Featured post


Welcome to the homepage of the Stalin Society of North America (SSNA).

stalin-ssna-smallThe SSNA is the result of many months of hard work and many years of hopeful emulation. In London, in 1991, the Stalin Society-UK was formed as an organization whose stated goal was to refute anti- communist and anti-Stalin libels and slanders through rigorous scholarly research and vigorous debate. Over the years, the Stalin Society-UK has contributed a number of very influential and well-received articles dealing with the Stalin Period of Soviet history, and has conducted and sponsored numerous education events, forums, and symposia. The success of the Stalin Society in Britain made many of us on this side of the Atlantic wish that we had a similar organization on these shores.

Well, on March 8, 2014, that became a reality. The Stalin Society of North America held its Founding Congress in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We hope to not only continue in the tradition of our British comrades, but to expand and deepen the work of reclaiming the history that was stolen from us. Our aim is nothing less the overturning of the Cold War anti-communist historical paradigm; and the restoration of history’s original – and correct – verdict of Joseph Stalin as one of the titans of the 20th century and one of the central figures in the history of progressive humankind. But we are not merely a collection of antiquarians and this is not just a historical society. Our mission is consciously and proactively political. To defend Stalin is to defend socialism; to stand up for a better, a more just and humane world. By defaming Stalin, conservative and anti-communist historians and commentators have attempted to demonstrate that no alternative to capitalism is possible, and that attempt to establish such an alternative will fail, monstrously so, in fact.

We say, “no!” We say that a new world is not only possible, but practical, indeed necessary; and we say that the successes and achievements of the world communist movement, and particularly the Stalin era in the USSR are there as proof. Through research, scholarship, and reasoned argument we seek to popularize that proof and reestablish that truth, once shared by millions, that socialism is the road to human progress, fulfillment, and freedom.

The SSNA is, and likely will always be, a work in progress. We will constantly expand and broaden our work. So, please come and visit us often. We hope, through the dissemination of printed information, educational events, and visual and audio media to serve as a virtual Stalin library and museum. There is much here already; but much more will always be arriving.

Our doors are open. Come on in!

Alfonso Casal
Chairperson, The Stalin Society of North America

Trotsky’s Lies and What they Mean

Grover Furr
All rights reserved to the author.
The personality and the writings of Leon Trotsky have long been a rallying point for anticommunists throughout the world. But during the 1930s Trotsky deliberately lied in his writings about Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. My new book, Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’, discusses some of Trotsky’s lies that have fooled people, and demoralized honest communists, for decades.


In January 1980 the Trotsky Archive at Harvard University was opened to researchers. Within a few days Pierre Broué, the foremost Trotskyist historian of his time, discovered that Trotsky had lied. Trotsky had always denied that any clandestine “bloc of oppositionists” including Trotskyists, existed in the Soviet Union. Trotsky called this an “amalgam,” meaning a fabrication by Stalin. This “bloc” was the main focus of the second and third Moscow Trials of January 1937 and March 1938. Broué showed, from letters in the Trotsky Archive by Trotsky and by his son Leon Sedov, that the bloc did exist.


In 1985 American historian Arch Getty discovered that the Harvard Trotsky Archive had been purged of incriminating materials, but purged imperfectly. Getty also found evidence that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with some of his former supporters inside the Soviet Union. Trotsky always strenuously denied this, claiming that he cut off all ties to those who “capitulated” to Stalin and publicly renounced their Trotskyist views. Again, Trotsky was lying. In 2010 Swedish researcher Sven-Eric Holmström published an article on the “Hotel Bristol” question in the First Moscow Trial of August 1936. In it Holmström proves that Trotsky was lying here too.


In 2005 I began to systematically study all the accusations against Stalin and Beria that Nikita Khrushchev made in his infamous “Secret Speech.” I discovered that not a single one of Khrushchev’s so-called “revelations” can be supported from the evidence. But during the 1930s Trotsky had made the same kind of accusations against Stalin that Khrushchev later did. The fact that Khrushchev did nothing but lie suggested that Trotsky might have lied as well. Thanks to Broué and Getty I already knew that Trotsky had lied about some very important matters. Any detective, in any mystery story, knows that if a suspect has lied about some important matters, he should ask himself: What else is this person lying about?


I set about studying his writings in order to determine which of Trotsky’s statements could be tested. Wherever I had independent evidence to check the veracity of any accusation that Trotsky levelled against Stalin, I found that Trotsky was lying — again. Today I have so much evidence that even a whole book does not come close to holding it all. So there will be two more volumes concerning Trotsky’s lies. The second volume will be published in early 2017.

Between September 2010 and January 2013 I researched and wrote a book on the assassination on December 1, 1934 of Sergei Mironovich Kirov, First Secretary of the Leningrad Party. That book, The Murder of Sergei Kirov, was published in June 2013. The Kirov murder is the key to the Soviet high politics of the rest of the 1930s: the three public Moscow Trials of August 1936, January 1937, and March 1938, often called “Show Trials;” the Military Purge or “Tukhachevsky Affair” of May and June 1937; and the Ezhovshchina of July 1937 to October 1938, which anticommunist scholars call the “Great Terror,” after a dishonest book by Robert Conquest.


Trotsky too wrote about the Kirov murder investigation. He identified the articles in the French communist and Soviet press that he read. I discovered that Trotsky lied about what these articles on the Kirov murder investigation said. Trotsky fabricated a story that Stalin and his men were responsible for Kirov’s death. Once again, Trotsky lied about what the articles he read in the French communist newspaper Humanité and in Russian-language Soviet papers, to which Trotsky had access within only a couple of days of their publication in Moscow.


Trotsky’s lies would have been immediately apparent to anybody who set Trotsky’s articles side by side with the French and Russian newspaper articles that he had read and which he claimed he was closely studying and analyzing. It appears that no one ever did that – until now. The result was that Trotsky’s falsified version of the Kirov assassination – that Stalin and the NKVD had killed Kirov – was taken up not only by Trotsky’s followers, but by Nikita Khrushchev.


