The Secret Back Story to Russia and Ukraine that Americans Never Learned In School

George Washington's picture

Preface:  We believe that Soviet communism was an abomination.  Stalin was certainly a tyrant: he killed countless political enemies or threw them into insane asylums.   We also have littler tolerance for useful idiots who defend communism as a force for good.  In short, we hate Soviet era communism.

And Putin also runs Russia like it’s his plaything, with little regard for the desires of his people.

But U.S. warmongers have also been hyping the Russian threat with self-serving lies – and committing atrocities and telling lies – for some 70 years.  As an American, my concern is keeping America from destroying itself.  And – unless we learn our history – we could get in a lot of trouble.

America Launched the Cold War Even Before World War II Had Ended

Joseph Stalin and the Soviets were key in helping the U.S. to defeat the Nazis.  20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis in World War II.

And yet the U.S. started competing against Stalin – and treating him like an enemy – before WWII had even ended.

Specifically, dropping atomic bombs on Japan had a duel purpose: defeating the Japanese, and sending a message to Stalin that the U.S. was in charge. notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reports:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.


Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.




[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.




New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.


According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.


“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.”

University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz says:

Increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.




Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.




The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.




Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

General Dwight Eisenhower said, “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary” and “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

And Truman’s chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, who chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claims:

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

America Has Waged a Brutal Dirty Tricks Campaign for 70 Years

Right after the end of WWII, the U.S. backed Nazi fighters in Ukraine in an attempt to dislodge Soviet control of that country.


In late September 1947, [George] Kennan urged Forrestal to establish a “guerrilla warfare corps”—a suggestion Forrestal heartily endorsed—although the [Joing Chiefs of Staff] recommended against establishing a “separate guerrilla warfare and corps.” In December, Truman approved secret annex NSC 4-A, authorizing the CIA to conduct covert operations. He had dismantled the OSS’s covert parmilitary operations capabilities in September 1945, but now he brought them back in force. In the summer of 1948, he approved NSC 10/2, which called for “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” These activities were to be done in a way that would always afford the US government plausible deniability. In August 1948, Truman approved NSC 20, which authorized guerrilla operations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ….




Beginning with Truman’s first day in office, his receptiveness to the views of hard-line anti-Communists, his denial of Roosevelt’s understanding with Staling, the provocative and unnecessary dropping of the atomic bombs, his spreading a network of military bases around the world, Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Truman’s call for fighting Communism in greece, the division and remilitarization of Germany, the continued testing of bigger and bigger atomic and hydrogen bombs which he used to threaten the Soviet Union, Truman’s deliberate exaggerations of the Communist threat both overseas and at home and his persecution and silencing of those who challenged these distortions. In all these matters, with few exceptions, the United states, after successfully liberating Western Europe, was now signaling fear and aggression ….

The U.S. also admits that the U.S. and NATO also used false flag terror attacks to discredit the Soviets.  For example:

  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

The U.S. and NATO Have Been Trying to Encircle Russia Militarily Since 1991

President George H. W. Bush promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that – if the Soviets broke up the Soviet Union and dissolved the Warsaw Pact – then NATO would not move into those former Soviet countries. This assured the Soviets that NATO would not encircle Russia.

Similarly, Germany promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east.”  As Andrew Gavin Marshall explains:

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 prompted the negotiated withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Eastern Europe. The ‘old order’ of Europe was at an end, and a new one “needed to be established quickly,” noted Mary Elise Sarotte in the New York Times. This ‘new order’ was to begin with “the rapid reunification of Germany.” Negotiations took place in 1990 between Soviet president Gorbachev, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and President Bush’s Secretary of State, James A. Baker 3rd. The negotiations sought to have the Soviets remove their 380,000 troops from East Germany. In return, both James Baker and Helmut Kohl promised Gorbachev that the Western military alliance of NATO would not expand eastwards. West Germany’s foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, promised Gorbachev that, ” NATO will not expand itself to the East.” Gorbachev agreed, though asked – and did not receive – the promise in writing, remaining a “gentlemen’s agreement.”

