But the Second World War was only a phase – though an important one – in the realization of Lenin’s grand strategy to subjugate the capitalist … nations…. The ‘worldwide anti-imperialist struggle’ [later] was … concentrated on the U.S.A. – especially by mobilizing the Third World against that nation – once again in accordance with the thoughts of Lenin.

Ernst Topitsch

To understand where we are today, in terms of grand strategy, it is useful to begin with the history of the last world war. In his remarkable Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P. Taylor says the conflict originated in a dispute “between the three Western Powers over the settlement of Versailles….” He also called it “a war which had been implicit since the moment when the first [world] war ended.” What Taylor didn’t say was that the only country with a viable grand strategy at the outset of the war was the Soviet Union. Neither Germany nor the Allies had properly thought out the consequences of their policies, or the short-sightedness of their strategies. On the other hand, the leaders of the Soviet Union had worked out their basic strategy twenty years before the war began. This claim may seem incredible, but it can be proved out of quotations from Lenin’s Collected Works.

World War II began on 1 September 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland. As a consequence of this invasion, on 3 September 1939, France and Britain declared war on Germany. On 17 September the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. Having declared war on Germany, France and Britain did not dare declare war on the Soviet Union. They were already facing serious challenges in preparing to fight Germany. Adding to their troubles, by going to war against Stalin, would have put them in an impossible position.

Note what followed from the start of the war: France and Britain were unable to render assistance to Poland as they were unprepared to effectively attack Germany from the West. On 27 September 1939 Warsaw (the capital of Poland) fell to the Germans as 140,000 Polish troops were taken prisoner. German and Soviet troops divided Poland along a demarcation line. On 30 November Stalin’s armies invaded Finland, a democracy. The allies were upset by this Soviet aggression, but they did nothing to thwart Stalin. All their efforts were focused on Hitler, who served as Stalin’s lightning rod. Consequently, Stalin was free to invade country after country. In 1940, the Soviet Union would invade Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and eastern Romania – without any real opposition.

To understand how this extraordinary advantage accrued to Moscow, we will turn to the writings of Ernst Topitsch, a professor of philosophy at Graz University during the 1980s, and a German veteran of the Eastern Front. He fought in one of the divisions that perished at the Battle of Stalingrad. “I am, admittedly, not a historian,” he wrote, “nor can I offer any new documents in support of the theories proposed; but … widely-known documents may reveal to the outsider surprising connections which may hitherto have been overlooked; solutions may be found to problems which have been blocking the path of research for some considerable time.” [p.2]

As a student of the Greek historian Thucydides, and as someone who pondered the meaning of the war for decades, Topitsch saw a number of truths which mainstream historians never bothered to notice. France and Britain are generally considered the “good guys” at the war’s outset. Yet their approach alternated between appeasement and exacerbating the Polish crisis, as Taylor’s history shows. London and Paris did not understand that they had over-committed to Poland, and were in no position to do any good – morally or militarily – under the circumstances. Hitler seems quite unbalanced as well, forgetting that British public opinion had turned against him after his forces entered Prague in March 1939, making the Czech rump state into a “protectorate of the Reich.” Because of this, the British leaders could no longer appease Hitler, even if they wanted to. Naturally, Hitler is blamed as the “evil genius” of the war, whose “violent expansion and aggression” is today seen as the principal cause of all that followed. Here Topitsch disagrees. He tells us there was a greater evil genius responsible for the war; namely, Josef Stalin.

In writing this, Topitsch makes clear that he is not attempting to “exonerate Hitler.” The real question, in terms of grand strategy, is “to reduce the German dictator to his real political and intellectual stature and to correct the widely accepted overestimation of his ability.” For political reasons, Hitler has been built up as “a fantastic figure, appearing to his frightened opponents as an almost superhuman phenomenon, who combined in one man the military genius of Napoleon, the cunning of a Machiavelli and the fanaticism of a Mohammed.”

Topitsch noticed that Stalin was never favorably compared with Napoleon or Machiavelli or Mohammed, though his real achievements in politics and war outdid all three. In fact, the first historian to properly recognize Stalin’s genius was Stephen Kotkin, the latest of Stalin’s biographers, whose first volume on Stalin (published in 2014) ended with a striking tribute to Stalin’s unique abilities. Kotkin understood something that Topitsch had grasped thirty years earlier; namely, that Stalin was no friend to flashy or “spectacular public appearances.” Stalin did not make himself into a human lightning rod, like Hitler. He understood how to do important things without drawing attention to himself; for example, how to make a communist system function by famine, mass arrests, and purges, while retaining devoted followers around the world. None of his colleagues could have done it, says Kotkin. And there can be little doubt Kotkin is right. Stalin’s grasp of politics was without equal, whether he was dealing with Trotsky and Zinoviev or Churchill and Roosevelt. He lured Hitler into playing the unfortunate role of aggressor in Poland and then proceeded to his own aggressions unmolested. Incredibly, the impotent Allied powers that denounced these aggressions ended by allying with Stalin – helping the Soviet dictator to further conquests in the heart of Europe and Asia.  

Stalin, noted Topitsch, was “a master of the undercover game, of indirect action.” He was patient. He let others give their intentions away while keeping his own intentions to himself. He pretended to give Hitler what the Germans needed, realizing that he was leading them into a trap from which they could not escape. Everything was carefully considered. (Even now, Stalin serves as a model for Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.) From the point of view of Western statesmanship, Stalin’s character is not easily understood. “The sly, mistrustful Georgian probably did not confide even to his close associates what he knew, intended or desired,” stated Topitsch.

The basic outline of Stalin’s winning strategy was set down by Lenin in 1920. In those days Lenin was predicting what he called a “Second Imperialist War.” Stalin’s job, thenceforth, was to make the Soviet Union ready for that war. With this in mind, Stalin explained the strategy as follows: “If war is to break out, we won’t be able to watch in idleness; we will have to enter the fray, but we will be the last ones to do it, in order to put the decisive weight into the scales, a weight that should tip the balance.”

