Category Archives: Sample pages


In 1987 in New York, Dr. James Mace calls America’s role in the Holodomor “perhaps the single most successful denial of genocide in history.” Speaking openly about the Terror-Famine during a New York conference of his findings in a paper titled, “The United States and the Famine, Recognition and Denial of Genocide and Mass Killing in the 20th Century”. “The US government knew a great deal about the man-made famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine,” Mace declares, “and chose not to acknowledge what it knew or to respond in any meaningful way. Some members of the American press corps also knew a great deal which they chose not to report and, in some cases, actively denied in public what they confirmed in private. This constituted collaboration of the perpetrator’s denial of genocide … .”

The story resurfaced in the year before when two important events occur in publishing details of the Holodomor Famine Terror: Harvard’s Ukrainian Institute publishes Mace’s book Famine in the Soviet Ukraine 1931-33; Oxford University publishes Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest. When Harvard and Oxford converge with simultaneous publications of this magnitude something is up. A coincidence? Extraordinary timing, or rather, is something we don’t see at work here. Then, in this same year, in Washington DC, US Congressional Commission on the Ukraine Famine, on April 23, 1986 records testimony by Dr. Mace and others. Just three days later in a quiet little village in Chernobyl north of Kiev on the Dniepr during a safety test the nuclear reactor explodes and melts releasing radiation at highly dangerous levels. Brave men die in a heroic and furious effort to contain it. All these events occur exactly five decades after the worst of Stalin’s man-made Holodomor killing millions of men, women and children. My God! Poor Mother Ukraine! The problem of radiation leakage from the nuclear reactor is still unresolved three decades after the accident. No way to point at an foreign plot here! (“Investigation of the Ukrainian Famine 1932-33”, US Congressional Commission on the Ukraine Famine, Second Interim Report, April 23, 1986, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1988)

Dr. Mace does not, however, expound upon another aspect of the tragedy, citing though without specific details contentious “issues dealing with grain production because of direct competition between American and Soviet wheat exports on the world market.” At the time of the Depression thirties, there were economic strategic issues embraced by the capitalist Consortium and plans for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet socialist gulag state financed in part with desperately needed foreign exchange from Soviet exports of grain on the international grain market sold at depressed world grain prices, and confiscated from the Ukrainians who were for the most part either ruined and left destitute without resources, shot, and exterminated. (Dr. James E. Mace, “The United States and the Famine, Recognition Denial of Genocide and Mass Killing in the 20th Century”, presented NYC, Nov. 13, 1987)

But that’s not all. The next year, in 1988, the Holodomor Terror-Famine Genocide is officially recognized by the United States Government. Before the American Congress and again at the United Nations, Dr. James Mace of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine 1931-1932 drives his wedge deeper reopening living memories and old wounds of the Holodomor polemic when he presents a series of easy to follow facts that made it difficult to mount the least possible resistance or reject his conclusions and all this during the Gorbachev-Reagan thaw in Cold War tensions only a year before the destruction of the Berlin Wall.


Soviet Premier Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was born on March 2, 1931, in Privolnoe, a farming village in southern Russia of the North Caucasus. For generations his family worked the fields of his ancestors. Young Mikhail barely survived the Holodomor famine conditions of arson, riots and open rebellion against Soviet confiscation and extermination of the peasants. His grandfather Andrei Gorbachev is sent to a gulag charged with hiding forty pounds of grain for his family, a very serious offense. It’s a miracle he isn’t shot. His father Sergei is an operator of tractors and combines made from American factories with American technology.

Only much later did Mikhail Gorbachev comprehend that Stalin’s man-made famine inflicted “an estimated 14.5 million deaths from hunger and famine.” Soviet Premier Gorbachev is not unaffected by the repression of his family; he carried the family scars with him later describing his grandfather as a “middle peasant” in the class of peasants who own a small amount of land they farmed.