But Bill Clinton broke America’s promise, and the U.S. has pursued a campaign of encircling Russia ever since:

And NATO has also broken its promise, and now largely encircles Russia:

In 1997 – as part of the strategy of encirclement – former U.S. national security advisor and high-level Obama policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called for the U.S. to take Ukraine away from Russia.

Cheney Has Controlled U.S. Policy Towards Russia with a Strategy of Global Domination For Decades … And Continues to Do So Today

The U.S. has also long exaggerated the “Russian menace” in order to justify its military spending and expansion.

For example, Dick Cheney made false claims exaggerating the threat posed by Russia’s weapons in the 1970s to ramp up cold war fears and justify huge increases in military spending.

Subsequent instances of fear-mongering by Cheney and his subordinates include:

  • New York Times and Wikipedia, 1992: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere .… We do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others.”
  • Toledo Blade, 2006: “Vice President Dick Cheney accused Russia of pursuing antidemocratic policies and using its vast energy supplies to blackmail neighboring countries”
  • Wall Street Journal, 2008: “The vice president … accused Russia of seeking to reinvent the old Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, and beat back the advance of democracy in Eastern Europe …. ‘Let us make clear that the enlargement of NATO will continue as and where the allies decide,” Mr. Cheney said. ‘Allies agreed that those nations will be NATO members, and the time to begin their membership action plans has come.’ “
  • Telegraph, 2008: “We believe in the right of men and women to live without the threat of tyranny, economic blackmail or military invasion or intimidation …. Ukrainians have a right to choose whether they wish to join NATO, and NATO has a right to invite Ukraine to join the alliance when we believe they are ready and that the time is right”

Todd E. Pierce – Major (ret.) U.S. Army Judge Advocate General – notes in a must-read article that “Cheneyism” has driven U.S. policy towards Russia for decades:

Dick Cheney’s ideology of U.S. global domination has become an enduring American governing principle regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office, a reality reflected in the recent Ukrainian coup ….


The final form of this ideology took shape in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union when the world was then to be subjected to eternal U.S. military dominance, as revealed in the leaked “Draft Defense Planning Guidance” (DPG) devised by Cheney’s subordinates when he was Defense Secretary under President George H.W. Bush.


Since then, Cheney has been so successful in propagating this ideology of permanent U.S. domination abroad and rule by a “unitary executive” at home that it has now survived multiple changes of U.S. presidents largely intact. It is so much attributable to Dick Cheney that it merits his name: Cheneyism.


As unprecedented as Cheneyism may be – not even history’s most power-mad conquerors ever envisioned anything like “full-spectrum dominance” – President Obama has cemented Cheney’s ideological legacy by continuing his unilateralism and even expanding it ….


Cheney’s ideology combines militarism under a state of permanent war with an un-American, anti-constitutional authoritarianism. It also embraces an aggressiveness toward past, present and possibly future adversaries, especially Russia.


Robert Gates, who was CIA director in 1991, has written in his memoir Duty that with the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Cheney “wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire but of Russia itself,” so “it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.”


Little wonder that Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded that denying Russian access to Crimean ports via the coup in Ukraine was just one step in a larger U.S. plan to deny Russia a means of naval defense, just as he might have seen the Kosovo War in the late 1990s as a move against a Russian ally.




There is virtually no deviation in the United States from the core of Cheney’s ideology. That is, the unrelenting pursuit of total U.S. global military domination as outlined in the Defense Planning Guidance.


This February’s successful subversion of Ukraine’s democratically elected government by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland is merely the latest example of U.S. policies first conceived and promoted by Cheney and like-minded ideologists, including Nuland’s husband, renowned neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century.


If there was any doubt about the continuation of Cheneyism under Obama, the activities of Nuland – a Bush-43 holdover who was promoted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then Secretary of State John Kerry – shows there was no real break in foreign policy with the change of administrations in 2009.


As revealed by Nuland, there has not been a Russian policy “reset” by the U.S.; it was a mere subterfuge. And as Putin is learning, any objection to U.S. strategic expansionism is treated as “terrorism” or “aggression” and becomes a pretext for U.S. diplomatic, economic and military suppression of the “threat.”