According to Topitsch, “Lenin and his associates were never in any doubt about their determination to annihilate capitalism and ‘imperialism.’ They were convinced that the First World War was only the prelude to further ‘imperialist wars,’ which would lead inexorably to the final victory of socialism across the whole world.” Lenin’s grand strategic plan was outlined in his speech to the Action Meeting of the Moscow Organization of the Communist Party of Russia on 6 December 1920:

“Till the final victory of socialism in the whole world … we must exploit the contradictions and opposition between two imperialist power groups, between two capitalist groups of states and incite them to attack each other, for when two thieves quarrel the honest man gets the last laugh. But as soon as we are strong enough to overthrow the entire capitalist world, we will seize it by the throat.”

Lenin suggested three areas for developing a “divide and conquer” strategy: (1) the potential for conflict between Japan and America; (2) the potential for conflict between Germany and the Western Allies; and (3) the potential for conflict between America and the rest of the world. The first two conflicts were cultivated by Soviet diplomacy and active measures prior to 1942. The third was used after 1945.

In terms of triggering a war in Europe between Germany and the Western powers, Lenin put special emphasis on exploiting the unjust peace settlement that ended the First World War (i.e., the Treaty of Versailles). Lenin explained the situation as follows:

“This country [Germany] cannot tolerate the treaty [of Versailles] and must look around for allies to fight world imperialism, even though it is itself an imperialistic land, which is nonetheless being held down. [It would in any case be most favorable] if the imperialist powers were to get involved in a war. If we are forced to tolerate such rogues as these capitalist thieves, each one of whom is sharpening the dagger against us, then it is our bounden duty to get them to turn their daggers on each other.”

As bad as Germany might be, said Lenin, communism’s ultimate enemy was America and Britain. He called the British Empire “the proud bastion of world capitalism, the place from which radiated out, like concentric circles, all the threats of imperialism; it was the highest temple of international finance, the world center of … overseas trade, the metropole from where the peoples of the non-European world were sucked dry.” Lenin bemoaned the fact that there was no real prospect of making a revolution in the mother country of capitalism. The empire had to be brought to its knees through open warfare. Why not let the Germans do it?

Germany would become the most important pawn on Lenin’s global chess board. A KGB officer and historian of my acquaintance, who personally knew Russian archivists in Moscow, said that Weimar Germany was a clandestine puppet of Moscow. In other words, from 1919 until Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was a virtual satellite of the Soviet Union (though the rest of the world had no inkling whatsoever). Please note: Germany was the homeland of Karl Marx. The German Communist Part, KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands), was subservient to Moscow. The liberals and social democrats were manipulable. Even the far right was subject to Soviet manipulation as we shall see. Germany was Moscow’s tool by which a future war could be engineered. Underscoring this idea, Lenin said: “…we have so exploited the quarrel between the two imperialist groups that in the end both lost the game.”

Lenin made this last statement nearly two decades before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact shocked the world with the unlikely partnership of Hitler and Stalin in 1939. Days after this pact was signed, Hitler invaded Poland and the Second World War began. Lenin’s strategic grasp of the situation in 1920 was far-sighted indeed. Later, GRU defector Viktor Suvorov would write a book titled Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? According to Suvorov, “Stalin supported the Nazis. Zealous Stalinists, such as Herman Remmele, who was a member of the Politburo of the German Communist Party [KPD], was quite open in his support of the Nazis….” [P. 11] Suvorov quoted former Soviet leader and Stalin rival Leon Trotsky: “Without Stalin there would have been no Hitler, there would have been no Gestapo!”

Stalin’s indirect support for Hitler in 1933 was easy to miss. Even Hitler did not see it. Talking out loud about a possible alliance with Stalin, Hitler made a prescient remark. “Then we would really mistrust each other,” said Hitler, “and such a pact would inevitably end in a decisive battle. Only one of us can rule….” According to Hitler, “The Russians [always] take over their partner, body and soul, that is the danger; one can either give oneself over to them completely, or steer well clear of them.”

Those who study Hitler will find that the German dictator foresaw every danger. Yet he flirted with every danger, and succumbed. For example, Hitler mocked Kaiser Wilhelm II for getting into a two-front war, bragging that he would not repeat the Kaiser’s mistake. Yet Hitler got into a two-front war in 1941. Hitler saw the danger in partnering with Stalin, yet he partnered with Stalin anyway. Topitsch wrote, “When things reached a critical juncture Hitler brought ruin on himself by not steering well clear [of Stalin]; instead he made himself dependent on Moscow, with dire consequences.” [P. 26]

And what were the dire consequences? Topitsch quoted from a famous account, given by a German translator, of Hitler’s dismay when Britain gave him its final ultimatum after the invasion of Poland:

“I stopped a short distance away in front of Hitler’s table and then slowly translated for him the ultimatum of the British government. When I had finished, complete silence prevailed. Hitler remained sitting there as if petrified and stared into space. He didn’t lose his temper, as was later asserted; he didn’t fly into a rage, as others have claimed. He kept sitting in his chair, completely quiet and not moving. After a while, which to me seemed an eternity, he turned to Ribbentrop, who was standing by the window, as if benumbed. ‘What do we do now?’ Hitler asked his Foreign Minister with a look of rage in his eyes, as if he wanted to make it clear that Ribbentrop had given him false information about the English. Ribbentrop replied in a quiet voice: ‘I assume the French will hand over to us a similar ultimatum within the next hour.’… In the ante-room a deadly silence reigned at this announcement. Goering turned round to me and said: ‘If we lose this war, then may heaven help us!’ Goebbels stood in the corner, dejected and thoughtful, looking literally like the proverbial drenched poodle. Everywhere I saw disconsolate looks, even on the faces of the lesser Party officials who were in the room.”

It was alleged by those in a position to know, that in the following spring, Hitler lost all his mirth. He no longer joked, or entertained his staff with pantomimes or humorous stories. He made a fatal mistake by invading Poland and he knew it. “Stalin’s perceptive and sure-footed tactics had placed the Soviet Union in a strong position,” wrote Topitsch, “but in the case of Germany the very opposite applied. Hitler was fully aware of this at the handing over of the British ultimatum….” Germany would suffer from the Allied blockade and would be all the more dependent on the Soviet Union for grain and oil.

