Customer Reviews

New Lies for Old

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Is KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn right? Do the communists have a long range strategy to destroy the west, implemented in the 1960 time frame and extending over 40 years? He makes a strong case, based on his personal experience in the KGB and the history of the USSR. Furthermore his predictions have largely come true--if anything he was too conservative. At any rate, if Golitsyn was right, the strategy ought to be coming together real soon, the point of which is to isolate and defeat America with a united communist front.

This is a difficult book - allow me to attempt to review it with the hope that someone reading this might be persuaded to temporarily ignore the John Birch Society atmosphere its conclusions engender. I believe it holds the key to certain geostrategic facts which an astute reader will infer, although they are too difficult to describe in a short book review.

Golitsyn is an important and controversial defector (1961). This book, however, allegedly provides evidence of his profound paranoia that his critics argue ultimately misled such officers as James Angleton at CIA counterintelligence and inflicted great harm on US national security. This may be true, and Golitsyn's conclusions here are unfalsifiable, but the fact is this is not the book a madman would write, and at least on that basis its propositions ought to be considered seriously if for no other reason than that he is a genuine defector who provided much valuable information to the CIA.

His main thesis is that after Stalin (d. 1953), and the German, Polish, and Hungarian revolts (last 1956), the Soviet state faced a profound destabilization. Stalin's power monopoly within the party was so complete there was a succession crisis following his death; his methods were so brutal re the newly created Soviet satellites that the populations took the opportunity of his death to revolt. Tito's rejection of Stalinism and Moscow's friction with Mao in particular also demonstrated dangers posed to the new Communist bloc's strategy of promoting revolution in the West and elsewhere. Lastly, and perhaps most urgently, the Soviet Union determined export by revolution through military means could never be accomplished in light of the advent of nuclear weapons and the West's determination (NATO, etc.) to unite against a united Communist bloc.

Golitsyn contends that these problems were all resolved by the time of several party congresses held in 1959-1960, when he was a major in the KGB's strategic development department. The strategy adopted was one of profound subversion: instead of military confrontation by a united Bloc as the main weapon, the Soviet Union and its satellite governments agreed, while maintaining a credible military deterrent, to project an image of internal disunity while dedicating all its intelligence apparatus - many many times the size of the CIA and utterly unbound by laws or human rights considerations - to subverting the West. By pursuing this project over a long period of time - decades - the West would be oblivious to it, since its political horizon is the 4 or 6 year election cycle of a republic. Moreover, this type of thinking is simply alien to a West bound deeply to its own national traditions. The Politburo, however, was not bound by elections, and its leaders could be in power for a generation or more. The Soviet/Bloc time horizon was therefore very much wider.

The purpose was this: by projecting an image of disunity and various fractures, the West was expected to relax its unified resistance to Communist advancement, and revert to its natural disunity along lines of national interest. This was of course a reasonable inference; the history of the West demonstrates it consistently. But there was a specific Soviet precedent to follow: Lenin's New Economic Policy following the Russian Civil War (1918-21). Lenin adopted this policy in order to reduce foreign hostility to Communist revolution; instead he projected an image of Russia embroiled in its own problems, that its force as a revolution-exporter was therefore spent, and in fact the country - having undergone WWI, the Revolution, and then the bloody Civil War - was starving. This last was in fact true - and Western powers, especially the USA, responded by sending massive food and material aid to the new Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks, whose power was inherently shakey following these events, used this food and material not to save all the starving people but to shore up its own base of support and consolidate its power. The Cheka - Soviet secret police - used the opportunity of many foreigners on its soil to infiltrate the aid organizations and to study the motives of its members, and then infiltrate the home societies. By 1923, the Bolsheviks were again attempting revolution in Germany, although that revolution failed.

Golitsyn contends that the strategy adopted in 1959-1960 is essentially this same strategy, but on a scale commensurate with the new reality of a huge new Soviet bloc.

This is just the basic thesis, and frankly it seems pretty plausible. The implications of the strategy are rather shocking, and this review is already too long, but given that the new Russia IS run by the KGB and there WAS NOT any de-Commmunisation - the same people (Yakovlev, Primakov, etc.) - are still in power, doesn't it stretch credulity to believe these people suddenly became non-Communists, in their 50th and 60th years, suddenly and irreversibly, over a couple days in 1991? I mean, c'mon, doesn't it? In any case, a fascinating, fascinating book. In light of the rather plausible case Golitsyn makes here, I think his critics protest too much - at least a little too much. Highly recommended, even if it is wrong.