Only long after the Khrushchev era and once he becomes General Secretary of the Party, Gorbachev speaks to “a commemorative session on the seventieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, with a lingering sense of grievance at the ‘injustice’ and ‘excesses’ committed against the middle peasants in the thirties.” According to an account of the event by writers Dusko Doder and Louise Branson in Heretic in the Kremlin (1990), Gorbachev declares that those peasants were the “staunch and dependable ally of the working class, an ally on a new basis.” (Dusko Doder and Louise Branson, Heretic in the Kremlin, NY: Viking, 1990, 1-5)

In Lenin’s Tomb (1993) describing the rapid breakdown of the Soviet Communist Party during the Gorbachev years the former Moscow correspondent David Remnick recalls the moment when the Soviet Premier let it slip that his own family had been destroyed by Stalin and collectivization! Reader this is an extraordinary moment in the life of the Soviet Union. The game is up! This an incredible event and naturally it does not pass unnoticed. Never before during his life and ascendancy within the nomenklatura of the privileged few enjoying “a life in which everything flows easily” would the smart legal-minded Gorbachev allow such an utterance to fall from his lips!

Four years Washington Post correspondent in Moscow, Jewish, Princeton, and fluent in Russian, Remnick writes, “Gorbachev’s climb to power took place inside the Soviet Communist Party, an institution that valued aggressive obedience and secrecy. The initiator of glasnost revealed little of himself except through political performance. … For all his support of glasnost, for all his talk of the need to fill in the ‘blank spots’ of history, Gorbachev kept to himself a central fact of his early life for more than five years coming to power. It was only in December 1990, when he was alienating the entire liberal intelligentsia, inlcuding Shevardnadze and Yakolev, by cooperating with the hard-liners in the Party, that Gorbachev revealed that both of his grandfathers had been repressed under Stalin. You had to be listening carefully to catch it. Late one night, Central Television broadcast a tape of one of Gorbachev’s meetings with a large group of leading writers and journalists. Somehow, Gorbachev was trying to justify his swing to the right but at the same time to win back the respect of the intelligentsia. ‘Look at my two grandfathers,’ Gorbachev said. ‘One was denounced for not fulfilling the sowing plan in 1933, a year when half the family died of hunger…’.” He truly wants to confess! To an American journalist of the Washington Post! “Why now?”, David Remnick conjectures, “Why hadn’t he said anything in 1988 when the battle for history had been raging?” When did it ever stop. Look at the reactionary power-crazed Tsar Putin deploying Cossacks to control the crowds at the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. (italics added)

In 1990 Remnick hears another taboo of the Gorbachev family story again this time recounted by the Soviet boss himself: “‘… They took him away to Irkutsk to a timber-producing camp, and the rest of the family was broken, half-destroyed in that year. And the other grandfather – he was an organizer of collective farms, later a local administrator, a peasant of average means. He was in prison for fourteen months. They interrogated him and demanded that he admit what he’d never done. Thank God, he survived. But when he returned home, people considered his house a plague house, a house of an ‘enemy of the people’. Relatives and dear ones were not able to visit, otherwise ‘they’ would have come after them, too’.” (David Remnick, Lenin’s Tomb, The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, NY: Random House, 1993, ed. 1994, 148-9)

Remnick made a radical career change. Or was it? He left both Russia, and his job at the Washington Post to assume in 1992 the honorable repose of the Edward R. Murrow Fellow of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), yet another beneficiary of the Rockefellers, granted a transitional sabbatical not quite the prize for the spy who came in from the cold, so to speak, before he joins The New Yorker magazine, Manhattan’s slick icon of the publishing elite; by 1998 Remnick reemerges as its chief editor helping it reclaim status as a first-rate publication of liberal American intellectual culture. The former journalist is readily positioned to earn millions of dollars with all the perks and status of the rich and famous in America, and empowered with a national platform to write freely and often about Israel and the Holocaust towering above the largest Jewish community outside Jerusalem. Still summing up some editorial changes for this book while visiting the Caribbean in a televised report on the 2013 Boston Marathon killings. The networks of the media circus seem intent to walk their stars out of the stables from time to time and circulate among the current opinion makers of the culture’s mass media on and off the air in “living time”.

In April 1967, when he was 49 years old, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn commented on “the crippling and cowardly secretiveness from which all our country’s misfortunes come” to add, “a noose was draped around my neck two years ago, but not drawn tight, and I want to see what will happen next spring if I jerk my head slightly. Whether the noose will break or I shall be strangled cannot with any certainty be foreseen.” Solzhenitsyn recalls in that incredible moment, nothing short of what seem the miraculous opening of the door toward freedom by the Twenty-second Congress.”