Hitler was now in a desperate position. As he himself had foreseen, the Russians always “take over their partner.” Hitler found himself completely dependent on Stalin as he went to war with France and Britain. He had but one option – impossible on its face. From a position of strategic disadvantage, he had to fight his way out of Stalin’s trap. Because the British were planning to cut his iron ore supplies from Scandinavia, he preemptively invaded Denmark and Norway in April 1940. Breathing a sigh of relief, he next invaded Holland, Belgium and France using the bold plan of Col. Erich von Manstein, which won a surprising victory. France signed an armistice with Germany on 22 June 1940.

Hitler’s position was only marginally improved, however. Britain was still in the war, with Winston Churchill as Prime Minister – determined to fight him with tooth and nail (if necessary). Across the Atlantic, America loomed – a continent-sized country, sympathetic to Britain’s plight. Hitler had no way of ending the war. And there was Stalin and Molotov, grinning ear-to-ear. After the setback suffered by Germany in the Battle of Britain, Hitler had run out of victories. Now it was time to change the game by applying pressure to the blockaded Third Reich.

Soviet Foreign Minister V. Molotov reportedly made the following statement to Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kreve-Mickevicius on 30 June 1940: “We are now more than ever convinced that our brilliant comrade Lenin made no mistake when he asserted that the Second World War would enable us to seize power in Europe, just as we did in Russia after the First World War. For this reason you should be starting now to introduce your people into the Soviet system, which in the future will rule all Europe.”

In July 1940 the Commintern journal, Red Dawn, referred to Hitler as “a new Napoleon … running amok throughout Europe, conquering great countries…. All this seems heroic to him and his party members. The Nazis see the dawning of a new Middle Ages with themselves … at center stage. This vision of the future will also turn out to be a ‘misunderstanding.’ When the work is done, the conqueror of the world, with his fellow criminals, will end up where he belongs – on the rubbish heap of world history.”

About these quotes, Topitsch wrote: “…Hitler was to be used as a battering ram against the allegedly strongest bastion of capitalism, Great Britain, but at the same time the Soviet leaders wanted to preserve the semblance of loyalty to the Germans, perhaps with the idea of thrusting onto them, at the coming clash of arms, the role of treaty-breaking aggressor.” [P. 66]

There are interesting excerpts found in the regulations and instructions of the Red Army covering certain war games: “The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics will answer every attack with a destructive blow from the whole might of their armed forces. Our war against the attacker will be the most just war in the history of mankind. If the enemy forces make war on us, then the Red Army will be the most offensive of all armies. We will wage an offensive war and carry it right into the territory of our opponents. The fighting methods of the Red Army will be annihilating….”

Hitler had no choice but to attack Russia, as we shall see in Part IV of this series. When he made that fateful decision, Hitler did not know what today’s historians seldom comment on; that for every tank Hitler used to invade the Soviet Union, the Soviets had eight tanks. When Hitler visited Finland on 4 June 1942 to meet with Field Marshal Baron Carl Mannerheim, he gave the Finnish Commander-in-Chief a shocking piece of intelligence. In fact, there exists a voice recording of Hitler’s conversation with the Finnish commander. According to Hitler, in less than one year of fighting, the Germans had destroyed or captured nearly 35,000 Soviet tanks. This is ten times the number of tanks used by the Germans in their initial invasion. Hitler told Mannerheim that if he’d known these numbers, he would not have attacked the Soviet Union. The Soviet preparations for war, he said, had been massive. It was sheer luck, and a tribute to German military skill, that this huge force had been overcome. Yet the Germans had not defeated the Soviet Union. They were mired in yet another war they could not win.

Despite the loss of Soviet tanks, Stalin’s trap had worked.


Quarterly Subscription (Voluntary)



“In Europe Stalin needed crises, wars, destruction and hunger. Hitler could achieve all this for him. The more crimes Hitler committed in Europe, the better it would be for Stalin and the more reason he would have one day to send the Red Army into Europe as her liberator.”

Viktor Suvorov, P. 13

Links and Notes

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, (New York: Atheneum Paperback, 1983), p. 278.

Ernst Topitsch as translated by A. and B.E. Taylor, Stalin’s War: A Radical New Theory of the Origns of the Second World War (New York: St. Martin’s Press. 1987), all quotes of Lenin and Stalin derived from Topitsch’s text, referenced from his notes.

Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1990), p. 11.

79 thoughts on “Grand Strategy, Part III (1939-1940)

  1. Difficult for me to watch a film about D-Day, Knowing that it was what benefitted Stalin. Patton was ready to take not only Berlin but Moscow. So sick of all this political garbage we have to put up with today, knowing that Revelation 13 is around the corner and the Woke-istan Federal puppets are probably polishing the Simularcan idol as we speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simulacra

  2. There is something seriously scary about Putin’s words to Biden. His attack on our country as genocidal and racist, his reference to BLM, his threatening wishes of “good health” to Biden, and his calling out of Biden’s incapacity by challenging him to a live debate all are signs of Russian enmity

  3. Jeff, I’m wondering if you would fill in something that I realized is a gap in my knowledge when I tried to tell another person about Russia infiltrating our media, education system, government, and culture with Communistic beliefs and values. I explained how Khrushchev himself said it was going to happen, that the U.S. would be conquered from within, and that Americans themselves would raise the Red flag over this country. I also explained how more than one Russian dissident has said this is happening and has told us the fall of the Soviet Union was a ruse.

    Where I got stuck was when this person asked me exactly who had done the infiltrating. It is one thing to point out that doctrines like “redistribution of wealth” are Communist concepts disguised as Socialism, but another thing to convince someone there is a Russian plot afoot. This person asked me how, specifically, Russia managed to send its people into the U.S. and take over our education system, etc., because, they argued, the people teaching Communist doctrines in the colleges, and spouting Socialist ideas on the news, are not from Russia but are typically natural-born Americans.

