PDA

View Full Version : The Strange Tale of Anatoliy Golitsyn



Gladstone
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 08:14 PM
http://www.goethe.de/uk/mon/gif/r/reuni.jpg
Fall Of Berlin Wall

On November 9, 1989, the unthinkable happened; a wall that had divided a people for almost three decades came down. A joyous celebration of the German nation followed as the world hailed a new day! But what if there was more to the story than first met the eye? What if things were not quite as they seemed?


?


In December 1961, the vice consul of the Soviet embassy in Helsinki Finland defected to the West. His name is Anatoliy Golitsyn and this is his story as briefly excerpted from his book, New Lies For Old, a link to which is at the bottom of this page. While the bulk of his manuscript had been completed by 1968, due to various difficulties it was not until 1984 that New Lies For Old was actually published At the time of his defection what he had to say was not taken too seriously by most Western intelligence agencies; considering the massive failures of those agencies the past decades, ie Aimes, Pollard, etc., that does not necessarily say much. Some might even see that fact as positive.

In the book Golitsyn writes specifically of the Manifesto produced by the 81'st Party Congress (of November 1960) and the new long range communist policy vis-a-vis the West.

New Long Range Communist Policy

1) Scissors Strategy Soviet Russia and Red China would voluntarily "split" from each other. That this split would be false and was designed to assauge fears of the West of a monolithic and powerful Communism. That while this split was in effect, each power, China and Russia, would play one against the other. Sometimes Red China would be the West's "friend" against Russia, and vice versa; which ever one was the "friend" would drain the West of as much aid and technology as possible and build up it's strength, modernizing their infrastructure. The West would be weakened, the Reds strengthened. This was something known as the "scissors strategy".

2) False Liberalization of Soviet Union and Satellites. Golitsyn claims that this was nothing new, that the Soviet Union had done this before to gain aid from the West...it was just the extent and scale that was new. He states that the first modern false liberalization experiment of Czechoslovakia ("Prague Spring", 1968) was found to be a roaring success..ie that the West had bought it hook, line, and sinker, and fell all over themselves to extend aid to the Czechs. He states the 1968 manifestation was not real as it was top down, instituted by party workers, and not eminating from the people themselves. And that the Czech party structures remained as they were after the fact, little changed. Goltisyn felt the "Prague Spring" would serve as a template for the later false liberalization campaigns of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The ultimate purpose of the false liberalization campaign was to convince the West that communism had died a natural death and further to gain massive aid further weakening the enemies of the Soviets while strengthening themselves. Bear in mind, the book this is excerpted from was published in 1984, five years prior to the "collapse" of communism. I have a copy and it does indeed state 1984 as its publishing date. He writes of the Soviet Union's false liberalization


New Lies For Old, pg.339

The "liberalization" would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced...The KGB would be "reformed". Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government...The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers' unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apprently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artist now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of complaince would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.


And What does Golitsyn have to say for the false liberalization campaign in Eastern Europe..specifically East Germany?



New Lies For Old, pg. 340

If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.


3)Disaramament and Convergence

Golitsyn writes that with communism apparently no longer a threat "A massive US defense budget might be found no longer justified." As for ultimate convergence of the West with communism Golitsyn envisions a stregthened and reconstituted, post "false liberalization" Soviet Union openly joining forces with an also strengthened Red China to crush what remains of the West.


New Lies For Old, pg. 345-346

After succesful use of the scissors strategy...a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected. It is contemplated and implied by the long-range policy and by strategic disinformation on the split.

...Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor....The Scissors strategy [ed. of Soviet Union and China] would give way to the strategy of "one clenched fist." At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated...The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communsim would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system...Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence.