Only a decade earlier in 1956, Solzhenitsyn continues, “there was no way of foreseeing the sudden fury, the reckless eloquence of the attack on Stalin which Khrushchev would decide upon for the Twenty-second! Nor, try as we might, could we, the uninitiated, ever explain it! But there it was –and not even a secret attack, as at the Twentieth Congress, but a public one! I could not remember when I had read anything as interesting as the speeches at the Twenty-Second Congress. In my little room in a decaying wooden house where one unlucky match might send all my manuscripts, years and years of work, up in smoke. I read and reread those speeches, and the walls of my secret world swayed like curtains in the theater, wavered, expanded and carried me queasily with them: had it arrived, then, the long-awaited moment of terrible joy, the moment when my head must break water?” But he had to wait for over three more decades to pass until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 after a failed army coup against Gorbachev’s glasnost regime that smashed the myths of the inevitability of a world-wide Communist victory and of absolute power of the Marxist-Leninist grip on the people shaking their heads while lost in their crisis of broken faith. (A. I. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf: Sketches of Literary Life in the Soviet Union, NY: Harper & Row, 1979, 14)

Then came Yeltsin. And still yet an even more incredible personal narrative of the Holodomor by the supreme Russian leader. Another child of the Holodomor, Gorbachev’s protégé and the Party boss of Moscow, Boris Yeltsin presides over the dissolution of the USSR while his family and a handful of powerful oligarchs plunder state resources as it slips helplessly back into fractured anarchy and neo-Stalinist nationalism. Yeltsin, too, lied about his peasant kulak family past. Born in 1931 young Boris was raised in the farm village of his ancestors; Butka, in the Sverdlovsk Region of the Urals is where the Yeltsin clan sowed the fields, ploughed the wheat, and barely survives the Bolshevik takeover of Tsarist Russia.

Yeltsin recalled the family story when he nearly drowned at his own baptism: “The birthrate was quite high and baptisms took place once a month, so the day was rather hectic for the priest. The baptisms took place in the most primitive of fashions. There was a barrel, containing some kind of holy liquid, the child was completely immersed in it, then the squealing infant was pulled out, blessed, given a name and entered into the church register. As was the custom in villages, the parents then presented the priest with a glass of booze, vodka, moonshine … . Considering that my turn only came around in the second half of the day, the priest was by that time having trouble keeping his feet. I was passed to him, he lowered me into the barrel and forgot to take me out, instead starting to discuss and argue with the onlookers about something. My parents were some distance away, and didn’t grasp the problem at first. When they did understand, my mother jumped up with a cry, caught me somewhere around the bottom and pulled me out. … My child-life was hard. There was no food. The harvests were abysmal. Everyone was herded into a kolkhoz – it was a time of mass dispossession for the kulaks. Moreover, war-bands roamed the land – almost every day there were gunfights, murders, and thievery. We lived in poverty. A small house, a cow, there was a horse but it soon died so there was nothing to plow with … . In 1935, when even the cow died and it became completely unbearable, father decided to find work at a construction site, to save the family. This was the so-called period of industrialization. We hitched ourselves to the cart, threw our last few possessions onto it and headed towards the station, thirty-two kilometers away.”

The Yeltsin family moved into a tiny wooden barracks, six sleeping on the floor. They bought a goat, for milk and warmth during the thirty degree below winters. It is true. A goat saved them all.

But that was an artful and socially acceptable rendering of the Yeltsin peasant family to cover the truth. The reality was much different, according to author Sol Shulman (Kings of the Kremlin). The Yeltsins are “a solid and well-to-do peasant clan…with deep roots in the Ural soil. The grandfather on the father’s side was a well-known blacksmith and church elder.” He was arrested and his farm confiscated under the “revolutionary morality” of the Soviet law in his case, “merciful”. According to Internal Security Case # 56-44, grandfather Yeltsin was charged with having “a large village home, two mills – one water, one wind, he also owned a threshing-machine, an automated harvester, five horses, four cows, and twelve hectares of land. He also kept helpers, hired hands.” The grandson recalls that his grandfather kulak “in the best peasant tradition ‘took to the hills’” and dies four months later.

Yeltsin’s father Nikolai is a talented handyman and fortunate to be allowed by a kind kolkhoz chairman to travel to the city to work. Otherwise the family faced starvation. In order to survive the family packs up and resettles at Berezniki, in the Urals, where his father finds work on a construction site. More hardship burdened the Yeltsins;, in April 1934 when Bill Bullitt prepares to arrive in Moscow to reopen the US embassy Boris Yeltsin’s uncle Nokolai and four co-workers are arrested and charged with sabotage.

