- Paperback: 420 pages
- Publisher: Gsg & Assoc (January 1, 1990)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0945001088
- ISBN-13: 978-0945001089
- Product Dimensions: 1.5 x 6.5 x 9.8 inches
- Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#392,766 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #493 in Books > Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > Political Ideologies
- #606 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Communism & Socialism
- #4927 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > International & World Politics
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
New Lies for Old
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
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.
"Western acceptance of the changes in the USSR and Eastern Europe [under the `Long-Range Policy', a more subtle strategy to neutralize the West, as signed onto by all Communist nations in 1960] as a trend towards genuine democracy which serves Western interests and therefore merits Western support show how little the West comprehends the essence of the changes and the dangers they entail. In part this non-comprehension arises from confusion over terminology. What the West calls `democratisation', Soviet strategists call the transformation of the `dictatorship of the proletariat' into the `state of the whole people'."
Knowledgeable of limited Soviet strategic planning and operations (intelligence agencies don't tell their intelligence officers everything), KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitisyn presents us with only half of the story, the complete story now clearly apparent thanks to the following observations by this researcher...
The so called `War on Terror' is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending `War on Terror'; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union `From the Atlantic to Vladivostok'; which will (5) see the end of NATO.
Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West `lost' China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers' Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People's Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That's why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren't still in control.
Now you also know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the `alternative' media. When determining whether the `former' USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the `former' USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it's the fate of the West that's at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!
The fraudulent `collapse' of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn't have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the `collapse' was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn't occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan's favorite phrase, "Trust, but verify".
It gets worse--the `freed' Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union's Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of `Perestroika' (1986-1991)!
There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without...
Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.
The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.
The following is a discovery I made in April 2015 regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West...
When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the `collapse' of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists, otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn't have gotten away with the ruse. Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the 'collapse', yet ZERO celebrations after the 'collapse'!
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.