Golitsyn's antidote to this, though he came up with it 20 years ago, I think still applies today. He felt that the West should be brutally honest towards its own past and current behaviours towards not only it's own nations states and peoples but towards other non-Western peoples as well. He felt this would strengthen non-communists and weaken the power of the reds, even the power it held over its own. Being that the mutated thing we deal with, the multi-cult, rad-liberalism, Marxism, etc, feeds off of mistakes in moral judgment when we have made them (every person and people make mistakes at times), this entirely makes sense. It would be similar to the manner that a person strengthens their immune system by eating right, working out, drinking good clean water, etc. The strong morals of our own persons and peoples are our immunity and strength.

Anatoliy Golitsyn's book New Lies For Old is well worth a read. I put it just a notch or two below 1984, Animal Farm and Brave New World. The fact that Golitsyn claims the book is based entirely on reality makes it all the more intriguing.

http://websearch.cs.com/cs/boomframe.jsp?query=New+Lies+For+Old&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26req uestId%3D2587296d57fa2cd5%26clickedItemR ank%3D2%26userQuery%3DNew%2BLies%2BFor%2 BOld%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%2 52Fwww.amazon.com%252Fexec%252Fobidos%25 2Ftg%252Fdetail%252F-%252F0945001134%253Fv%253Dglance%26invoc ationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DCSroll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2 Fexec%2Fobidos%2Ftg%2Fdetail%2F-%2F0945001134%253Fv%253Dglance

Telperion
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 08:42 PM
This is a very complex topic, but here are a few quick observations:



1) Scissors Strategy Soviet Russia and Red China would voluntarily "split" from each other. That this split would be false and was designed to assauge fears of the West of a monolithic and powerful Communism. That while this split was in effect, each power, China and Russia, would play one against the other. Sometimes Red China would be the West's "friend" against Russia, and vice versa; which ever one was the "friend" would drain the West of as much aid and technology as possible and build up it's strength, modernizing their infrastructure. The West would be weakened, the Reds strengthened. If this is what was done in the past - and that's very difficult to prove - it is no longer the strategy today. Russia and China openly maintain strategic ties with each other, and the West helps both of them. This 'split' was already emerging around the time Golytsin defected, so it is not clear if he really had inside knowledge that this was part of a secret plan, or if this is just his explanation of events.


2) False Liberalization of Soviet Union and Satellites. Golitsyn claims that this was nothing new, that the Soviet Union had done this before to gain aid from the West...it was just the extent and scale that was new. He states that the first modern false liberalization experiment of Czechoslovakia ("Prague Spring", 1968) was found to be a roaring success..ie that the West had bought it hook, line, and sinker, and fell all over themselves to extend aid to the Czechs. He states the 1968 manifestation was not real as it was top down, instituted by party workers, and not eminating from the people themselves. And that the Czech party structures remained as they were after the fact, little changed. Goltisyn felt the "Prague Spring" would serve as a template for the later false liberalization campaigns of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The ultimate purpose of the false liberalization campaign was to convince the West that communism had died a natural death and further to gain massive aid further weakening the enemies of the Soviets while strengthening themselves. Bear in mind, the book this is excerpted from was published in 1984, five years prior to the "collapse" of communism. I have a copy and it does indeed state 1984 as its publishing date. He writes of the Soviet Union's false liberalization. This is more interesting. Apparently Andropov was planning to introduce wide-ranging reforms, but ill-health stalled him, and his sucessor Chernenko did nothing about them. It fell to Andropov's protege Gorbachev to implement the reforms.

There is certainly evidence that the 'collapse' of Communism was a controlled process. It has been termed a 'revolution from above' by academics, but that is about the same as saying that the Soviet authorities made it happen, and in some cases eliminated lower-echelon leaders (e.g. Ceaucescu) who resisted the process. And of course, in all of these countries, the contemporary elites used to be Communists - different organizational structure, but the same people. Obviously, it is doubtful that the claims of such former Communist Party members to be genuine 'friends' of the West should be taken seriously.

Their general pattern of behaviour, however, is probably the best evidence of their actual intentions. In that connection, I would note it seems very difficult to believe the Western intelligence services were not fully cognizant of what was going on. Its one thing to take a long time to catch a few deep-cover moles in your organization, and quite another to have no serious idea what is happening in a process of political and economic change that involved directives to thousands of people from the Soviet leadership. If the Soviet changes were an attempt to deceive the West (and more likely they were an attempt to buy time for the Soviet system), it seems very doubtful the West was actually fooled by them.