    So what is the link? It almost looks as if lots of Americans just became convinced of Socialist values all on their own, because the values made sense to them. That’s how it looks, unless I can answer something to the contrary. Did Russia send its own people over here, disguised as Americans, who then infiltrated the universities, surreptitiously spreading their ideas to American professors who themselves then started teaching Communist ideas?

    And how, specifically, did the media get infiltrated? So far as I know, nobody’s claiming actual Russians burrowed their way into the TV news stations, so how did all those journalists turn Communist? The same question applies to government: it’s not Russians being elected to office who are fighting for Socialism, but Americans, who somehow got exposed to Communist ideas and embraced them as their own – the concepts but without the Communist label. Who was it who exposed all those people to those ideas? If it was the Russians, how did they pull that off? Did it all begin with an infiltration of the education system? If so, then was it Russian spies disguised as American professors who started it? That, I suppose, would explain why so many journalists and politicians are Socialist, if they were taught these ideas in university.

    I know that in the 1980’s (if I remember the decade correctly), Russia sent dozens (hundreds?) of spies to the U.S. who spoke perfect English and who embedded themselves in high-level jobs in the FBI and other places, disguising themselves as normal Americans. The story goes that they did this to get information. The fascinating, fictional TV series “The Americans” is all about such a network of Russian spies, who no one suspects as being anything other than exemplary American citizens. So could this be analogous to how the Russian Communists infiltrated our schools, media, and politics – with Russians disguised as Americans, who then spread their ideas to lots of genuine Americans?

    If that is not the case, then how did they manage to pull it off? If I want to have credibility with someone when I make the case for Communism infiltrating our society (as opposed to our society embracing Marxism all on its own), I need to be able to explain how the infiltrating happened and who it was that did it, but I realize now I have never heard that explained. If I just say, “The Russians did it,” that sounds paranoid. I need to say specifically who did it and offer some sort of evidence, if possible. I figure if anyone can shed a light here, Jeff, it will be you.

    1. Jeff will hopefully answer your question far better than I, and I know you’re not asking me, but it seems like all the infiltration is a result of the Communists’ “long march through [our] institutions,” academia, political parties, Hollywood, you name it, like a frog in a pot of hot water. Also, like Charles Baudelaire said: “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” These same adherents and acolytes of Communism are probably least aware of how prevalent it is and what a danger it produces. My two cents.

      BTW, excellent article, Jeff. Really great, in depth analysis.

    2. Socialism is an international belief system. It has nothing to do with being Russian. The Communist Party Soviet Union was merely the most powerful communist party because it ruled over the world’s biggest country (Russia). Communists exist in all countries. It is like a religion. Anyone can join if they are willing to work hard for the Revolution. Modern communism was invented by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. Marx was born in Germany and was German by nationality; but he ended up living in England — where he died in 1883. The first successful communist Revolution — the Bolshevik Revolution — took place in Russia in 1917. There had been an attempt at communist/socialist Revolution in Paris in 1871, called the Paris Commune, but it was smashed after about two months. Lenin was the leader of the successful revolution in Russia, and Stalin became the leader of world communism when Lenin died in 1924. Moscow was the central hub for training and coordinating communists around the world. The Russians created an organization called the Comintern — or Communist International — for directing and coordinating communist activity worldwide. It later changed its name to Comminform and then seemed to disappear. In September 1959, when Nikita Khrushchev visited the US, he reportedly said to Ezra Taft Benson, who was US Secretary of Agriculture, that “Your grandchildren will live under communism.” He had perfect confidence in the final victory of communist ideas. Although Russian spies do train to look and sound like Americans, he wasn’t saying that Russian spies would do this. Leading American communists were trained in Russian schools starting in the 1920s. American communists have looked to Russia for ideas, leadership and even money. Stalin handpicked the leaders of the American Communist Party in the late 1920s, and dictated the CPUSA leadership for many years. Moscow later apologized for this after Stalin’s death, though American communists insisted the arrangement had been perfectly fine and proper. Nearly all of the Soviet spies in the US government during World War II were American-born true-believing communists. This belief system exists in all countries. The American Communist Party, which later changed its name to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was formed in Chicago in 1919. Actually, two different communist parties existed at first. One in New York and one in Chicago. Lenin ordered them to unite into one party. The American communists swore allegiance to Moscow in 1919, since Russia had become the “Motherland of Socialism.” In the first post war meeting of communist parties, which took place in November 1960, 81 communist parties met in Moscow to agree on a common long-range program. Actually, representatives of the Communist Party USA were secretly present at this meeting, along with representatives of two other Western communist parties, so there was 84 communist parties present at the meeting. The teaching methods of American schools, and the ideas taught, were largely invented by Russian experts. Influential American educational academics of the 1970s traveled to Moscow and came back with instructions on how to change the mentality of American schoolchildren. This had also been attempted in the late 1950s but teachers largely ignored the new teaching methods. By the late 1980s new and improved methods were beginning to take hold in American schools. These methods did not openly preach communism. They merely prepared the mind to receive communist ideas in college or through the media. American communists are zealous, organized and serious about their beliefs. They believe in the power of intellect, and of ideas. As a young teacher in the 1980s I was told to study Marx. That would bring me success, they said. Both my master teachers were Marxists. It was clear they had tremendous power over the careers of teachers and the ruling philosophies of the profession. I hope this answers your question. It is a huge topic.

      1. Jeff, what an excellent summary and article! I would also recommend a little known book that has recently gained some attention. It addresses, in one way, Gretchen’s question about infiltration. Read Color, Communism and Common Sense by Manning Johnson and Archibald B. Roosevelt, 1958. These two authors (both black) were recruited by the Communist Party in the U.S., sent to Moscow for training, and returned with the assignment of infiltrating black churches to spread undermining beliefs and promote how communism supposedly supports racial equality. Jeff, you may know a lot more about this. Manning eventually came to realize that the Communists were using him and many other blacks to promote their political agenda, not to help bring about a more just society. Just to give you an idea, the table of contents includes chapters on “Subverting Negro Churches,” “Red Plot to Use Negroes”, “Destroying the Opposition,” “Race Pride is Passe.”