In his completely fraudulent “Secret Speech” Khrushchev gave additional credibility to the “Stalin killed Kirov” story. Khrushchev and his speechwriters probably took this directly from Trotsky. Trotsky’s tale that “Stalin had Kirov killed” passed from Khrushchev to the professional anticommunist scholar-propagandists like Robert Conquest and many others. In the late 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev’s men tried and failed to find evidence in the Soviet archives to support this story.


Aleksandr Iakovlev, Gorbachev’s chief man for ideology, sent them back to the archives to try again. Once again, the Politburo research team filed to find any evidence to even suggest that Stalin had had Kirov killed. The history of the “Stalin had Kirov killed” fabrication is a good example of how a number of Trotsky’s deliberate lies were taken up by Soviet anticommunists like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, and by pro-capitalist anticommunists in the West. In my new book Trotsky’s “Amalgams” I uncover and discuss a number of other deliberate lies by Trotsky about Stalin and the USSR. All of them have been adopted by anticommunists and by Trotskyists. In the second and third volumes of this work I will discuss Trotsky’s conspiracies with saboteurs and fascists inside the USSR, and with the Nazis and the Japanese militarists.


In early 1937 Trotsky succeeded in persuading John Dewey, the famous educator, and a number of others, to hold hearings, supposedly to determine whether the charges leveled against Trotsky in the August 1936 and January 1937 Moscow Show Trials were true. The Commission duly concluded that Trotsky was innocent and the Moscow Trials were all a frame-up. I carefully studied the 1,000 pages of the Dewey Commission materials. I discovered that the Commission was dishonest and shockingly incompetent. It made error after error in logical reasoning. Of most interest is the fact that Trotsky lied to the Dewey Commission many times. The Dewey Commission could not possibly have declared Trotsky “Not Guilty” if the Commission members had known that Trotsky was lying to them. I wish to briefly mention two more sections of my book. They are: my project to verify – that is, to check — the Moscow Trials testimony; and my examination of the errors that most readers of Soviet history make, errors which make them unable to understand the significance of the evidence we now have.


The testimony of the defendants in the three public Moscow Trials is universally declared to be false, forced from innocent men by the prosecution, the NKVD, “Stalin.” There has never been a shred of evidence to support this notion. Nevertheless, it is staunchly affirmed by ALL specialists in Soviet history, as well as by all Trotskyists. Thanks to years of identifying, searching for, locating, obtaining, and studying primary sources, I realized that there now exists enough evidence to test many of the statements made by the Moscow Trials defendants. I devote the first twelve chapters of Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ to a careful verification of many of the statements by the Moscow Trials defendants. I found that, whenever we can double-check a fact-claim made by a Moscow Trials defendant against independent evidence now available, it turns out that the Moscow Trials defendant was telling the truth. Trotsky, Khrushchev and his men, Cold-War Soviet “experts,”


Gorbachev and his men, and today’s academic scholars in Soviet studies, all claimed or claim that the Trials are frame-ups. I prove from the evidence that they are wrong. The Moscow Trials testimony is what it claims to be: statements that the defendants chose to make. I verify this with a great deal of evidence from outside the Trials themselves and even outside the Soviet Union. This is an important conclusion. This result in itself disproves the “anti-Stalin paradigm” of Soviet history. It also contributes to disproving Trotsky’s version of Soviet history, a version that the Trotskyist movement worldwide continues to believe and to propagate today. Those of us — researchers, activists, and others — who wish to find the truth about Soviet history of the Stalin period, and not merely attempt to confirm our preconceived ideas about it – we are in possession of a number of results that completely overturn the convention anti-Stalin paradigm of Soviet history. These include the following:


* the fact that Nikita Khrushchev lied about every accusation he made against Stalin (and Lavrentii Beria) in his world-shaking “Secret Speech” to the XX Party Congress of the CPSU in February 1956. This clearly means that Khrushchev’s researchers could not find any true “crimes” that Stalin – or Beria – had committed, and so were reduced to fabrication.


* the fact that, despite a very thorough and time-consuming search of the archives in 1962-1964, Khrushchev’s “Shvernik Commission” could find no evidence at all to suggest that either the Moscow Trials defendants or the “Tukhachevsky Affair” defendants were victims of a “frame-up” or had lied in their confessions in any way.


* the fact that neither Gorbachev’s and Eltsin’s researchers, nor the anticommunist researchers since that time, who have had wide access to the former Soviet archives, have been able to find any evidence at all to challenge the conclusions in the Kirov Assassination, the Moscow Trials, or the Military Purges.


* the fact that the testimony at the Moscow Trials was, in the main, truthful.


* the fact that Ezhov and Ezhov alone, not Stalin and his supporters in the Soviet leadership, were responsible for the mass murders of July 1938 to November 1939 known to scholars as the “Ezhovshchina” and to anticommunist propagandists as “the Great Terror.”


* the fact that, in his writings about the USSR during the period after the Kirov murder, Trotsky lied repeatedly in order to cover up his conspiracies.


* the fact that most of today’s scholars of the Stalin period in the USSR lie in order to deceive their readers. But they do so in a way that can only be discovered by a very close, detailed study of their sources.