It's quite shocking how much of Golitsyn's warnings have come true. How the West is quite blind into trusting "former" KGB types such as Putin whom echo the words of dedicated Marxists that the "fall" of the USSR was a "geo-political disaster". Quite shocking as how even the "peace" movement of today are still in the hands of our enemies such as people Justin Raimondo whom has praised Putin "going after neo-cons". And how members of the "peace" movement see "neo-cons" as a greater threat than someone like a "former" Communist like Putin.

Why are the bureaucracies in the former USSR and the East Bloc still run by Communists (90% in the case of the Russian Federal government)?

Why was there no decommunization program after the collapse of the USSR to ferret out Communist agents still in positions of power?

Where were the `crimes against humanity' trials in Russia of Communist criminals after the collapse of the USSR?

Why are KGB/GRU officers from the 1970s and 1980s in control of the major businesses in Russia?

Why are the electorates of the fifteen republics that made up the USSR continuing to elect (since 1992) to the top executive offices in their respective countries persons who were Communists before 1990?

Why do intelligence officers from Russia still defect to the West? Other than from Russia, when has an intelligence officer from a democracy ever defected to another democracy? Never, because such behavior would be oxymoronic.

Though published in 1984, New Lies for Old allows us to answer these disturbing `post USSR' questions for ourselves. Defecting in 1961, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn informed his CIA interrogators that in 1960 all Communist nations had signed onto a new strategy to defeat the West. Called the `Long-Range Policy' (research on the policy beginning in 1958), the purpose for the policy was to repair Stalin's mucking up the Communists' goal of world domination. Thanks to Stalin's strategic incompetence, Western nations formed defense pacts to counter Communism (NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, and CENTO). After the death of Stalin the Communists decided that a much more subtle strategy was needed if Communism was to prevail.

Golitsyn writes:

"The dangers of Stalinism to the communist movement were ignored or overlooked in the 1930s and 1940s because of the threat of fascism and the opportunities that it provided for the formation of popular fronts with socialist parties in the 1930s and for the forging of the wartime alliance with the Western powers. But by 1953-56, the damage Stalinism had done to the communist cause was apparent. It could be seen in the following:

* The distortion, degradation, and discrediting of communist ideology. The image of Marxism as a philosophy had been tarnished in the eyes of Western intellectuals.

* Deepening discontent in the Soviet Union and its satellites, leading to explosive revolutionary situations in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary.

* The decline of communist influence and the isolation of communist parties and regimes.

* The revulsion against Stahnist communism of Western liberals who had earlier been sympathetic.

* The increased influence and prestige of anticommunism.

* Strong opposition from various religious movements, including Catholicism and Islam.

* The formation of Western military alliances, such as NATO, SEATO, and the Bagdad pact (later CENTO).

* Hostility from moderate, genuinely nonaligned national leaders of the developing countries, such as Nehru.

* Cooperation between Western democratic governments and anticommunist emigre organizations.

* Collaboration between social democratic and conservative governments and parties against the Soviet threat.

* Yugoslavia's break with the communist bloc and rapprochement with the West in the period 1948-55.

* The serious tensions between the Soviet Union and Communist China, which threatened to create a split between them in 1950-53.

* Zhdanov's opposition to Stalin.

* The major power struggle in the Soviet leadership that followed Stalin's death."

The balance of New Lies for Old covers the eight disinformation operations (as Golitsyn counts them by 1984) under the new `Long-Range Policy', such as the fraudulent Sino-Soviet Split, and Communist play-acting that led Western analysts to mistakenly conclude that `power struggles' existed within Soviet, Chinese, and other Communist governments.

Golitsyn not only warned the West about the `Long-Range Policy', but also used his in-side knowledge to predict with an amazing degree of accuracy future USSR/East Bloc behavior. Author Mark Riebling in his 1994 book 'Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11: How The Secret War Between The FBI And CIA Has Endangered National Security' credits Golitsyn with a whopping 94% accuracy rate in predicting Communist moves.

As mentioned above, New Lies for Old was published seven years before the `collapse' of the USSR, so one might inquire if the `collapse' of the USSR was a strategic ruse, why does the West remain silent on it? Why doesn't the West alert its populations to the deception?

