brutish level.”

– “From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory” by Col. Paul Vallely and Maj. Michael Aquino, a document written to increase the influence of the “spoon-benders” in the U.S. military.

About one year ago, the U.S. military conducted a simulation of a “limited” nuclear exchange with…Russia. This was strange news on several accounts. For one, this sort of thing is not typically announced in the candid detail U.S. defense secretary Mark Esper described to journalists, giddy that he got to “play himself” in this war game scenario as if he were preparing for a Hollywood movie doing his best John Wayne impression: “If you got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.

However, the most concerning revelation of this simulated exercise was the announcement to the American people that “it might be possible to fight, and win, a battle with nuclear weapons, without the exchange leading to an all-out-world-ending conflict.”

In other words, throw your cares to the wind, that is, the “spirit wind” known as kamikaze, because we are going for it.

In the transcript of a background briefing on the war game exercise, senior Pentagon officials described their tactic further, explaining that their confident calculation on being “victorious” in this exercise completely relied on the supposition that such a confrontation would remain “limited” in its nuclear exchange.

“It’s a very reasonable response to what we saw was a Russian nuclear doctrine and nuclear capability that suggested to us that they might use nuclear weapons in a limited way,” a senior official stated.

Continue reading→

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: He Would be Canceled in Today’s America, by John Wear

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is one of the giants of the twentieth century. From John Wear at unz.com:

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in February 1974. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) was one of the greatest literary and political figures of the 20th Century. For the first 25 years of his life, Solzhenitsyn was an ardent supporter of Vladimir Lenin’s Soviet Revolution. In fact, by 1938 Solzhenitsyn’s enthusiasm for Communism had grown to the point of obsession. As a youth, Solzhenitsyn even declared, “I would gladly give my life for Lenin.”[1]

This article documents how Solzhenitsyn eventually became an outspoken critic of Soviet Communism, as well as his conclusion that Jews were primarily responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution.

Early Years

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born into an environment of chaos and suffering that rivaled anything he experienced in his later life. His young father died six months before his birth in excruciating pain from wounds received in a hunting accident. His grief-stricken mother rejoined her family in a nearby summer resort, only to find herself in the middle of a vicious battle then raging between Reds and Whites in Russia’s Civil War. Lenin and his band of Bolsheviks were fighting ferociously to consolidate their power, and the whole of Russia was awash in blood.[2]

Continue reading→

A Wilderness of Lies, by The Zman

Americans are in the position citizens of the USSR were in its heyday: trying to figure out the truth from legacy media’s lies and omissions. From The Zman at takimag.com:

A Wilderness of Lies

Way back in the before times, a regular feature of the media was the Kremlinologist, who would be brought in to explain something about the Soviet Union. Strictly speaking, Kremlinology and Sovietology were different things. The former focused on Russia and its role in the Soviet system. The latter focused on the Soviet Union as a whole, as if it was a single organism. The terms were often used interchangeably in the Cold War.

Further, the media version of the Kremlinologist was something like the court astrologer, in that they were tasked with using their secret knowledge to explain what was happening with the Russians. If Brezhnev was seen as distracted at a public ceremony, the Kremlinologist would be brought in to explain its meaning. The Kremlinologist became a carnival act toward the end of the Cold War.

Kremlinology and Sovietology were useful to statecraft, however, as the Soviet system was a black box. The West had its spies, but many of those spies were double agents used to feed the West false information. In the wilderness of mirrors that was the rivalry between East and West, the Kremlinologist was useful in helping to sort the facts from the deliberate fictions. They helped contextualize Kremlin behavior.

Continue reading→