3)Disaramament and Convergence
Golitsyn writes that with communism apparently no longer a threat "A massive US defense budget might be found no longer justified." As for ultimate convergence of the West with communism Golitsyn envisions a stregthened and reconstituted, post "false liberalization" Soviet Union openly joining forces with an also strengthened Red China to crush what remains of the West.Of course, this did happen in the 1990's. The US cut its defense budget dramatically, with cuts to the infantry, to human intelligence assets, etc. It feels the sting of these cuts today, with its overextended troop deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Korea.

But these were relative cuts - absolutely, the US has for decades spent far more on military capabilities, including research and development for new weaponry, than all other countries combined. Also, since 9/11, the US has massively expanded its military budget.

At the same time, Russia's infantry has dramatically deteriorated, although it has lately been upgrading its Strategic Rocket Forces, and some of its new conventional weapons are very high-tech. China has been rapidly improving its qualitative military capabilities, but still has some distance to go before it can even begin to touch those of the US, in regards to aerospace capabilities in particular. All in all, though, there is no evidence that Russia and China have collectively made some sort of relative gain in qualitiative military capabilities at the expense of the US.

It would be interesting, though, to hear what people on this forum from Eastern Europe think about Golitsyn and his ideas.

Telperion
Sunday, June 27th, 2004, 01:23 AM
But these were relative cuts - absolutely, the US has for decades spent far more on military capabilities, including research and development for new weaponry, than all other countries combined. Also, since 9/11, the US has massively expanded its military budget.

I meant they were absolute cuts, but relatively other countries have not significantly closed the gap with the US. Sorry for any confusion.

Gladstone
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 12:13 AM
...I would note it seems very difficult to believe the Western intelligence services were not fully cognizant of what was going on.

...it seems very doubtful the West was actually fooled by them.

I wish I had the ability to have the faith you do in the Western Intelligence community. :)

My observation of Reds, Communists, Marxists, rad-libs, etc (what ever you want to call them) is that they are the control freaks of the control freaks. They almost always have taken power by the barrel of a gun and as a rule that's the only way they give it up. Here in the West it's been Gramsci's methods, to the extent rad-libs have had power, and not so much guns as with the rest of the world. They do not just quietly fade away and give up power willingly as we are told what happened with the Soviet Union and its satellites...unless perhaps it was only the appearance of giving up power and/or for ulterior motives. The bungling, drunken, pathetic "counter-coup" attempt in '91 was hardly convincing; these are people who historically had been quite expert at the obtaining and maintaining of power, and suddenly they were incompetents we are told.

I recall thinking at the "collapse of communsim" back in the late 80's and early 90's that the Russians had historically experienced a thousand years of oppression of their identity...and that when they have experienced a thousand years free from oppression (something I very much wish for the Russian people) then they will truly be free. I still tend to lean to that.

One as well, in the overall context, must bear in mind the extensive study of the human mind and social interaction by such people as Ivan Pavlov, Antonio Gramsci, and assuredly others, back in the 1920's and 30's. Those we deal with, unlike all too many others, fully realize that peope are dual beings...at minimum; that is we have a physical self and an unseen part, a psyche (emotion, spirit, etc). Each of those two parts that make up a person is as important as the other. Those studies mentioned, particularly by Pavlov were regarding how people could be conditioned, controlled, manipulated, while Gramsci looked more into social dynamics and how the Reds could gain control of societies without the use of physical force. There's been a battlefield of the mind taking place for decades and for the most part the rad-libs have been the only one fighting it with scant resitance.

As for Golitsyn one can simply take what he says for what it is worth.

Telperion
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 01:46 AM
There's been a battlefield of the mind taking place for decades and for the most part the rad-libs have been the only one fighting it with scant resitance.

That's certainly true.