Trotskyist scholarship is consistently parasitical on mainstream anticommunist scholarship. Here is one example. In a recent review on the Trotskyist, and ferociously anti-Stalin World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org) of Princeton University historian Stephen Kotkin’s book Stalin, a Trotskyist reviewer refers approvingly to the anti-Stalin statements of Oleg Khlevniuk, who is called the respected Russian historian Oleg Khlevniuk. – https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/04/kot4-j04.html 


Khlevniuk is a fanatical anticommunist and also a very blatant liar, in all his writings. Khlevniuk is anti-Stalin; WSWS.ORG, the Trotskyist publication, is anti-Stalin; therefore the Trotskyists “trust” the foremost anticommunist liar in the world today! Meanwhile, mainstream anticommunist scholarship has been drawing upon the writings of Trotsky himself for decades. Trotsky, of course, knew that he was lying:


* about the “bloc of Rights, Trotskyists, Zinovievites, and other Oppositionists;”


* about his own involvement in the assassination of Sergei Kirov in December 1934;


* about his conspiring with the “Tukhachevsky Affair” military conspirators for a coup d’état against the Stalin government and to stab the Red Army in the back during an invasion by Germany or Japan;


* about his conspiring with the Nazis and the Japanese militarists;


* about conspiring with fascists and his own followers within the USSR to sabotage industry, transportation, and mines.


* about the charges against, and the confessions by, the defendants in the Moscow trials, which Trotsky knew were true.


Trotsky knew that he lied, repeatedly, over and over again, in his Bulletin of the Opposition. Trotsky knew that he repeated these lies to the Dewey Commission.


The Spanish Civil War 


And Trotsky knew that he lied to his own followers, including his closest followers like Andres Nin, Erwin Wolf, and Kurt Landau. Nin had been one of Trotsky’s closest political assistants. Nin is supposed to have broken with Trotsky in 1931. But in 1930 Nin wrote, in a Trotskyist journal, that Trotsky’s Soviet-based followers who had retracted their Trotskyist views and pledged loyalty to the Communist Party’s line, had done so dishonestly. They had done so in order to remain within the Party so they could continue to recruit others to their secret conspiracies. Therefore, though Nin openly broke with the Trotskyist movement in an organizational sense, his actions in Spain suggest that this was a cover for maintaining a secret connection with Trotsky.


The Spanish communists and the Soviet NKVD in Spain suspected this too. Nin became one of the leaders of the POUM, an anti-Soviet and antiStalin party that was very friendly to Trotsky. Erwin Wolf went to Spain as Trotsky’s political representative. He did so in order to lead a “revolution” against the Spanish Republic – right in the middle of a war with the Spanish fascists, who were aided by Hitler and Mussolini. Nin and Wolf ran these risks because they believed that Trotsky was innocent of the charges that were made against him in the Moscow Trials. They thought that Trotsky, not Stalin, was the true communist and true revolutionary. Consequently, they thought that they were going to Spain to do what Lenin would have wanted done.


In May 1937 a revolt against the Spanish Republican government broke out in Barcelona. POUM and the Spanish Trotskyists enthusiastically participated in this revolt. It appears that Nin, Wolf, and Landau thought this might be the beginning of a Bolshevik-style revolution, with themselves as Lenin, the POUM as the Bolsheviks, the Republican government as the capitalists, and the Spanish and Soviet communists as the phony socialists like Alexander Kerensky! The “Barcelona May Days Revolt,” was a vicious stab in the back against the Republic during wartime. It was suppressed in less than a week. After that, the Spanish police and Soviet NKVD hunted down the Trotskyists and the POUM leadership. Andres Nin was certainly kidnapped, interrogated, and then murdered by the Soviets and Spanish police. The same thing probably happened to Landau and Wolf.


The Soviets knew then what we know today: that Trotsky was conspiring with the Germans, the Japanese, and the “Tukhachevsky Affair’ military men. But Nin and Wolf certainly did not know this. They believed Trotsky’s professions of innocence. If Andres Nin, Erwin Wolf, and Kurt Landau had known what Trotsky knew, and what we now know, would they have gone to Spain to try to carry out Trotsky’s instructions? Impossible! Therefore, Trotsky sent these men into an extremely dangerous situation by means of lying to them about his own activities and aims, and about what Stalin was doing. And it cost them their lives. The same is true for all the Trotskyists who were executed in the Soviet Union itself. Evidently, there were hundreds of them. They all supported Trotsky because they believed his version of Soviet history, and had been convinced by Trotsky’s writings that Stalin was lying, that the Moscow Trials were a frame-up, and that the Stalin regime had abandoned the goal of worldwide socialist revolution. These men and women would not have followed Trotsky if he had not lied to them.


In the first chapter of Trotsky’s “Amalgams” I examine the errors that most students of Soviet history, including academic professionals, make when faced with primary source evidence. The truth is that very few people, including professional historians, know how to examine historical evidence. Very few Marxists know what a materialist examination of evidence looks like, or are capable of recognizing or critiquing an idealist argument when they are confronted with one. These errors are not only errors of “denial” by persons who do not wish to have their proTrotsky or anti-Stalin preconceptions disproven. Most or all of these same errors are made by pro-Stalin, anti-revisionist people. Anticommunist arguments have been so overwhelming, not only in Cold War pro-capitalist form but especially in supposedly procommunist but in reality anticommunist Khrushchev- and Gorbachev-era writings, that it has degraded the thinking of all of us.


The lies of Trotsky’s that Pierre Broué and Arch Getty discovered 30 years ago have been ignored. This fact itself deserves explanation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Broué continued to find, and write about, more lies by Trotsky. But all the while he continued to deny that these lies were of any importance. Broué also ignored Getty’s two discoveries. First, that the Trotsky Archive had been “purged” of incriminating materials. Second, that Trotsky had indeed remained in contact with oppositionists like Radek with whom he swore he had broken all ties. Vadim Rogovin, the leading Trotskyist historian of the Stalin-era Soviet Union, went along with Broué’s cover-up and also introduced some lies of his own. Trotskyists and Cold Warriors continue either to ignore Broué’s discoveries altogether or to echo Broué’s claim that these lies were of little significance. We can understand why they do this.