In 1991, as conceived by Cheney and other Pentagon ideologues, such as Paul Wolfowitz and David Addington, this strategy of constantly violating other nations’  sovereignty has been waged both by military and political means ….




For Cheney, it was as if he saw the Cold War as having been a winner-take-all contest for global domination. When the U.S. “won,” the countries of the world were to submit to global U.S. domination. As stated in Harper’s Magazine, the United States would move from “countering Soviet attempts at dominance to en­suring its own dominance.”




Clinton preserved the general outlines of the force structure and strategy that had been worked out under Cheney and Wolfowitz. Cheney’s ideology of permanent U.S. dominance achieved its purest form under President George W. Bush, with Cheney as his influential Vice President. But Cheneyism also has maintained a strong foothold in the five years of the Obama administration.




Cheney’s geopolitical ideas have become the consensus of both Republicans and Democrats and have assumed a permanent place in “mainstream” American political thought and governance under Obama.




For a foreign government to anticipate how the U.S. will act, their analysts need to understand Cheneyism as a controlling ideology in U.S. policy, just as American intelligence analysts were steeped in theories of Marxism and Stalinism during the Cold War. U.S. citizens should understand the tenets of Cheneyism, too, since this arrogant ideology has the potential

for disastrous consequences.




Indeed, there is a German precedent for Cheney’s ideology that is not Nazism. Following the failure of the Imperial German Army in World War I, philosophical militarists such as Ernst Junger and authoritarian legal philosophers like Carl Schmitt came together in the “Conservative Revolutionary Movement.”


Celebrating war and authoritarianism, they believed that Germany was the “exceptional” nation of Europe, deserving of military expansion in both eastern and western Europe. The German Conservative Revolutionaries didn’t all become Nazis, but they created a hospitable culture for them. With hindsight, they could have been called proto-Cheneyites.

Not only are Cheney and Neocons back … they never actually left.

The neoconservatives planned campaigns of destabilization all over the world 20 years ago, and Obama is implementing the same plans today.

The Bottom Line: Putin’s No Angel … But Americans Need to Gain a Little Perspective

Putin is no angel, and Stalin really was a murderous tyrant.

But Americans also need to understand that the U.S. and NATO have been seeking domination even before WWII ended.

Dick Cheney has dominated U.S. policy towards Russia for decades, and Obama is following Cheney’s playbook.

America needs to gain a little perspective.

See this  for other interesting and little-known facts about Russia.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Polymarkos's picture

I love it when revisionist idiots start hacking away at history to make the USofA look bad. Maybe the idiot author of this crapola needs a little perspective?


COMINTERN anyone? Maybe THE RUSSIAN COMMUNISTS started the 'cold war' in the late 20's and through the 30's by exportin communism and setting spy rings all over the world? RED ORCHESTRA anyone?


Ya think?

All Risk No Reward's picture

Oh, you still think the USA represents you?  How quaint.

I have news for you.  If you can't handle it, go to

Your country has been hijacked by a privat einternation banking cartel run by technocrats that have been scheming to control, manipulate you and dominate you since the early 1900s (in earnest, I know this deal goes back a long way and some might even say to Rome).

These people are ciminals and they are waging asymmetrical, Sun Tzu Art of War on you right now and have for every breath you've ever taken.

You aren't supposed to figure it out and you aren't supposed to admit when someone like me proves it beyond any and all doubr.  So muster as much irrationality as you can get to try and deny what Winston Smith would call 2+2=4...  and they didn't even have to torture you, right?  Right - but Aldous Huxley predicted that - research "pharmacological Revolution" and then look around you!

You don't live in a democracy (which is a lie as this is a democratic republic which is much different than a democracy - Read the Constitution and compare it to the Empire of Fraud built up all arond you) because you can't vote on the nature of your money and who gets to produce it.

You'll never get that vote, serf, because that is too important to the oligarch class that rules you through puppet politicians they finance and promote via their Money Power.