The actual cause of his arrest was an incident when Boris’ 22-year old uncle dumped a canteen of foul soup and unleashed an outburst of anti-Soviet curses that sent his father and uncle to the labour camps for three years. Yeltsin recalls the nightmare that every family feared might befall them in Notes of a President: “‘It is night. People walk into the wood barracks. Mother shouts, she is crying. I wake up and also start to cry. I’m not crying because they are taking father away. I am still little and don’t understand what is going on. I can see that mother is crying, and how scared she is … . Father is taken away, mother rushes to me and embraces me. I calm down and go to sleep. Three years after father returned from the camps’.” (Sol Shulman, Kings of the Kremlin, Brasseys/Chrysalis, 2002, 281)

Understand reader that straight through to Putin Russian leaders have never recognized the Holodomor. Nor does Putin who thinks of himself as a normal Stalinist. That is, he kills less but that won’t convince the Chechins, or survivors of the current bloodbath in Syria.

As long as he stays within politically safe limits Dr. James Mace received timely US support from Washington to Kiev where he was a university professor. This is happening during the crackup just prior to the final collapse of the Soviet Union. Mace published a high-lighted list of his findings:

1) There is no doubt that large numbers of inhabitants of the Ukrainian SSR and the North Caucasus Territory starved to death in a man-made famine in 1932-1933, caused by the seizure of the 1932 crop by Soviet authorities.

2) The victims of the Ukrainian Famine numbered in the millions.

3) Official Soviet allegations of “kulak sabotage,” upon which all “difficulties” were blamed during the Famine, are false.

4) The Famine was not, as is often alleged, related to drought.

5) In 1931-1932, the official Soviet response to a drought-induced grain shortage outside Ukraine was to send aid to the areas affected and to make a series of concessions to the peasantry.

6) In mid-1932, following complaints by officials in the Ukrainian SSR that excessive grain procurements (seizures) had led to localized outbreaks of famine, Moscow reversed course and took an increasingly hard line toward the peasantry.

7) The inability of Soviet authorities in Ukraine to meet the grain procurements quota forced them to introduce increasingly severe measures to extract the maximum quantity of grain from the peasants.

8) In the Fall of 1932 Stalin used the resulting “procurements crisis” in Ukraine as an excuse to tighten his control in Ukraine and to intensify grain seizures further.

9) The Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 was caused by the maximum extraction of agricultural produce from the rural population.

10) Officials in charge of grain seizures also lived in fear of punishment.

11) Stalin knew that people were starving to death in Ukraine by late 1932.

12) In January 1933, Stalin used the “laxity” of the Ukrainian authorities in seizing grain to strengthen further his control over the Communist Party of Ukraine and mandated actions which worsened the situation and maximized the loss of life.

13) Postyshev had a dual mandate from Moscow: to intensify the grain seizures (and therefore the Famine) in Ukraine and to eliminate such modest national self-assertion as Ukrainians had hitherto been allowed by the USSR.

14) While famine also took place during the 1932-1933 agricultural year in the Volga Basin and the North Caucasus Territory as a whole, the invasiveness of Stalin’s interventions of both the Fall of 1932 and January 1933 in Ukraine are paralleled only in the ethnically Ukrainian Kuban region of the North Caucasus.

15) Attempts were made to prevent the starving from traveling to areas where food was more available.

16) Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933.

17) The American government had ample and timely information about the Famine but failed to take any steps which might have ameliorated the situation. Instead, the Administration extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet government in November 1933, immediately after the Famine.

18) During the Famine certain members of the American press corps cooperated with the Soviet government to deny the existence of the Ukrainian Famine.” (Dr. James Mace)

Genocide is a political nightmare for governments. It is a sort of undeclared war against the innocent people of the world and in today’s war-torn poverty-stricken media-assaulted environment the issue of Genocide risks the “fifteen-minute” claim to fame of media redundancy. In today’s Internet culture, ironically, important news becomes old news almost instantly. Instead of dealing with simple and logical priority of political responsibility, the Genocide Debate is played out on a complacent and overwhelmed public much to the satisfaction of the perpetrators who remain at large, disguised or virtually unseen. These masters and princes yielding world power remain protected and untouchable behind tall walls and guarded gates isolated in their luxury, wealth and privilege. As a result too much time and energy is spent on this other debacle, this endless highly politicized debate over definitions: famine vs. Genocide; forced or man-made famine vs. natural or artificially induced mass-murder, et cetera. Academicians indulge in this sort of mental gymnastics debating numbers and definitions that obscure the fundamental issues.