      2. Jeff, Did you every talk to your professors about why they embraced Marxism? What was the attraction? Surely, they understood the totalitarian regime and the loss of personal freedom. For God’s sake they are living in a country which protects their voice to criticize the government. How do they argue against that?

  4. Biden likes to seem as if he’s a tough guy, like when he says he wants to punch out Trump. He tells Putin that he has no soul, then he gives Putin the START he wants. I’ll bet dimes to donuts they cooked up this plan to solidify their domestic support.

  5. Excellent series of articles. Looking forward to pt 4
    I share your articles everywhere I can.

  6. Terrific article as usual. Let’s see if I can add personal insight as to some of the avenues of infiltration. 1965 Iwas a senior in high school. A friend told me a story about his mother. When he was 6or 7 the FBI showed up at his house on a Saturday morning. They took her away and she returned 4 days later. I never believed the story. My friend died 15 years ago and about 10 years ago her obituary was published in the local paper. In the 1930s she had emigrated to Russia. There were many who followed this path. Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind. She returned and was a school teacher. Another person I was in direct contact with was a professor at Western New England College. His name is Meripol. He also taught at the college. You might remember the names of his parents. ,Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. History was his subject but Marxist ideology was more to his mind set.

  7. China is now the battering ram, people don’t see the hand of Russia behind what is happening. Same thing that happened to Germany will happen to China. The strategy is brilliant. Those who have eyes to see can see it.

    1. It is possible that China has been pushed into the same role as Hitler, or they are simply in that position because they need lebensraum and cannot, like the Germans, feed themselves without importing food. The Chinese themselves have referred to this problem, as shown in Gen. Chi Haotian’s secret speech of twenty years ago. We might add that Hitler’s insight into Russia was remarkable when he said that Russia takes over its partners. Yet he could do nothing about that in the end, as readers will be surprised to learn what happened behind the scenes in late 1944 — leading him to open a secret line of communication to Stalin, after which he massed his tanks into two panzer armies and attacked the Americans in an attempt to trap the British Army in Holland (which had almost no functioning ports at the time). This resulted in the famous Battle of the Bulge, in which many Americans died. It should not surprise us if China’s strategic problems today are similar to Germany’s in the 1930s. Like the Nazis, the Chinese communists would like to be top dog, and often imagine themselves to be in that position; but strategic deficits hamper them. Unlike Russia, China is not self-sufficient in food and natural resources. Because of this there are many unusual details as to how China’s partnership with Moscow works in practice. It is therefore important to study the strategy of the Second World War, since strategic games are known to play out again and again — with different sets of actors.

  8. Thanks for all that information, Jeff, and Patrick for the real-life examples. I was a schoolteacher in the late 1980’s, so I’m very interested, Jeff, in what you said about the new teaching techniques of the 80’s preparing kids’ minds for receiving Communist teachings later on, in university. Could you kindly elaborate? What techniques specifically are you referring to, and how did they prepare the mind to receive Communist teachings? Also, can you give us names of any of the American academics who traveled to Russia in the 70’s and came back with instructions for how to change the American educational system?

      1. I purchased it for my Kindle. I could almost build a house out of books….

    1. In the book The Shadow of the Kremlin (https://www.amazon.com.br/Sombra-do-Kremlin-Orlando-Loureiro/dp/B004TI6WX8 ) tells the story of one of the trips of several Brazilian intellectuals to Russia in the 1950s, it is reported that these trips have taken place since the 1930s. The techniques used to prepare the minds of young people for the acceptance of communism they are diverse and start from elaborated theories of psychologists like Vygotsky and Pavilov, this subject is approached by the American author John Taylor Gatto (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ ), not linking to communism, but already showing the damage done.

  9. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, a documentary by the name of Do not split which puts the Chinese Communist Party controlled Hong Kong Democracy Movement in a so-called positive way to the West has won a oscar nomination. The documentary does not mention that the Hong Kong Protest was orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party

  10. Just about all of Viktor Suvorov’s books are available online for free as pdf downloads if you search for them. I have the majority of them in pdf format.
    Very interesting reading, although I would like to see more independent verification in the form of Soviet documents of the time.

  11. Jeff, documents, orders and such that should have been seized by the German military in the first weeks of the Barbarosa Campaign should have great propaganda value, but there doesn’t seem to be much of this sort of evidence. Was it suppressed both by the “Allies” (and even the “Axis” or its elements) for now more obvious reasons? It seems obvious there were significant intel penetrations into Hitler’s general staff but the “inertia” of the Soviet colossus and it’s leadership was too much for even excellent intel to overcome. Some “mistakes” you only make once.
    Suvorov is easy to dislike, but his basis is solid. His writings should be read by all with an interest in the era, as well as a proper understanding of how we got here. He is an excellent example of Soviet conditioning, as our friend from Austria puts it, a “brute” with a lack of any “refinement.”

    1. I enjoyed his “Spestnaz”. He seemed to have a dark, sarcastic sense of humor, and he was a great observer.

      1. I agree, Luke. He is a great read, much better writer than speaker, that is for sure.
        But I still feel there is something “missing” and is he a part of that great Soviet plot, or not?
        I’m not sure he knows, or maybe he thinks he does but is afraid to say?
        Almost like his “alternate” history is part of the “Humiliation” of the “Big Lie.”

  12. Jeff asked for ideas that might augment
    the effectiveness of his blog:
    therefore –

    Every fourth article or so, Jeff’s readers
    can do a “link love” restricted to websites
    or high-level, or high-usefulness
    (esp. the road less traveled).

    Also, requests to forum readers
    (or a specific reader that seems
    to care about that subject)
    to “pick up this basketball that is
    being still on the basketball court,
    and doing something with it”


    My request to any reader, quotations
    from Andrei Navrozov, esp. quotes from
    his book the “The Gingerbread Man”
    … of course by requesting I’m offering
    my services to readers of this blog.