The West pretends that the collapse of the USSR was genuine due to the interplay of two factors: (1) business pressures exerted on political parties to allow for trade with the `former' USSR/East Bloc, and (2) the intense need of political parties for business largesse in the form of campaign contributions. Businesses want to do business in the `former' USSR/East Bloc and political parties need money for elections. The intense competition for election money ensures that our political leaders remain silent on the Soviet ruse, while quietly engaging the USSR (witness the United States' current attempt to place a missile shield in Eastern Europe, which would, according to Russian generals, neutralize Russia's strategic nuclear forces).

Will The United States' `compromised strategy' against the Communist world work? Or will the Communists' `Long-Range Policy' prevail? Since the Communists' `Long-Range Policy' has now been revealed, the Communists' strategy will fail if enough people are made aware of it. That means you, reader, must do your duty and play the role of Paul Revere!

Addendum:

One might also query why `former' East Bloc nations would agree to house NATO's missile shield inside their territories considering those governments are still Communist? My answer to that question is NATO believes that the leaders of those countries are no longer enthralled by the `Long-Range Policy', preferring `backdoor largesse' from the West. NATO's belief is a mistake in my estimation, and the mistake will become apparent to NATO when the affected East Bloc nations decide not to house NATO's missile shield just before it is to become operational (wasting tens of billions of dollars), which is expected to be in 2015. Watch to see if this prediction materializes.

My analysis that NATO's missile shield will be cancelled at the last hour would explain nicely (for the official explanation is simply ludicrous) the April 10, 2010 crash in Smolensk, Russia of the Polish President's plane, reportedly killing the President and the top echelon of the Polish government. The crash, in my opinion, was a Communist intelligence operation, the purpose of which was to cement in the minds of the West that the Polish government was seen by Russia as a threat to the `Long-Range Policy' through its willingness to host the NATO missile shield. Needless to say, in this scenario the Polish President and entourage are still alive.

Another major event to occur under the `Long-Range Policy' involves China. Watch for the Chinese Communist government to `collapse' due to a manufactured economic crisis in several years (circa 2015). This prediction comes from Golitsyn's second book published in 1995, The Perestroika Deception. In it Golitsyn says about China on page 166:

"A campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles. The campaign will come as a surprise to the US Administration. In the ensuing negotiations, the US President of the day will find himself facing a combined pressure from the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese will by then have adopted a `reformed', pseudo-democratic system."

So, according to Golitsyn, the new democratic government to arise in China will be controlled by the Communists from behind the scenes.

If Golitsyn's analysis on China comes to pass then watch Mexico. Contemporaneous with the change in governments in China, the so-called `drug wars' will have spread throughout Mexico. Watch to see who Mexico asks for assistance in combating the `drug wars' there: China!

Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, a bitter power struggle was taking place inside the CIA, between those in favour of detente with the Soviet Union and those who opposed it, with James Angleton, the director of Counterintelligence, a prominent figure among the latter. At the centre of the controversy was the author of this book, a KGB defector who claimed the existence of a communist masterplan, based on the use of disinformation to deceive the West into lowering it's guard.
The principal objections to such a concept are fairly obvious, for example the levels of control and discipline needed to manipulate thousands of people into performing their individual roles in the overall plan, and the problem of keeping the whole operation secret. Nor is it clear what motivated Golitsyn to make these claims. But that does'nt mean we can dismiss them out of hand. Golitsyn's explanations of various different forms and objectives of disinformation are lucid enough to make the reader suspect that, much of the time, he is quoting from KGB documents. This in itself makes the book worth a look. In general he is less successful in his attempts to relate the theory of disinformation to practical and historical example, although I would'nt dispute that Soviet attempts to spread disinformation and propaganda on nuclear issues during the early 1980s were both extensive and well organised.
Page 95 contains the interesting statement that "the identities of secret agents who for one reason or another are reaching the end of their usefulness to the communist side may be given away through a source in whom the communist side is seeking to establish Western confidence". It was of course Golitsyn who finally exposed Angleton's former colleague, Kim Philby, as a Soviet agent.
Not a great book, but an interesting historical document.

This isan excellent prophetic book regarding the subversion of america by the Russians which continues to thisday.