Protagonists of this false debate defy human rights advocates and economists. These “experts” not only want a full belly, but immortality, – that cheap fame that comes from succumbing to peer pressure. Clear lines of distinction are obscured; victims are confused with the aggressors. Think about it: numbers of victims quickly become abstract. A victim becomes a number. Solzhenitsyn has a wonderful description of woman prisoners in the Soviet gulags refusing to wear a number, – “the sign of the devil!”, they screamed. Forced to withstand sub-freezing conditions nonetheless they preferred their light undergarments than wear the scarlet letter of evil. To be nothing! To be a mere statistic! To the women it is an intolerable human dignity. The Nazis learned from Stalin, and, after the invasion of June 1941 subjugated the Ukrainians as sub-humans to be treated worse than animals.

Stalin became supreme ruler of the Soviet state, always using cunning skill and diabolical intelligence to plan his strategic moves well in advance. It was easy to eliminate the Ukrainians en masse. For the Russian communists the Ukrainian nationals didn’t even rate as a statistic. No IBM index card for them. Watson, the chairman of IBM, was more interested in organizing the Nazi empire used as well for cataloging Holocaust victims for which he was honored by Hitler, that is, before he sold his machines to Stalin. This at a time as many Consortium leaders voice their infatuation for the fascist movement. General Motors senior executive on his return from Germany, for example, William Knudsen, in a comment for the press, portrayed Hitler as “the miracle of Europe”. A few peasants might be noticed. But a million! Never! No one would believe it. Would you? Where did they all go? To Mars? And so they denied it. All the leaders publicly denied the extermination while privately talking it over in low whispers between themselves behind closed doors, in classified dispatches and secret orders.

The West feared Stalin just as a decade earlier they had feared Lenin and Trotsky ubiquitously absent at Versailles. And the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD? (Under Putin the state secret police is renamed again, as FSB). Nor were these secret police executioners above the law of Soviet justice! They too must be made to pay for their crimes. There is always a crime to be found if not in the past, in the future. Their plots and schemes will undo them. Are not the executioners also victims for having expedited orders to the excess? Historians for the most part concur that seven to ten million people perished in Stalin’s forced famine.


Who was Joseph Stalin? Apparently he was born in 1879 in Georgia of the North Caucasus (though a theory has it that his father was Ossetian and Stalin “Georgianized” his family name to Dzhugashvili). Chosen General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1922, his Bolshevik party name was “Koba”. Soviet Defense Commissar Trotsky (Leon Bronstein/Lev Davidovich) was the same age as Stalin, more popular, a cosmopolitan intellectual, and inflammatory speaker and generally expected to succeed Lenin. When Lenin’s health fails, Stalin isolates Lenin and most probably poisons him, in 1924, while he outmaneuvers Trotsky pushing him completely out of the Communist Party in 1927.

In the Soviet Union Party hierarchy this is a worse than death. But Trotsky is still too popular to kill without provoking serious suspicions. Comrade Stalin knew all too well if you don’t use your teeth you get nothing. For Trotsky his time is soon up. Two years later Lenin’s Commissar for War and founder of the Red Army, Leon Trotsky, having refused to admit “crimes against the Party”, is accosted by an OGPU detachment that morning and ordered to leave his flat January 17, 1928. One of the officers recognized his former leader and added to the drama as he cracked and wept, “Shoot me, Comrade Trotsky, shoot me.” They usher him by car to the Trans-Siberian Express taking him far from Moscow in Alma-Ata. (C. Andrew and V. Mitrokhin, 39, re. Leon Trotsky, My Life, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1970, 539;Issac Deutscher, Trotsky, Oxford Univ. Press, 1970, 692-4; Dimitri Volkogonov, Trotsky, The Eternal Revolutionary, London: HarperCollins, 1996, 305)

The sky is still too dark for Stalin. He regrets leaving Trotsky too much freedom out of his control but at least he’s out of the way where he can’t stir up trouble. It happened to the Tsar and it might happen to him, at any moment, a bullet in the back of the head; perhaps the honors of a firing squad he must have wondered. Or a hunting accident on one of his few hunting trips. He is given a desk, writing materials and sends “about 550 telegrams and 800 ‘political letters’, to his supporters while he is allowed during this time to receive a thousand letters and seven hundred telegrams. How many were confiscated, destroyed or sent to Stalin surely must have been much more he thought. The head of the OGPU and Stalin pour over the stream of correspondence for the slightest hint of conspiracy. “Stalin,” writes Christopher Andrew, who never failed to overreact to opposition, cannot but have been unfavorably impressed by letters which regularly described him and his supporters as “degenerates’.” (C. Andrew and V. Mitrokhin, 39)

A decade passes when Trotsky, still in Mexico is assassinated by a Soviet NKVD agent who slams an ice pick into his brain.