  13. IRRC Icebreaker is a 3 volume work. Only the first volume is in English. Some details 907ie wants may be in those Russian language volumes. Golitysns books,Red Cocaine, We Will Bury You, Spetsnaz and others are torrentable or otherwise available. Jeff’s books luckily for him don’t appear to have been pirated yet. I have several copies purchased and gifted but none of friends or family have read them. Oh well. Suvorov’s case convinces me quite easily.

  14. Thank you Jeff–this is landmark information.

    Just wanted to bring up another strategy that the left has used in the US to keep Americans fixated on Nazism and Hitler. There is no end to the books and movies about the evils of the 3rd reich, even if they are made up–meanwhile the communist movement has been given a freepass by Hollywood’s producers but in fact are often lately treated as heros both in the WWII and in various new tellings of Cold War dramas. Hopefully some day, you might be able to address this.

    just curious, have you watched the latest leftist attack against America, the HBO series called The Plot Against America? its of course a total distortion and fabrication of historical realities produced to slay those who supported President Trump and his movement. What’s terrible is those who are enbibing in the leftist poison actually would want to believe Roth’s alt-version of history—it should have been this way—and will find even more ammunition to believe the lies that Trump represented this.

  15. For your message to be demoralizing you have to be heard. Virtually no one knows any of these defectors. Suvorov is legit. He’d be much more read if he was assassinated. But why would the Reds bother. Better to keep him alive. The very notion of talking about Russia as a threat is in this nation already self discrediting no? Ask Jeff.

    1. The left has taken over the idea that Russia is a threat. By this they suppose that Russia is ruled by a conservative, nationalist, religious leader. But this is a lie. Putin is a communist and their opposition to him — which is meaningless — merely disorients everyone further.

      1. “By this they suppose that Russia is ruled by a conservative, nationalist, religious leader”

        Exactly right, Jeff, and another Big Lie.
        And more solid proof of the continuing disinformation?

  16. Yup. That Larry King interview with Putin was priceless. King: Do you believe there is a higher power?

    Putin (through translator): I believe in human beings. I believe in their good intentions. I believe in the fact that all of us have come to this would to do good things. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21558 Jeff I remember you mentioning an interview Putin had with a Cuban newspaper where they asked him if he was still a Communist and he said something like – call me a pot but heat me not. Do you remember the publication?

  17. This is the first time I’ve seen it claimed that Stalin started the European phase of World War II. But it makes sense. Thank you for providing a thought provoking essay.

    But one thing that puzzles me is the claim that even the far right in Germany was being controlled by Moscow. That puzzles me because I never heard of the far right in Germany at that time. If they existed, they were inconsequential.

    All the histories I’ve seen, though not as a professional historian of that era, mention the two most influential parties fighting in the streets were two competing groups of followers of Marxist socialism, i.e. both on the far left. Those were the communists and National Socialists (Nazi). While the Nazis eventually lost on the battlefield, it appears that their version of Marxism won in the long run, as it seems that the CCP and Russian communists have both adopted the fascist version of Marxism.

    That it was two groups of Marxist socialists who were vying for control of Germany illustrates Benda’s complaint in “The Treason of the Intellectuals” that to a large extent, European intellectuals had abandoned critical thinking to squabbling among themselves as to which was the best form of Marxist socialism.

    1. I did not say the far right in Germany was “controlled” by Moscow. I said they were “manipulated” by Moscow. The Russians are good at manipulating everyone. And please note: the Nazis were not followers of Marx. They were very much anti-Marxist. Nazi anti-capitalism is based on anti-Semitism, which is sometimes called “the stupid man’s socialism.” It is not the same as Marxism; for example, the Nazis believed in private ownership of the means of production. Their idea was to “socialize” the hearts of the workers and not the factories. The Nazis favored good treatment for workers. Nazi ideas were egalitarian in the sense of admitting the dignity of Germans of every rank, but promoted racism against non-Germans, especially Jews and Slavs. The former were depicted as corrupt capitalists conspiring through Masonic lodges and banks to destroy German society. Technically, the Nazis were a party of the nationalist left and right. Hitler would ring the alarm about “Jewish Bolshevism” when speaking before right wing groups, then he would warn against “Jewish bankers and capitalists” when talking before leftist working men. Thus his formula was to use anti-Jewish propaganda to unite the left and right in Germany. It was a clever bag of tricks, to be sure. I am afraid you also misunderstand Julien Benda’s book on the treason of the intellectuals, which was written in 1927. Benda described the intellectuals of his time as organizers of political hatred, by which he meant right wing intellectuals who supported nationalism. Benda probably would have hated Trump. He was not arguing against socialism, or writing against socialists. Benda especially attacked Charles Maurras, who was a right wing French monarchist.

      1. We should not look at Hitler’s public statements to evaluate his true beliefs. He was a fluent liar, tailoring his messages to his audiences. To the industrialists, he posed as a friend of industry. To Christians, he pulled out his family Bible claiming to be a Christian. To das deutsche Volk, his message was of greater Germany. Yes, he was an antisemite, his hatred of Jews came directly from Karl Marx himself, because Karl Marx was himself an antisemite, one of the worst of the 1800s. Yet he allowed public condemnation of Marx the person to burnish his image as an antisemite and as an anticommunist.

        Racism is implicit in Darwinism. Karl Marx adopted Darwinism and the racism that is implied. Hitler’s racism is therefore not a fluke, a perversion of Marxism, but part of Marxism from its beginning.

        But privately, among close associates, he let go of his façades. He considered himself fortunate that he had achieved the dictatorship of the proletariate without the violent war as predicted by Marx. He and his close associates didn’t understand why the American proletariate didn’t rise up in revolt against the bourgeoisie. He tolerated private ownership of means of production, as long as the private owners were under the control of the party and accomplished the party’s socialist goals. It was his interpretation of Marx that it didn’t matter whose name is on the ownership papers as long as the means of production is under the control of the party, just like in Russia and China today. It was this private side that is the basis of why I call him a Marxist.

        What I mentioned above I learned in bits and drabs over the years, and there was more that I didn’t mention. The following two articles repeat and add on to what I had learned earlier.