Your rulers defined money as debt to systematically enslave society to inextinguishable debt.  Again, look around you.  It is happening and there is NO WAY OUT BY DESIGN.

If I lend you $20 @ 5% interest, in one year you owe me $21 due to double entry bookkeeping that adds $1 liability to your balance sheet and $1 asset to my balance sheet.  After one year, you have $20, you owe me $21 AND I CONTROL THE $1 YOU NEED TO PAY ME BACK, INDENTURED SERVANT.

You've been conned.  Chumped and punked through fraud.  Sure, in reality a lot of these $20 units are created, BUT EVERY ONE HAS THE EXACT SAME FAULT THAT WILL EVENTUALLY TRANSFER POWER FROM THE PRODUCER CLASS TO THE CON ARTIST MONEY POWER CLASS.

Remember, the Money Power wealth is everyone else's INEXTINGUISHABLE DEBT.

A bailout is when I create $20, stick it in my corporate front pocket and send you the bill for $21 at the end of a year...  dummy.  In fact, I think you are so dumb and uninformed, that I boldly tell you I'm doing this to save your economy AS I SYSTEMATICALLY GUT IT.  Dummy.

You see, I don't think you are dumb - but that depends on how you choose to respond to absolute proof the debt based monetary system is a fraud.  The Money Power, whom Eisenhower said should be "gravely regarded" (read his farewell speech), considers you a low evolution Muppet - and that actually offends me.  The low evolution Muppets are involved in their cabal and I want to wake people up from their consensus trance to identify the real problem and increase resistance to it.

Here is a chart graphically explaining the fraud mechanism of debt money tyranny.

Debt Money Tyranny

Here are some videos to help out...

Poverty IS NOT a Choice

An excellent interview with Positive Money can be found at the following link:

How to be a Crook

Renaissance 2.0

Debunking Money (I'm watching this now - absolutely brilliant technical analysis)

If you want to know where we are going...  your best bet is to search out Nicole Foss' explanation.

“Essentially, there are two kinds of inflation. As inflation is defined as an increase in the supply of money and credit relative to available goods and services, one can achieve inflation either by increasing the money component (as in Weimar Germany or modern Zimbabwe) or the credit component. In the former case, one divides the underlying real wealth pie into smaller and smaller pieces. In the latter case, which represents our situation, one does not subdivide the real wealth pie, but instead creates multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of pie. “A credit expansion thus creates excess claims to underlying real wealth, and we have just lived through the largest credit expansion in human history. In other words, we are all playing a giant game of musical chairs, only there is perhaps one chair for every hundred people playing the game. You can imagine what will happen when the music stops. The free-for-all grab for an available chair represents the extinguishing of excess claims to underlying real wealth, and is deflation by definition. This will represent the end of extend-and-pretend, and the recognition that there is only so much to go around.” - Stoneleigh (Nicole Foss)     Nicole Foss on Finance and Bubbles     A Tribute to the Automatic Earth     Yes, hyperinflation should be the end game, BUT THE MONEY POWER WON'T BE SITTING ON TRILLION OF DEBT PAPER AND TRILLIONS IN MONEY WHEN THEY ORCHESTRATE IT. They will have imploded the economy, exactly as Nicole explains, and once they are done conveying real assets to their corporate fronts, then, and only then, will they orchestrate a hyperinflation BECAUSE THEY WILL ALREADY OWN AND CONTROL ALMOST ALL OF THE REAL WORLD BY THEN.
Polymarkos's picture

You are a verbose idiot.


BTW, it was his revisionist BS I was pointing out. Most of your blather has nothing to do with that OR my point.


Do try to stay on topic.


I never argued against much of what you vomited up. You need a reading comprehension lesson.

johnjkiii's picture

Nobody's Perfect.

blindman's picture

Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a ‘New World Order’
Relevance for the Present
by Dr. K R Bolton |  May 31, 2010

GoldBricker's picture

Thanks for the background, GW. In spite of having read long screeds like those by William Engdahl, I had never before revised my childhood implanted opinions about the end of WW2 and its aftermath.