Was his death a tragedy?

“When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic”

Stalin methods of mass purges seldom left any trace. This deserves some reflection. “When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic”, Stalin is reported to have said. The remark by Stalin to Churchill at the Teheran Conference late November 1943 may have been paraphrased in translation: “When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it’s statistics”, quoting David McCullough’s, Truman (1991): “Churchill had been arguing that a premature opening of a second front in France would result in an unjustified loss of tens of thousands of Allied soldiers. Stalin responded that ‘when one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it’s statistics’.” Teheran proves to be an important conference, in particular for Churchill and Stalin to overcome their natural disposition of mutual suspicion and distrust, and their mood is more relaxed and occasionally they are able to talk together as “men and brothers”. (A. I. Solzhenitsyn,“ a full belly” quoted “Asphyxiation” in The Oak and the Calf, 247; Gerard Colby, DuPont Dynasty, 1974, 1984, 326; David McCullough, Truman, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1991; D. McCullough from The Time of Stalin: Portrait of Tyranny by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, 278. David McCullough (b.1933,Bones 1955; Alexandra Robbins, Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power, Boston: Little Brown, 2002, 12)


By that time the war had been extremely problematic, costly in lives and resources, and highly unpredictable. When England had been alone in standing up to Hitler, and before Barbarossa,– the anticipated German invasion of Russia, – Prime Minister Churchill entertained a small dinner party at Chequers as was his custom. Among his guests were his Personal Secretary Jock Colville, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, and US ambassador John Winant. “Hitler was counting on enlisting capitalist and Right Wing sympathizers in this country and the U.S.A,” Churchill said, and he added, when the attack comes, “We should go all out to help Russia.” Churchill held that line all during the war, never trusting Stalin, yet never does he belittle their sacrifice and extraordinary losses. Winant reaffirms Roosevelt’s support for Churchill “welcoming Soviet Russia as an ally”. With the dinner guests away Colville and Churchill talked about cuddling with Stalin, and Churchill remarks, “I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

In a curious twist of fate, it was a Russian emigrant Jew who greatly advanced America’s code-breaking effort. Churchill and Roosevelt, armed with Ultra and Magic, were essentially fighting a techno-savvy spy war with codes and ciphers and cryptanalysts while Stalin endlessly throws hordes of divisions after divisions ranking up millions in war dead to overwhelm rapidly depleting German forces in armaments, men and supplies. William Friedman coined the term “cryptanalysis”. According to the inimitable British historian John Keegan, “Friedman was largely responsible for the most important of America’s cryptanalytic successes, the breaking of Purple.”

The Purple machine, the latest Japanese encryption device, has a similar effect as the German Enigma. F. W. Winterbotham, a senior Air Staff man in the British Secret Intelligence Service for ten years before the outbreak of war in 1939, was largely responsible with other ‘backroom boys’ of the Ultra code-breaking operations housed at Bletchley. Throughout the war the top secret ciphered and decoded transmissions were guarded with the utmost security that earns the attribution by Churchill as “my most secret source” in his campaign to win the war. The information includes high-level communication from Hitler and his commanders on their Enigma cipher machines. With the decoded intercepts the British know in advance German preparations for the 1940 Battle of Britain, for example, and the position of U-Boats and surface ships. Enigma intercepts are surreptitiously diffused to alert Stalin of Hitler’s Russian war plan “Barbarossa” down to the day and hour of invasion while Churchill carefully guards the origin of his secret source. Stalin dismisses the warnings as Anglo disinformation not to be trusted or taken seriously. Donovan’s OSS agents bought an Enigma from the Finn code experts “for a suite case full of cash”.