      2. National Socialism was a non-Marxist form of socialism. Marx’s socialism was internationalist, not nationalist. Hitler was definitely a nationalist. Early in his career Marx wrote an anti-Semitic essay, as you say, but anti-Semitism was not to become the core of the system which Marx eventually developed — a system which officially opposes anti-Semitism. Marx’s socialism was based on materialism and a dialectical theory of change. Hitler was a Darwinian pantheist, who believed in racial conflict rather than Marxist class struggle, which was a theory Hitler strongly opposed. Hitler’s plan for Germany was to eliminate class struggle, not to bring about the victory of one class over the other. To say that Hitler was “a Marxist” is only credible to those who haven’t studied Marxism and are unfamiliar with Hitler’s policies. If the truth doesn’t matter, then we might say that Nazis are Marxists. But if we are honest and conscientious, we cannot affirm this. When Hitler went to war against Stalin in 1941 he expressed relief that the irksome partnership with Marxism was at an end. Hitler was not a Marxist.

      3. I think you are defining Marxism too narrowly, such that there’s not a communist party in the world that is Marxist. Stalin invoked nationalism in his “Great Patriotic War”. The whole reason for the Chinese claim to the Nine-Dash Line is nationalism, also for their demand for Lebensraum with Chinese characteristics. Which communist party upon taking power has not embraced nationalism? I don’t know of any.

        Marx remained antisemitic to the end. While he didn’t call for the physical extermination of Jews, he wanted their spiritual extermination. The same way the Bohemian people lost their identity a few generations after being expelled from Bohemia. On a personal level was Lev Davidovich Bronstein, aka Trotsky, who denied he was a Jew. In the same way Jewish leftists today don’t support Israel or Jewish causes.

        Hitler’s antisemitism was not central to his political philosophy. Socialism was. Even his antisemitism was understood as class struggle with the Jews as bourgeoisie over the German proletariate. His racism was Germano-centric, of which antisemitism was only a part. Hitler inherited his Germano-centric racism from over a century of German intellectual thought which included even genocide. Many years ago I read an interview with Simon Wiesenthal where he claimed he spoke for all 12 million people systematically exterminated by the Nazis, many for racist reasons apart from antisemitism, not just the six million Jews.

        Similarly the CCP’s racism is Sino-centric. Does that make the CCP not Marxist according to your definition?

        Does the CCP’s embrace of fascist economic model modeled on Nazi ideology make them no longer Marxist according to your definition?

        My understanding of Marxism is that it is not a rigid set of rules that are not to be changed in the least, in the same way the Bible is not to be changed, rather it is to be fluid, to adjust to new situations. Thus while Marx called for the elimination of the bourgeoisie, Hitler and now the CCP work with the bourgeoisie as long as the bourgeoisie are subservient to the party.

        I see Hitler as a Marxist because he never deviated from the broad outline of Marxism. His deviations were tactical, not strategic. Using the duck analogy (if it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. then it’s a duck even if you call it something else) thus Hitler was a Marxist no matter what others call him.

        This is getting away from your essay on how Stalin engineered the second world war. Now Putin is the senior partner over China, can we see him engineering the Chinese into starting a war leaving the Russians to come in and mop up? That they are working together now is not the question. How do you see things working out? Are we seeing a repeat of the start of the second world war?

      4. I have never defined Marxism narrowly, and have been attacked by academics who say my definition is too broad. For the sake of clarity: Hitler was not a Marxist. If Marxists sometimes use nationalism insincerely, to manipulate national populations, that is very different than what Hitler did. He was a radical nationalist and racist from conviction. He was sincere in this, and not merely engaging in a strategic manipulation to advance the cause of world socialist government — an idea which Hitler’s Darwinism repudiated, since race conflict must continue for evolution to advance. He did not want to make an end of war, since he believed race conflict was a necessary mechanism of race improvement. This is not what Marxism teaches at all.

  18. Wasn’t Angela Merkel, KGB?


    Protests against government measures to rein in the pandemic also were reported in several other countries across Europe, including Austria, Britain, Finland, Romania and Switzerland.

    More than 20,000 people participated in the protest in the central German city of Kassel, where there also were confrontations between the demonstrators and counter-protesters.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday Germany will have to apply an “emergency brake” and reverse some recent relaxations of restrictions as coronavirus infections accelerate.

      1. Dear Jeff!

        I read both of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s books a few years ago and, frankly, was amazed at what he had to say. A few weeks ago I discovered your blog and read and read. My mother tongue is german and I have also read Torsten Mann’s books (Weltoktober etc.). I would like to contribute here with some german language articles (translated) – for more information. Thanks for this great blog.

        And now about Angela Merkel:

        Oskar Lafontaine – former candidate for chancellor of the SPD in Germany:
        Translation of youtube video regarding Angela Merkel:

        And again, let me enlighten you, they have elected a young communist, a convinced young communist as chancellor. Do you even realize that, because Mrs. Merkel was (applause) … Mrs. Merkel was FDJ (Freie Deutsche Jugend) functionary for propaganda and agitation, only convinced young communists could do that … and she was allowed to study in Moscow, that were only allowed for line loyal ….

      2. “Is it true that Merkel speaks Russian?”

        It seems so, please have a look at the german news portal NTV:

        Even as a schoolgirl, Angela Merkel speaks Russian so well that she confronts GDR party officials with it. That’s what her old teacher (Erika Benn) tells us. And they even made the SED cadres howl.

        …Merkel, who grew up in Templin, Brandenburg, won the language competition in 1969, first at her school and later at the district, county and national levels, Benn said. …

        I know, NTV ist MSM …

      3. This is what I remembered reading about Merkel sometime ago, and found this a frightening detail; for those who have learned Russian, and have spent time in Moscow, were sometimes cultivated as special agents of the communist system. And if we look at Merkel’s policies, we find someone who is not a true German patriot. Actually, she has helped Russia. Merkel’s friendship for Julia Timoshenko — the Ukrainian “gas princess — gives Merkel’s true relation to Moscow a special color, especially since Timoshenko was a fraudulent Ukrainian, being a Soviet person who carried out Moscow’s plans under false pretenses — again and again. So all of Europe is seriously disoriented, and Germany does not fulfill the role of a military power as America is encumbered in Asia and the pacific. In fact, America suffers our own Julia Timoshenko in the person of Vice President Kamala Harris; a corrupt and incompetent lackey, made for the American public. Merkel is an astonishing phenomenon. I can only imagine the network of traitors who support her.