How apt that to Truman should be attributed the aphorism "the only thing new under the sun is the history you don't know".

basho's picture

'And Putin also runs Russia like it’s his plaything, with little regard for the desires of his people.'

any writer that starts with a conclusion can be trusted to defend that conclusion throughout his writing. that means the text biased. that means it is BS. that means i've saved a lot of time not reading his biased BS. try again george

cognus's picture

Wow, George, where do I start.

How about with your 2nd Paragraph:  do you have the actual stats in front of you, as to what has transpired in the "putin era" in Russia? [remember, it ain't the soviet union, its Russia]. The Unemployment rate has plummeted. the economy boomed. Some of the crooked "oligarchs" [gangsters] were busted [have you heard of ANY SIGNIFICANT USA BANKSTERS BEING BUSTED?].  Cash payouts were [and are] being offered to Native Russians for having live births.  Read that sentence again... The Russian Government officially does NOT WANT women murdering their offspring [as the DNC in USA does] ... quite the opposite: you get a bonus for having a child.

Christianity in particular has rebounded strongly in Russia. While the USA has made it their priority to exterminate Christians by proxy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Paki, Libya, Egypt, and Syria [oh... I forgot Lebanon] Russia has supported Christian and other God-fearing groups in their quest to practice their faith without fear of murder, mayhem, imprisonment as was the case in former times. Christian school teachers can get jobs in Russia while being overt about their convictions... something that is becoming harder and harder to do in the USA.

Putin is a very wealthy autocrat, but his interest is PRECISELY [at this point in his life] opposite to your second paragraph premise.  Further, he sees clearly what the oligarchy controlling the Western cabal is about, and is determined to tweak the nose before they off him and his country as they have other sovereign states who would not drink the Western Debt Cocktail.

LH101's picture

GW why should anyone reading ZH believe a single word you publish when you ploviate verifiable crap on nuclear matters.  



GoldenTribe's picture

All of this is thoroughly documented and referenced in Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival.  I suggest reading the book.

RovingGrokster's picture

Numb Chumpsky?
Really? It is possible to love America and be suspicious of its government.
Noam Chomsky does not appear to love America.

I will research what GW wrote, for it appears to have some underlying truths, however, the Red Menace and Communist infiltration were also real.
Also, just because Cheney is a warhawk, does not make it credible that he has been orchestrating foreign policy for 40 years.

WMM II's picture

"We believe..."


George, i am a big fan of your writing at zh....and i don't always agree...


"i have found that when i am certain of something, i am right about half the time."




ATG's picture

Nazi's killed 3.4 Million Soviet POWs, including Stalin's son.

Thus Russians do not trust the US-backed neoNazi putsche in the Ukraine.

Similar could be said of US-backed Muslim Brotherhood coups in MENA. MB previously worked for the Nazi's.

Similar authoritarian policies took root in the USA, with the formation of armed and armoured government agencies violating posse comitatus, turning police into paramilitaries, setting up concentration camps and making an end-run around our Second Amendment with ammo purchases exceeding 2 Billion rounds.

If this big government gestapo trend does not stop, we may have civil war making Bundy Ranch a BLM picnic:

PeakOil's picture

Power & Money. Same as it ever was.

For an excellent read on EurAsian "Liquid Wars", served up courtesy of our masters, see Globalistan (2006) by Pepe Escobar. (an independent journalist who writes for Asia Times)

Ayr Rand's picture

Washington's work is always interesting and thought-provoking.