The fact that Trotsky lied dismantles what I call the “anti-Stalin paradigm”: the Trotskyist and the Cold War anticommunist versions of Soviet history. Trotsky, of course, had to lie. He was running a serious conspiracy to get rid of Stalin, in conjunction with many supporters inside the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik Party and in collusion with Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, England and France. A conspiracy requires secrecy and lying. But who, above all, was Trotsky fooling? Not Stalin and the Soviet government. They knew he was lying. The conclusion is inescapable: Trotsky was lying in order to fool his own supporters! They were the only people who believed whatever Trotsky wrote.


They believed Trotsky was the true, principled Leninist that he claimed to be, and that Stalin was the liar. This cost the lives of most of his supporters inside the Soviet Union, when Trotskyism was outlawed as treason to the Soviet state because of Trotsky’s conspiracy with Germany and Japan. It has led Trotsky’s followers outside the Soviet Union to spend their lives in cult-like devotion to a man who was, in fact, doing just what the Soviet prosecutor and the Moscow Trials defendants claimed he was doing.


The figure of Leon Trotsky casts a giant shadow over the history of the Soviet Union, and therefore over the history of the world in the 20th century. Trotsky was the most significant – in fact, the only outstanding – Opposition figure in the factional disputes that shook the Bolshevik Party during the 1920s. It was during the 20s that Trotsky attracted to himself the group of persons who formed the United Opposition and whose conspiracies did so much irreparable harm to the Party, the Comintern, and the world communist movement.




What does the fact that Trotsky lied, that Khrushchev lied, and that these facts were ignored for so long, mean?


What does it mean for the main question that faces us, and billions of working people in the world, today? I mean the question of why the wonderful international communist movement of the 20th century collapsed, the movement that 70 years ago, triumphant in World War 2, in the Chinese communist revolution, in the anti-colonial movements around the world, seemed to be poised to bring about an end to capitalism and the victory of world socialism?


How do we convince workers, students, and others that we know why the old communist movement failed and that we have learned what we have to do differently to avoid repeating those failures in the future? We must study this question. We also need to discuss it – to entertain and debate different, informed viewpoints.


Therefore we have to defend the legacy of the international communist movement during Lenin’s and, especially, during Stalin’s time. At the same time we must be fearlessly critical of it, so we discover what errors they made and so not make the same errors again. In my judgment – and I hope that it is yours as well – discovering the reasons for the collapse of the magnificent international communist movement of the 20th century is the most important historical and theoretical question for all exploited people today, the vast majority of humankind. To have any hope of solving it, we must think boldly, “go where no one has gone before.” If we pretend that “Marx and Engels had all the answers,” or “Lenin had all the answers” (many Trotskyists, of course, believe that “Trotsky had all the answers”) — if we believe that, then we are guaranteed, AT BEST, to fall far short of what they achieved. Marx said that great historical events occur twice “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”


The tragedy of the international communist movement of the 20th century was that, ultimately, it failed. Unless we figure out where they went wrong then we are doomed to be the “farce.” And that would be a political crime — OUR crime. So we have to look with a critical eye at ALL of our legacy. Marx’s favorite saying was: “De omnibus dubitandum” — “Question everything.” Marx would be the last person in the world to exclude himself from this questioning.


History can’t teach lessons directly. And history isn’t political theory. But if we ask the right questions, history can help us answer them. Meanwhile, we should all publicize everywhere and in every way we can that, like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, Trotsky lied – provably, demonstrably lied – and, what’s more, that all the anti-Stalin, anticommunist “experts” anointed by capitalist universities and research institutes are lying too.


We need to point out that the only way forward is to build a new communist movement to get rid of capitalism. And that to do that, we need to learn from the heroic successes, as well as from the tragic errors, of the Bolsheviks during the period when the Soviet Union was led by Joseph Stalin. My hope and my goal is to contribute, through my research, to this project which is so vital for the future of working people everywhere. Thank you.


* Professor, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043 USA. The above is a Presentation at the 7th World Socialism Forum, World Socialism Research Center, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), October 22, 2016.

The remorse of a dissident: Alexander Zinoviev on Stalin and the dissolution of the USSR

All rights reserved to the author.
Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) was a Russian philosopher, sociologist, mathematician and writer. He is an extraordinary case of a dissident in the Soviet Union who later apologized for his anti-sovietism and anti-stalinism. In his youth, in 1939, he was arrested for allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate Joseph Stalin. As a head and professor of the Logic Department at Moscow State University, Zinoviev acquired a dissident reputation. In 1978 he left the Soviet Union – he lived in Western Europe until 1999.
Having the opportunity to live both the socialist system in the USSR and Western Europe’s capitalism, Zinoviev made a u-turn in his thoughts after the counterrevolutionary events in the Soviet Union (1989-1991). He profoundly regreted for his previous anti-soviet stance and even asked from the Russian people to forgive him for that.
He wrote in one of his books:

“…communism was so organic for Russia and had so powerfully entered the way of life and psychology of Russians that the destruction of communism was equivalent to the destruction of Russia and of the Russian people as a historic people. […] In a word, they [Western cold warriors] aimed at communism but killed Russia”. (Alexander Zinoviev, Russkaya tragediya (originally published in 2002), in AZ, Nesostoyavshiisya proekt, Moscow: Astrel’ 2009, p.409).
In an interview, in 2005, he said that his arrest in 1939 was justifiable, as long as he was member of a plot aimed at Stalin’s assassination. As for Joseph Stalin- whom he hated for most of his life- he said in 1993:
“I consider him one of the greatest persons in the history of mankind. In the history of Russia he was, in my opinion, even greater than Lenin. Until Stalin’s death I was anti-Stalinist, but I always regarded him as a brilliant personality.” (Знаменитости). 
* * * 
Regarding his anti-stalinism and his arrest for plotting Stalin’s assassination Alexander Zinoviev said:
I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen …. The idea of killing Stalin filled my thougths and feelings …. We studied the ‘technical’ possibillities of an attack …. We even practiced. If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasn’t that a crime? When Stalin was still alive, I saw things differently, but as I look back over this century, I can state that Stalin was the greatest individual of this century, the greatest political genius. To adopt a scientific attitude about someone is quite different from one’s personal attitude.”
Zinoviev was not a communist or a Marxist-Leninist. However, after the overthrow of Socialism in the USSR, he became a staunch supporter of the socialist system’s achievements. He recognized that, despite its problems and inefficiences, the socialist system was much more humane than capitalism barbarity.
Here are some interesting remarks from his interview in the french Figaro Magazine (1999):
Question: So the fight with communism was a conspiracy to destroy Russia?
ZINOVIEV: Precisely. I say this because once I was an unwitting accomplice of this action that I found shameful. The West wanted and programmed the Russian catastrophe. I read documents and participated in the research, which under the guise of ideological struggle worked towards the destruction of Russia. This became so unbearable for me that I could no longer stay in the camp of those who destroy my people and my country. The West is not a stranger to me, but I consider it an enemy empire.
* * * 
“After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, a massive attack on the social rights of citizens was launched in the West. Today the socialists who are in power in most European countries are pursuing policies of dismantling the social security system, destroying everything that was socialist in the capitalist countries. There is no longer a political force in the West capable of protecting ordinary citizens. The existence of political parties is a mere formality. They will differ less and less as time goes on. The war in the Balkans was anything but democratic. Nevertheless, the war was perpetrated by the socialists who historically have been against these kinds of ventures. Environmentalists, who are in power in some countries, welcomed the environmental catastrophe caused by the NATO bombings. They even dared to claim that bombs containing depleted uranium are not dangerous for the environment, even though soldiers loading them wear special protective overalls. Thus, democracy is gradually disappearing from the social structure of the West. Totalitarianism is spreading everywhere because the supranational structure imposes its laws on individual states. This undemocratic superstructure gives orders, imposes sanctions, organizes embargos, drops bombs, causes hunger. Even Clinton obeys it. Financial totalitarianism has subjugated political power. Emotions and compassion are alien to cold financial totalitarianism. Compared with financial dictatorship, political dictatorship is humane. Resistance was possible inside the most brutal dictatorships. Rebellion against banks is impossible.”
* * * 
A western citizen is being brainwashed much more than a soviet citizen ever was during the era of communist propaganda. In ideology, the main thing is not the ideas, but rather the mechanisms of their distribution. The might of the Western media, for example, is incomparably greater than that of the propaganda mechanisms of the Vatican when it was at the zenith of its power. And it is not only the cinema, literature, philosophy – all the levers of influence and mechanisms used in the promulgation of culture, in its broadest sense, work in this direction. At the slightest impulse all who work in this area respond with such consistency that it is hard not to think that all orders come from a single source of power”.
* * * 
“In the Soviet Union 10 to 12% of the active population worked in the country‘s management and administration field. In the US this number is 16 to 20%. However the USSR was criticized for its planned economy and the burden of bureaucratic apparatus. Two thousand people worked in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Communist Party apparatus reached 150 thousand workers. Today in the West you will find dozens, even hundreds of enterprises in industrial and banking sectors employing more people. The bureaucratic apparatus of the Soviet Communist Party was negligibly small compared with the staff of large transnational corporations of the West”.

Prof. Grover Furr to Speak on “Yezhov vs. Stalin”

Professor Grover Furr will talk about his new book, Yezhov vs. Stalin: The Truth About Mass Repressions and the So-Called “Great Terror” in the USSR, at Rutgers University on March 30th at 8:00 pm in Scott Hall Room 221,

Event sponsored by the Rutgers All Marxist-Leninist Union, and endorsed by the American Party of Labor, and the Stalin Society of North America.


The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels

In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russian history professor Elena Sinyavskaya in a discussion with Alexey Ovchinnikov disputes the factual provenance of the Red Army rape of Germany.

All rights reserved to the author.

In recent years, Victory Day has unfortunately acquired a not very pleasant tradition: the closer the holiday comes, the more do all sorts of “researchers” begin to broadcast the myth of “raped Germany.”

In this way, over the years the number of German maidens, allegedly victims of the Red Army, simply grows. But for whom is it necessary that the Russian soldier remain in the national memory not as a liberator and protector, but as a rapist and a robber? This is something that we have talked about to a leading researcher at the Institute of Russian History, the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Elena Sinyavskaya.

“The Nazis intimidated people to the point that they committed suicide”

Elena Spartakovna, is all this the result of restructuring? Those years generated a lot of rubbish …

Not really. This nasty story began much earlier, with Goebbels’ propaganda, when it was announced to the population that the Red Army was brutally raping all German women between the ages of 8 to 80 years. And the people were really intimidated to the limit, to the extent that Nazi party activists firstly killed their families and then themselves.

So why was such an Image necessary?

Firstly, to increase resistance against the advancing Red Army, and secondly, so that the population would leave the lost territories and could be of no assistance to the Soviet armed forces.

Goebbels’ line was then continued in the same year of 1945 by the allies, when the first publications appeared in which it was attempted to represent the Red Army as an army of looters and rapists and with absolutely nothing said about the outrages that were happening in the western zone of occupation. With the start of the “cold war” the theme was exaggerated, but not so aggressively and massively as has begun to occur in the last twenty years. The numbers “raped” were initially modest: from 20,000 to 150,000 in Germany. But in 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Germany there was published a book by two feminists, Helga Zander and Barbara Jor, “The Liberators and Liberated,” where for the first time a figure of 2 million was arrived at. Moreover, it was derived from a completely flawed premise: statistical data for 1945-1946 were collected in a Berlin hospital in which there were born somewhere around 500 children per year and approximately 15-20 people were listed under “nationality of father” as “Russian”. Moreover, two or three such cases were classified as “raped”. What did these “researchers” do? They arrived at the conclusion that all the cases where the father was Russian were the result of being raped. Then Goebbel’s formula from “8 to 80” was simply factored in. However, the mass distribution of this figure took place in 2002 with the publication of Anthony Beevor’s book “The Fall of Berlin”, which was published here in 2004, and the mythical figure of “2 million” was then taken out for a stroll by the Western mass media on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Victory.