  19. Cuban Tv Putin interview. They didn’t ask him if he was a communist. My memory was wrong. Apparently Putin’s response is the Russian equivalent to ” sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.”

    Question: Mr Putin, in some political circles in Russia you are thought to be a left-leaning leader. Others consider you to be a right-wing leader. How do you describe yourself? And in general if I could ask you this question: which way is Russia moving?

    Vladimir Putin: As for what various people think about who I am and what I am, the Russians have a saying: “You can call me a pot as long as you don’t put me in the oven.”

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21138 Google search for transcripts of Putin interviews keeps showing this site to have them. Sorry couldn’t find easily anywhere else.

      1. The author in question may also have made the quote, but it also appears in Robert Conquest’s biography of Stalin as something he Stalin said.

      1. When the, Covid Live Exercise, began last March, the most offensive scary, obnoxious derelicts on the streets of Honolulu and Santa Barbara, revealed themselves as under cover cops. I don’t know if they’re JTTF or Interpol. It’s reminiscent of back when Echelon began, they used foreign grad students in college computer labs to spy on US citizens, to evade the, Domestic Spying Act.

        I see drones every night over Summerland and Montecito. In this US military news site, they report that the Navy has no idea what they are. I even had one get right in my face with about a three foot diameter red light. They are dead silent.


        The Space Monkey on the roof of the NSA in Berlin, reminds me of the, Nazca Lines, in Peru. Who is intended to see them?


        A Peruvian court affirmed in a ruling based on conspiracy theories that the coronavirus it was a creation of the “criminal elites worldwide” made up, according to the judges of this court, by billionaires such as George Soros, the family Rockefeller and the businessman Bill Gates.

      2. It is a very old idea to blame the capitalists. Shall we now link arms with the Marxist revolutionaries? We are all Bolsheviks now — right and left. No more capitalism is the underlying message, as everyone cries out against the one percent. No one seems to understand that our comfortable way of life is the chief product of the one percent, however infiltrated and duped that one percent is; as duped as the 99 percent. We are all useful idiots.

      3. State governors have ordered everyone to commit economic suicide. Any small businesses which remain, are hanging by their fingernails, going more and more broke, each day. Soon, it will be only large corporations that own all the then formerly small businesses. Your money wasn’t stolen, the virus did it. Is the Mafia capitalist?

        Why doesn’t the Navy shoot down the drones? Because the drones belong to the Navy, and they are guarding the oil wells while spying on citizens?

  20. I just watched a fabulous movie, a drama called “Darkest Hour.” It’s about Churchill and the first five months he was in office, when all his peers were pressuring him to negotiate for peace with Hitler, while Churchill himself was passionate that the country needed to fight, whatever the consequences. It’s really a brilliant story about honor versus capitulation. Fellow blog readers will love this.

  21. Epitaph:

    When I die
    Give what’s left of me away
    To children
    And old men that wait to die.

    And if you need to cry,
    Cry for your brother
    Walking the street beside you.
    And when you need me,
    Put your arms
    Around anyone
    And give them
    What you need to give to me.

    I want to leave you something,
    Something better
    Than words
    Or sounds.

    Look for me
    In the people I’ve known
    Or loved,
    And if you cannot give me away,
    At least let me live on in your eyes
    And not your mind.

    You can love me most
    By letting
    Hands touch hands,
    By letting bodies touch bodies,
    And by letting go
    Of children
    That need to be free.

    Love doesn’t die,
    People do.
    So, when all that’s left of me
    Is love,
    Give me away.

  22. Thanks for the excellent, enlightening article I think that Marxism’s link to the French revolution and the French atheistic philosophers like Voltaire is not mentioned. The long march started in France. America’s link undoubtedly includes the power of Darwinism over the minds of scientists who rejected the Bible and adopted the atheistic worldview. Those who were influenced by Darwinism became easy prey for the communist ideology. The fake science of Darwinism has evolved into the fake science of global warming (the funding mechanism for the new world order) which evolved into the fake science of transgenderism. All three form the scientific, economic, and social foundations for what we see going on in America today.

    1. Marx was born in 1818, long after the French Revolution. Yet he is the intellectual turning point by which dangerous ideas attained a critical mass. Richard Weaver believed that the rise of modern atheism began with the advent of nominalism in the thirteenth century, by which the reality of transcendentals were denied by the undermining of universals. Carl Jung, in his book Aion, traced the progress of an Antichrist movement from the Cathars of the 12th and 13th centuries, reappearing in the Italian Renaissance, then again in the Enlightenment and French Revolution, thence to latter-day Marxism and liberalism. All these insights reveal a complex historical unfolding in word snd deed.

  23. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, this article written by Ching Cheong who is a former journalist for the Pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po and was sentenced for 5 years for alleged espionage.


    The CCP’s plan in Hong Kong from what I have been briefed on is to kick Hong Kong people out and replace the city with Han Chinese, not sure if the comment is relevant to the post.

    1. Hong Kong Chinese are very dangerous to the communist system. They have British ideas of liberty and rule of law. They cannot be allowed to infect the rest of China. So they must be dispersed and stomped. This shows how communism sets about to annihilate all competing ideas.

  24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_nationalism#Han_chauvinism

    Bruce Lee and Wong, Jack-Man, were manipulated by Han Chauvinists, to fight one another. Bruce Lee’s death was due to Led poisoning from chalk adulteration of his medicine for back pain. His autopsy performed by the Hong Kong, coroner was a cover up, and the second autopsy was a further cover up, by the coroner to the stars, from London, who did the autopsies for, Brian Jones, James Morrison, and Jimi Hendrix, as well.


Comments are now closed.