Some quibbles that Washington might address in future work:

  • The Leslie Groves quote actually says the opposite of the theme of this article-- he pretty clearly said that he did not intend to build the A-bomb for specific use against Russia. If that was intention all along, let the responsibility fall with the elected officials who actually made the call. 
  • Russia secretly connived with Nazi Germany to invade and split Poland. Hence in Poland there is from WWII (and for many hundreds of years of previous experience) significant concern about Russia's intentions. All of which concerns are being thoroughly validated by Putin. 
  • Do not forget that under Stalin, Russia killed at least 7 million Ukrainian farmers. This is the proud legacy that Putin wants to recreate.  
  • For this and other reasons, Ukraine antipathy toward Russian rule is not new. From the end of WWII to as late as the 1960s, there was still a band of Ukrainian anti-Communist freedom fighters in the Urals, though through "exercises" of the Red Army, this band was eventually wiped out. 
  • The number of bases is actually a pretty good indication of how each country does business. For all practical purposes, Russia is as significant a nuclear power as the US. The difference is that historically Russia has always resorted to invasion as its primary means of foreign policy. As demonstrated in Crimea. When the US was the only nuclear power, it did not invade any other countries. 
SAT 800's picture

Iraq, Libya, and Syria aren't foreign countries? who knew ? You're really crazy, buddy. Stalin was Stalin; a complete basket case. No-one is interested in recreating anything Stalin did. All sane people know this.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Do not forget that under Stalin, Russia killed at least 7 million Ukrainian farmers.

Nope, you're wrong, on multiple counts. Stalin was Georgian, not Russian. Russia was not the USSR, it was just another nation subjugated by the USSR. Holodomor victims were not only Ukrainian, but Russian and Kazakh as well.

This is the proud legacy that Putin wants to recreate.

And that is supposed to mean?

Ah, hypothetical again. Denial of reality.

Ayr Rand's picture

Your avatar is exceedingly appropo. Your comment is predicated on the USSR being led by Georgia instead of Russia; do you think Putin would agree?  

7M of the farmers killed by the USSR were Ukrainian; you are correct that there were many more killed by the USSR that were not Ukrainian. 

The "proud legacy" remark is entirely consistent with what Putin himself has said-- he believes the destruction of the USSR was the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, and one he would like to reverse. Ask Putin what he thinks his remarks mean; for most of us it is obvious. 

You did not address the fact that the USSR collaborated with the Nazis -- apparently that is not a problem for you. I see now where you are coming from.


SAT 800's picture

Another moron with a comic book education who knows how to type; un-fortunately.

optimator's picture

1.  Stalin and Hitler started the war by dividing up Poland between themselves.

2.  England and France then declared war on Germany, but not Russia.

3.  At war's end Germany was decimated but Russia got to keep their half of Poland.

4.  Right up to May 1945 the U.S. sent Russia everything from our patents to uranium and nuclear data, machine tools, whatever they wanted.  If FDR wasn't a Communist he certainly surrounded himself with Neo Con Communists.

5.  The Verona intercepts documenting Soviet spying, if released during the McCarthy hearings would have proven him totally correct in finding the Communists in the Government.  The full details of those intercepts have not been released to this day.  Why?

sondernauch's picture

The "Nazis" were trying to protect Europe from the Marxist murdering party going on at the time in Eastern Europe. America and Russia ganged up on them, defeated them, and now the global Marxists/Fascists are in total control.

BTW, for those predisposed to repeat the stupid MSM mantras, Nazis were National Socialists but the Marxists/Trotskyites were global socialists. Just because a party is socialist or fascist does not make them a Nazi.

For heaven's sake, Nazis don't even exist anymore, but global fascists, Marxists, Trotskyites, and other such scum are running just about everything. Name me one of our leaders who is advocating a truly national course of action. Name one leader who is not afraid of being called Marxist-inspired names like "racist."

SAT 800's picture

And another moronic 8 year old checks in. the Nazis weren't protecting anything; you idiot. With the third Reich for your "protector' you didn't need an executioner.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

 " Nazis were National Socialists but the Marxists/Trotskyites were global socialists "


Uh huh.


Nazis were bent on world domination.


Your logic is not working too well today ... 


Blizzard_Esq's picture

"Nazis were bent on world domination."

Remember Japan and Germany started the wars during the great depression. During the depression there was incredibly high tarrifs so invading other countries was a way to go after their resources without having to pay for it and to sell their goods without the tariffs. 

Otherwise hegemonic powers of Europe have been trying to unify the continent since the Romans. Germany's Third Reich was about taking over Europe. Germany just does it now with its money using the Euro. Which works great for France as French farmers get money from Germany. 