The Germans are tired of repenting

One can understand those who went on about this topic during the “cold war” years, but then the Berlin Wall fell and, according to Gorbachev, there was established “peace and friendship” …

The geopolitical realities have changed. On the one hand there have been attempts to revise the results of World War II, plus the desire to remove the Soviet Union (and Russia as its legal successor) from the victorious side and all the good that is associated with it. This was one of the steps that led to the fact that in a number of decisions of the European institutions, including the European Parliament, was the equating of Stalinism with Nazism, where the aggressor and victim have been placed on the same footing, shifting the question of guilt and responsibility and forcing us to repent for something that was not.

Does it appear that these “researchers” have not written these essays themselves but have been commissioned by those who have been creating this new geoploitic? ..

Of course. The second reason is that the myth is pleasing to the West – to the psychology of the German people, who are tired of feeling guilty. There we hear the present generation already saying: “Well, why do we have to repent for our forefathers’ sin?” With them there has already arisen a wave of feeling that with the formation of a national consciousness is trying to assert the idea that their ancestors were not that guilty; that there isn’t a collective German responsibility … This is where the geopolitical order merges with the sentiments of the masses.

Leave aside revenge!

And what actually happened to these raped people?

We cannot say that such things did not happen. There were rapes, but not on the scale about which they are now lying today. In documents such facts as “extra-ordinary happenings and immoral events” are considered. The country’s leadership and high command believed that it just wasn’t simply a case of creating a bad image for the Red Army, it also undermined discipline. And they fought against this with all available means, starting with party-political work, explanations, and finally ending with tribunal sentences, up to and including the shooting of looters and rapists.

Are there statistics?

Unfortunately, not all documents have been declassified, but from those that have been, we are able to calculate the scale of the phenomenon. Here is a report from the military prosecutor of the 1st Belorussian Front concerning unlawful acts against the civilian population during the period from 22 April to 5 May 1945. The seven armies of the front consisted of 908,500 personnel and 124 crimes were recorded, including 72 of rape. Only 72 cases per 908,500 …

Your opponents have written that a wave of rapes occurred before the capture of Berlin …

On April 20 there were directives concerning a change in attitude towards the German civilian population and prisoners of war. So here we have our opponents focusing on the fact that the order had come too late, that during the whole period of the winter and early spring of ’45 the Red Army rioted with impunity. This is not true. Because in addition to this order and subsequent directives, there were orders at front, army and individual unit level that were issued before the Red Army entered the territory of other states. Pamphlets were distributed that told the history of a country, its culture and local traditions. In January of ’45, orders were given to Konev, Rokossovsky and Zhukov, saying that they had to control any feelings of direct revenge [that those under their command had] and to prevent any incidents that would be interpreted as negative.

And how was this perceived by the soldiers? After all, many had lost loved ones at home; a feeling of revenge had been engendered amongst them. Remember Ilya Ehrenburg and his “Kill the Germans!” And then they came to the lair [of the beast] and all of a sudden were told to “put aside revenge” …

Of course, many were not happy with these explanations as regards this new attitude towards revenge. In reports from commissars there are recorded conversations between soldiers who resented these orders: “First they say one thing, then another and why we should feel sorry for those Germans as if they had behaved well on our territory” … But tough disciplinary measures on the one hand, and the Russian love of children on the other (even the Germans recognized that our soldiers were very nice with German children and fed them not only from central food stores but also from their own rations, sometimes giving them all that they had) prevented acts of revenge from happening. But the main thing, which was emphasized at all levels, was that in their actions “we should not be like the Germans”.

The historian Yuri Zhukov has argued that rape and other crimes were mostly committed not by soldiers of the Red Army but by former Red Army soldiers just liberated from concentration camps and by civilians who had been deported to Germany …

Yes, while awaiting repatriation they were not under any control or command, and they generally were quite a motley crowd of repatriates. They formed gangs and started robbing locals in order to make up for the humiliations they had suffered, and as this happened in the area of responsibility of the Soviet troops, all of this was blamed on our soldiers. There is other evidence of allies liberated from the camps, who were engaged in looting in Berlin, stuffing old cars with junk and being told as they were exiting the city to take it back to where they had got it. Another point: in the same reports from military prosecutors it is often stated that there are cases stipulated in which an alleged rape was not confirmed, where the commanders had to punish the innocent. There is a very interesting diary left by Australian correspondent Osmar White, who accompanied the American army, and visited all the zones of occupation. He did not feel much sympathy for us, but claimed that the Red Army, in contrast to the allies, was very disciplined; that the Soviet administration was very effective not only in its acts to combat crime, but also in the field of urban regeneration and the provision of the necessities of life; and all the horrors that they tell of our soldiers were, on the one hand, rumours and gossip, and that, on the other, these crimes were mostly committed by those who were awaiting repatriation.

The Germans fled from the Anglo-Americans to the Russians

And how did women in those territories relate to our soldiers?

Oh, a whole dissertation could be written about that topic. First of all, there was a colossal difference in mentalities. All of these tales that soldiers, especially those from rural areas, had been de-Christianized and were lascivious by definition are nonsense. On the contrary, most of them had been brought up in a patriarchal tradition; that Hungarians and Austrians routinely had numerous sexual relations before marriage was for them simply animal-like behaviour. From a Russian soldier’s understanding, what kind of woman does that? I shall not say, because that would imply a certain aversion to such women. Commanders were in a state of shock. There are lots of documented reports of groups of women who, led by their “Madame”, immediately offered their sexual services as soon as contact was made with a village. In all such cases, the reaction of our officers was angry and abusive. In addition, it was often revealed that the Nazis specifically allowed a certain number of women infected with venereal disease to cause soldiers to be incapacitated. Is this part and parcel of “raped Germany” as well?
In Romania and Hungary our soldiers visited brothels, but, as a rule, not very many: they went out of curiosity, and then later there were unpleasant feelings and a sense of disgust and confusion. The very idea of buying another person did not fit in the head of the Soviet man.