Anybody who believes that Russia is not a authoritarian state is living in a dream world. The name has changed but the power brokers behind the scene remain the same. The fact that Putin, a high ranking KGB agent is in power attests to who really runs Russia today. I wonder if Yeltsin died of natural causes? Do an internet study on Yamantau and explain to me how an impoverish country can afford to build a complex such as this among almost 200 others. The gullible West has pumped billions into Russia to help its economy while Russia continues to upgrade its military and Nuclear capability. Our stupidity is going to cost us dearly. UPDATE: Russia once again has shown its aggressive stance by invading a portion of the souvreign state of Georgia. And the West once again has done nothing to punish this aggression. Also,in 2009, a vast network of Russian spies was exposed operating in the USA. What did Obama do to punish Russia? Nothing. In fact the corrupt Obama Administration guickly sent the spies to Russia without so much as an interogation to determine the damage they had done to US security.

Putin's recent behavior lends credence to this book, however look at what was lost by the Soviets. The entire Warsaw pact is now a part of NATO, including the three Baltic States, which were part of the Soviet Union. The U.S. is very popular in that part of the world. There are U.S. military forces in former Soviet repuplics in the south. Some of these new allies are now getting American military equipment. The former Warsaw pact nations ARE democracies and are becoming culturally and economically integrated with the West. All of the dirty laundry of the Soviet "Potemkin Village" has been exposed to the world. The Iron Curtain is no more. Paul McCarney did a rock concert in Red Square that filled the joint with more people than Stalin ever could. The U.S. still has at least six thousand nuclear warheads (It would only take a few dozen to blow Russia into the middle ages). The Russian army has a tough time controlling Chechnya. Many of its troops were having problems getting paid and feeding their families. The former Soviet Navy is rusting in ports.

The idea that this is all a conspiracy to lull the West to sleep is far fetched. What kind of nuts in the KGB could think that such a series of events would strengthen the position of the former Soviet Union.

It is true that Russia is a threat. It is a quasi fascist hybrid that is becoming more fascist every day and probably will result in a resumption of the Cold war some day, but they will be weaker this time around. This is a natural part of Russian paranoia and their preference for authoritarianism, not a part of some old plot hatched in the Kremlin decades ago.

Conspiracy theories break down because they presume that the conspirators have total control of very complex events. They ignore the fact that "stuff happens" to the best plans of mice and men. The more grandiose the conspiracy, the less likely it is to succeed.

There are certainly conspiracies. But only the smallest ones have a chance to succeed.

Frankly, the real problem is China. Every time we buy something at WalMart or Best Buys or you name it, we are funding the Chinese military industrial complex. What do we buy from Russia except Vodka? "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope"..Vladimir I. Lenin. Intel is building the most advanced micro-electronics plant in the world..in China. China has 1.6 billion people.

The Chinese factor affects Russia too. Siberia, which has vast energy resources and practically no people will be a prime target for the Chinese, as their need for energy increases. That's another example of "Stuff happens."

Golitsyn's conspiracy theory has huge holes and reality is running wild. The conspirators sure got this one wrong.

Back in the late 1980s and early 90s when the Eastern Bloc was liberating itself and the Soviet Union was collapsing, Anatoliy Golitsyn's thesis that perestroika and glasnost were just a communist-orchestrated plot to lull the West into a false sense of security had more than an aura of plausibility, especially to those segments of the Right which saw conspiracies behind every world event. After all, the Soviets were the world's masters of deception and had even attempted something similar in the 1920s with the NEP, which the West responded to with all sorts of favors and aid. It also seemed highly unlikely that the Soviets just woke up one day and decided to give up their goal of world domination. There just had to be something sinister behind the whole thing.

However, 15 long, transformative years have now passed since the end of the Soviet Union. It seems almost impossible that there is some hardline Soviet leadership cabal pulling the strings behind the scenes in the Kremlin, just waiting for the right moment to unfurl the hammer and sickle and re-establish the USSR. Too much water has gone under the bridge for that to happen. The Republics and the satellites are independent, democratic nations. The Russian people are used to capitalism, free speech and multi-party government. The conspiracy theorists make way too much of throwaway stories about Putin's positive comments about some aspects of the USSR, or some Russians' nostalgia for Stalin, etc. Russia may be an imperfect democracy by American standards, but it is a democracy nonetheless and unlikely to change. Golitsyn has been proven wrong, and the conspiracy theorists should accept it and move on. However, I know they'll still be citing this book in the year 2099, awaiting the imminent return of the Soviets, in league with the Jesuits, the Freemasons and the Illuminati.