JR's picture

In late September 1947, [George] Kennan urged Forrestal to establish a “guerrilla warfare corps”—a suggestion Forrestal heartily endorsed—

James V. Forrestal, along with Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, was perhaps the most important anti-Communist in the middle of the 20th century.

Asked abruptly to resign by Harry Truman in 1949, the question was and still is: Was America’s last Cabinet-level United States Secretary of the Navy and first United States Secretary of Defense murdered?

Forrestal tendered his letter of resignation on March 28, 1949. At around 2 a.m. on the morning of May 22, 1949, James Vincent Forrestal fell to his death from a small window of the 16th floor of the Bethesda Naval Hospital.

“On September 23, the New York Times reported the existence of Forrestal's diary, and that it was being held at the White House. It was described as filling an entire filing cabinet.”

Both Forrestal and McCarthy, writes Dave Martin, were Irish-Catholic Americans, both rose by their bootstraps to high office in Washington, D.C., both successively spearheaded the fight against the worldwide Communist conspiracy, both were the victims of smear attacks and hated by every left-winger and subversive in America, both died at a most "convenient" and strategic time –“and each death beyond doubt altered the course of history.”

Concerned by the heavy infiltration of Communists into US government, “it was Forrestal who personally alerted freshman Senator McCarthy to the Communist menace and ‘named names’ to him of key persons in our federal government who were consistently shaping our policies and programs to benefit Soviet Russia."

The Forrestal Diaries report that Chamberlain blamed "world Jews" for World War II.. They recount British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as having stated that "America and the world Jews forced England into this war." This is from a LIFE article from October 15, 1951, echoing the Diaries from December 27, 1945.

The following is taken from an article by PETER ROBBINS:

“…Excluding a handful of exceptions, this former Secretary of the Navy, former Secretary of Defense, and key architect of America’s defense establishment has effectively been written out of the history books and our national consciousness, an Orwellian bit of historical revisionism.

“How and why did this quiet purge occur, and how does it relate to the classified, UFO-related history of postwar America? Did the man who created our modern Department of Defense take his own life, or was it taken from him?
“The official answer is suicide. Forrestal’s death, it is said, came from a sixteenth story fall from a window at the Bethesda Naval Hospital early on the morning of May 22, 1949
, where he was being treated for depression. But this account does not hold up under study of the evidence at hand which, while circumstantial, points toward murder.” …

Cornell Simpson wrote in The Death of James Forrestal:

“The Communists, both American and European, had good reason to hate Jim Forrestal: he hated them. He emerged from the Second War dedicated to the destruction of Communism… He fought General Marshall’s effort to force Chiang Kai-shek to coalesce with the Chinese Communists… He…was alarmed by what he took to be Roosevelt’s trust in Stalin….

"Forrestal’s nightmare was that capitalism itself was under siege all over the world…”

Golden Rule's picture

Very interesting and insightful. Thanks for the post!

bigkahuna's picture

I am on board with you here for many of your points, but I cannot agree with your stance on the atomic bomb. Japan was killing the pows and would not cease to do so otherwise.

Sometimes the US is not the only nasty player. If people need context on how nasty the Japanese were in that day look at this:

I am not saying the atrocity of the nukes are excusable by any means, but if you people dont think the Japanese would not have slit open our boys' guts and chopped them up while they were still alive before they surrendered the prisoners back to us - just look at what the Japanese did to the Chinese.

The Japanese resolve to cruelly torture and kill back then is also not in the history books. 

It is my opinion that the Japanese feared that the US was going to level their entire island with Tokyo beig next and this is why the Japanese came forth - stopped executing the POWs - and surrendered allowing as many POWs as possible to live and come home.

I feel bad for everyone here - the innocent Japanese civilians who were bombed, the POWs that were killed and the soldiers on all sides who went to war for no good reason (as usual).

SAT 800's picture

Tokyo had already been firebombed you idiot. A whole page of ignorant morons bleating about their "opinons". There's no hope alright, and this is why.

dizzyfingers's picture

"...duel purpose..." ...double entendre?