Do not forget that there existed the very common phenomenon of military prostitution. There have been preserved diaries of German women, where they philosophically argue that prostitution is quite a respectable profession. It was very common, especially in the western zone of occupation, where the Germans, by the way, were very scantily supplied with food (as opposed to the Soviet zone, where children up to 8 years of age were even given even milk). The German daily ration was less than an American breakfast. Naturally, the women were forced to earn a living in the well known manner. In this type of rape there were more than enough cases. And if the Germans make claims of violence, it is not directed towards us but against the Allies, from whom the Germans had fled en masse in terror into the Soviet occupation zone.

And how, by the way, did U.S. commanders react to the crimes of their subordinates?

They often chose not to pay any attention to them. The diaries of the same Osmar White said that crimes against German women were widespread and that they were in no way brought to a halt by the American commanders; that if any kind of reaction did take place, then this happened only in respect of the Negro rapists.


Yes. In the minds of U.S. commanders, Negros dared not raise a hand against a white woman; if they did, they would be treated in the customary way back in the USA. It was different for French troops. In the U.S. Senate after the war there was described the behaviour of native [African] French forces, the Senegalese, in Stuttgart. Cited figures say that within one to two days there were about three thousand raped in the Stuttgart underground alone. To this very day the Italians claim that the Anglo-American military were responsible for the atrocities that took place on Italian territory and committed by Moroccans. These men raped not only women, but also young men …

Trophies – bolts of fabric and needles

We are also accused of looting. Those trophies, by the way: where did they come from?

This is very interesting. There are complete documents stating that it was chiefly the Anglo-Americans who were engaged in looting and according to a thoroughgoing programme as well: possessions were loaded onto ships, and gradually they began to cause bottlenecks in ports. Basically, they were collecting an assortment of things of various value. As for the Red Army, there was such a thing as “baraholstvo” [odds and ends].

What’s that?

It wasn’t a question of robbery, but the collection of abandoned property in abeyance: open houses, smashed shops, abandoned suitcases … even when they were fighting and during a lull in the combat. At certain times their commanding officers let them send parcels back homes. But they didn’t send back diamond encrusted watches, but what was necessary in a war-ravaged economy: valued sets of sewing needles – they could be bartered for a good selection of food products; bolts of cloth, because there was no clothing left back home; many sent back tools: hammers, pliers, planes: the front line troops knew that they would soon be back home and would need something to rebuild burnt down villages with. You cannot point an accusing finger at them for doing that. In all the letters enclosed with the parcels, the soldiers try to justify themselves in front of their wives and relatives for taking these rags and junk. They were very disgusted with themselves for doing this …

By the way, do you remember the famous photo taken of the Reichstag being discussed on the Internet recently, where on one of the officer’s wrists there are two watches?

I have had that picture for a while now. They’re actually a watch and a compass that I believe a commanding officer wears. And do you remember the photo, where a Soviet soldier is robbing a Berliner of her bike and how the Web Liberals were screaming about the looting? But what was shown was a soldier confiscating a bicycle needed by the army. Do you see the difference in the way this action is looked at?

History is blackened free of charge

By the way, about our home-grown liberals: have they some interest in lying about their forebears?

In fact, there are people who are fully aware of what they are doing. Let’s just say that there is a price, though we are not necessarily talking about a financial reward. There are other means of encouragement: a trip abroad, grants, citizenship … But there is a large stratum of Internet professionals who mindlessly repeat a lie behind the first group. Their minds are so muddled that they are willing to believe any nonsense.

And it’s not only the network hamsters that are involved in this, but intellectuals as well. Here is a lecturer from the North Caucasus Federal University, Pavel Polyan, speaking on the air from a very liberal radio station, after having been asked about the fate some of our women who had had intimate relationships with the occupiers. He says: “There has been rape, but it was not a massive wave of rape. In any case, it is not commensurate with the mass rapes, which the Red Army undertook when entering Germany … ” By the way, is there a lot of disagreement between Russian historians on this issue?

I should not want to focus on specific colleagues. There are historians of the professional community, and there are people who have positioned themselves as such: we call them “folk-history” and they are amateurs trying to impose their views on the public. So, amongst the professionals there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject and there cannot be…

“This is an attempt to deprive the people of their history”

It’s bad enough that this image of a drunken and rapacious Russian soldier appears in Western movies, but we do the same thing in our own films!

This hasn’t just begun now. Remember how many of those films there were after the collapse of the Union. And the first picture that showed the war not from the point of name-calling, but from a patriotic point of view, came only in 2002, “Zvezda” [The Star]. All that came before was full of myths about Stalin’s tyranny, the “bloody” NKVD, SMERSH, the Special Department of which, it appears, only did shootings of good officers in the back and terrorized the troops. And we were fed the idea that victory came despite our leadership, and in a number of films you could sense the hidden suggestion that perhaps we might not really have won …

What was the reason for this?

The Great Patriotic War [in the West: The Russo-Soviet War 1941-1945, the Eastern Front (Europe) of World War II – trans. ME] is still in our history; it is that episode that unites the people, and not just ours, but the other nations of the former Soviet Union. And when on May 9 they try to erase it from memory or to tarnish it, the aim of this is quite obvious: it is an attempt to deprive the people of their history, and to show that we have no past to be proud of. If the majority of the population can see this, then such people will have no future. Understanding the history of the Great Patriotic War has long turned into a major field of the information battle.