Notsobadwlad's picture

Many good key points. One I especially like is about false flag terror.

False flag terror always attacks the defenseless population (and propagandizes that attack through the captive media) with the intent to get the people to seek greater protection from the goverment. The government herds the people toward it by murdering the population and blaming someone else. Those who wanted to attack the country would not murder innocent and defenseless people, they would attack the government.

Logic dictates that ALL of the terror attacks on US soil in recent years, have been created by the government to gain greater control over the people. To believe anything else is idiocy of the greatest kind.

theprofromdover's picture

Useless one-sided article. It was way more complicated than that.

If anyone ever thinks that Uncle Joe Stalin was someone 'to do business with' ........

No-one in the Allies at the end of WWII had any appetite to put soldiers on the ground in Japan.

The japanese only surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki because their Emperor told them to, otherwise they would have fought to the last man.

The H-bombs was meant to give warning to many enemies.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Get your cheap propaganda in order. This low level of cohesion is so embarassing.

Nassim's picture

The Japanese were finished already when the atomic bombs were dropped - they had no oil and all the tanker traffic to Japan was being sunk. You cannot continue a modern war without oil. Simple.

theprofromdover's picture

You can continue a modern war with a box-cutter and a bag of rice if you are so minded.

You just fight on your terms.

effendi's picture

Japan was far from capitulation even though its position was hopeless. They were willing to lose tens of millions in casualties, far worse than Okinawa in the misery that would result. Plus the US and its allies were expecting over a million casualties.

It took pressure from the Emporer for Japan to surrender and even then there was a threat to the Emporer from die hard fanatics. That threat could have seen Hirohito under effective house arrest but fortunatly enough of those in power were not willing to go down that path. The surrender avoided a third bomb. The Bomb also saved over 100,000 POWs lives as they were due for execution by mid August. American POWs working coal mines near Hiroshima were due to be executed on the day the first bomb was dropped, the Bomb saved their lives as the soldiers got busy with dealing with the nearby chaos.

Go read the memoirs of people who served in the Occupation Forces and you will find accounts of the numerous stockpiles of weapons that were to be used by every man,woman and child to defend against invasion of the Home Isles. Millions would have died with nothing more than a bamboo spear in their arms and very empty bellies.

Mike in Tokyo Rogers's picture

Jesus. The propaganda runs deep....

"Read the memoirs of the occupation forces..." Japan had weapons on home soil? Heavens! How could that have happened?

How about reading some history? Historical record shows that in April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to surrender.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting."

Ident 7777 economy's picture

This surrender business, not buying it ...

the tower's picture

Long article. So, even if the US/NATO circled Russia, why does Russia care?

First: These bases are not a big deal, most of them are just landing pads, and Russia knows it.

Second: Russians are a proud people, you would not win them over with military force, there is no way any kind of military action will put a dent in Russia's mindset, and Russia knows it.

Third: Russia may be the biggest country on earth, so it looks like you need to position bases all around it if you planned an attack - as shown on the maps in this article - but Russia is basically empty space. What counts is western Russia, Moscow. You can reach Moscow with a bunch of IBM's, and Russia knows it.

So, why is Putin throwing tantrums about NATO and the West "encircling Russia"? Russia has never had designs on ruling the world. Russia has always been looking inward. Any kind of friction with the West was orchestrated, a political tool for internal change. This time is no different.

Russia has always been ruled by a small group of people, it has no experience with many parties fighting each other and in the process creating some sort of stability - as we have in the West, historically. So, even though lately Russia may have been trying to create a more open society, Putin is faling for the old way of thinking again, and becoming the new autocrat.

The West should not intervene - but we all know that Western leaders are smelling blood/power - and Westerners would be wise not to choose sides as Putin is not some kind of anti-hero. All are playing the same game: putting their own people in chains and enriching the ruling class.


DeusHedge's picture

I don't think our economy's strong enough to have weak foreign policy. I think any act of violence should be reprimanded with the scorching of the earth up which it was committed.