Are we losing this battle?

In general, yes.

Why does not one historian oppose these attacks on our history? Doesn’t the state talk about the need to protect history from falsifications, and don’t films in which Russian soldiers continue to appear like frostbitten cattle, and don’t the liberals quietly continue to broadcast on the government channels about the “crime” of the Red Army…

Do you want to hear what I think about this? Because there really is no anti-falsification at state level. And you’ve got to be really tough about this issue. And it should be brought up with the person at the very top. One of the Russian emperors, Nicholas I, having somehow found out that there was to be performed in Paris a play that would blacken the name of the Russian army, demanded that it not be performed. And when the French king refused to do so, claiming freedom of artistic expression, the Russian emperor replied “Well, I’ll send you an audience of a million dressed in their army greatcoats, and they’ll hiss and boo. The play was immediately cancelled…

Can you imagine someone in the United States “at the behest of the soul” making a film in which American soldiers in Germany only rape, rob and drink? ..

I think in the career of such directors and writers it would be their last film. They are very closely monitoring such manifestations of “freedom.” They realize how dangerous it is. Not only that: research on this subject, if it is maintained, is not publicized. By the way, in 1989, there was published the book “Other Losses” by Canadian author James Baca, who argued that in the camps in the American zone of occupation over a million German prisoners of war were starved to death. He was immediately picked on by his colleagues and announced to be almost a fool …

From Firsthand Sources

Eyewitnesses of Germany, 1945

“… At the end of the first day of my stay in Berlin, I was convinced that the city was dead. Human beings simply could not live in this terrifying pile of debris. By the end of the first week, my opinion began to change. Society had come alive in the ruins. Berliners began to receive food and water in an amount sufficient to survive. More and more people were employed in the public works under the guidance of the Russians. Thanks to the Russians, with their extensive experience in dealing with similar problems in their own devastated cities, the spread of epidemics had been put under control. I am convinced that the Soviets did in those days more in order that Berlin should survive than the Anglo-Americans would have been able to do if they had been in the position that the Russians found themselves…”

“… After the fighting had moved onto German soil, there were committed many rapes by soldiers, both front line troops and those who followed immediately behind them. The number [of these rapes] depended on the attitude of senior officers towards them … Lawyers acknowledged that because of cruel and perverse sexual acts with German women, some of the soldiers were executed by firing squad, especially in cases where they were Negros. However, I know that many women were raped by white Americans. No action against these criminals has been taken … ”

“… In the Red Army, strict discipline prevails. Robbery, rape and abuse is no more greater than in any other zone of occupation. Wild stories about atrocities emerge from the exaggeration and distortion of individual cases brought on by nervousness caused by Russian soldiers’ wild manners and their love of vodka. One woman who had told me most of the tales of Russian brutality, tales which would make one’s hair stand on end, was eventually forced to admit that the only evidence that she had seen with her own eyes was of drunken Russian officers firing their guns into the air and at bottles … ”

From the diaries of the Australian war correspondent Osmar White

“… After moving to Oberhunden. Coloured boys staged here God knows what. They set fire to the house. Slashed all the Germans with razors and raped the women … ”

From the journal of the U.S. Army signalman Edward Wise

“… Around the same day I had a talk with a pretty Hungarian girl. When she asked whether I liked it in Budapest, I replied that I did, but that I found the brothels embarrassing. “But why?” asked the girl. “Because it is not natural; it’s animal-like”, I explained. “A woman takes the money and straight after there follows ‘lovemaking’!” She thought a moment, then nodded and said, “You’re right: taking the money first is not nice …”

From the memoirs of Alexander’s cavalry Homeland

“… We went to a German city, billeted in homes. A “Frau” appears. She’s about 45 years old and asks for the “Herr Kommandant.” She declares that she is responsible for the town district and has collected 20 German women for the sexual (!!!) servicing of Russian soldiers … The reaction of the officers were angry and abusive. They drove off the German woman together with her ready for action ‘detachment’ …. ”

From the memoirs of mortar man Nahum Orlov

“… A little further on, at a railway crossing just before the village, we came across a “post for the collection of weapons and watches”. I thought I was dreaming: the civilized, prosperous British have been taking watches off German soldiers who were covered in dirt! From there we were sent to the school yard in the centre of the village. There had already been gathered there a lot of German soldiers. Watching over us, the Englishmen rolled chewing gum between their teeth – that was something new to us – and boasted to each other with their trophies, raising high their arms, studded with wrist watch … ”

From the memoirs of corporal Egon Kopiske

“… All this has been acquired by completely honest means, and do not imagine that in Germany, robbery and burglary is not ignored. Complete order. Whenever they came across confiscated things abandoned by Berlin “big noises”, they were distributed in a comradely way to whoever liked them… ”

From a letter from Staff Sergeant V. V. Syrlitsyn to his wife


Senyavskaya, Elena Spartakovna – Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, member of the Academy of Military Sciences. Specialist in Russian military history of the XX century, military psychology and author of over 250 scientific papers.

Samples of Anti-Communist Rape Propaganda:

IM MEMORIAM: Yevgeny Jugashvili (10 January 1936 – 22 December 2016)


Yevgeny Jugashvili, grandson of Comrade Stalin, passed away today at age 80.  Comrade Yevgeny served as colonel in the Soviet Air Force and was a tireless and resolute defender of his grandfather’s achievement and legacy.  Son of Yakov Jugashivili, Stalin’s eldest child, who died in combat in the early days of World War II; Comrade Yevgeny is survived by his sons Jacob and Bessarion and their spouses and children.

We, in the Stalin Society of North America offer our deepest and heartfelt condolences to the Jugashvili family on this tragic occasion.  Comrade Yevgeny Jugashvili was a man of courage and principle, a true descendant of Comrade Stalin and a fighter in the finest traditions of Marxism-Leninism.