Group Captain F. W. Winterbotham reveals in his popular book The Ultra Secret (1974) that the British War Office and the Air Ministry on Intelligence long in advance had trails of reports on Hitler’s use of “the dive bomber in the armoured blitzkrieg. … General von Reichenau had explained to me … how the blitzkrieg would work against Russia, way back in Berlin in 1935.” (J. E. Persico, “Spies versus Ciphers” in Roosevelt’s Secret War, 101; Life’s History of World War II, NY: Time Inc., 1950, 66; John Keegan, Intelligence in War, Knopf, 2003, 193; F. W. Winterbotham, The Ultra Secret, Dell, 1974, ed, 1978, 55; re Soviet ciphers and decrypts, C. Andrew and V. Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 1999; David Kahn, Seizing the Enigma, The Race to Break the Enigma U-Boat Codes 1939-1943, NY: Barnes & Noble, 1991; P. K. O’Donnell, 268)

We know that certain political leaders of the western governments were not unintentionally blind to the Holodomor, nor were they ignorant of Hitler’s preparations for the invasion of Russia. Friendly European consulates and embassies witnessed it. British ambassador Sir Esmond Ovey and his officers regularly send reports home to the Foreign Office where they were hushed up. The author was first amazed at the tepid response of US officials who apparently closed their eyes and looked away preferring not to see or hear cries for help from Stalin’s terrified Ukrainians, who, as the State Department officially declared, were already forsaken as victims “powerless to take any steps which might have ameliorated the situation”.

Cut them out. Let them go. “Reset”, Obama declares. Start over. With what? The same program, the same mentality of a cynical debauched political leadership of the so-called democracies with their orchestrated media side-shows reset for mainstream consumer consumption? Some call it chaos and randomness; others see an alarming orderly consequential logic set in motion. In the end, whether duped or duked, its all the same result.

But wait! The American government did in fact have detailed knowledge of the Holodomor Genocide. It’s not until the late 1980s that Dr. James Mace declares that in fact the State Department had been more than adequately informed about the famine and that it had for years kept detailed official memoranda monitoring famine conditions in the Ukraine. It was an initiation into the dark shadows of the Holodomor and US foreign policy where few dare venture. It is not called “Foggy Bottom” for nothing. There transparency is not good for business. In fact, its code of ethics is decidedly contrary to an overt code of moral ethics. The honorable Dr. James Mace, too, chose not to dig deeper. There were for him, in fact, to get as far as he did, “special considerations”, special safe limits of Washington’s politically correct agenda beyond which he does not dare transgress during his lifetime.


Why be bothered by corpses! The dead don’t tell lies. The Holodomor remains politically steeped in controversy. Jobs are at stake. Careers and lifetime security and social status may certainly be jeopardized by the vanity of crying Genocide to deafened ears. How many were killed because they knew too much, or lived to keep silent about exposing more details of what may have been known of American complicity with Stalin during the Holodomor years? And all that denigrating the memory of the dead to impoverish the morality of the living with the poison of their selfish contempt if not for anything but the sacred truth of it while for such crime-masters there is nothing sacred at all, where greed and profits hold sway over the ignorant masses under the heel of stoic educators of culture and religion. For that matter, why should Dr. Mace care if Roosevelt turned a blind eye to the Genocide and extend official recognition of the Soviet communist regime?

But that is exactly the nub of the problem. And that problem persists even today with stench and rot of a festering wound infecting those who dare to turning away and ignore it. There were political motives for leaving the Ukrainians to their fate. Engagement with Stalin! As his first major foreign policy decision of his new administration in November 1933 FDR legitimized a de facto policy (real but undeclared) of the US government at the time of American economic engagement with the Soviet communist dictatorship of gulags and slave labor.

Dr. Mace ventured into the labyrinth of original perpetrators of the crime estimated at a loss in human life “at the rate of 25,000 per day – or 1,000 per hour. Nearly a quarter of Ukraine’s rural population – the backbone of the nation”. And of those lost, perhaps as many as three million children. There is absolutely no excuse for avoiding the truth, and averting others from spreading seeds of illusion that bear more rotten fruit. It is an intellectual desecration of the worst sort. Reader beware.

A half-truth is also a half-lie. By not pursuing the leads, for fear of implicating the imperial Presidency posing as the defender of “the forgotten man”, the idol-smashing high priest of American democratic capitalism, FDR was throughout the decade of his Presidency in bed with Stalin and cronies of the Consortium. Not a nice place to be, even for Dr. Mace suddenly within the maze of Consortium intrigue. Solzhenitsyn warned us of such persons who dared to know, even write, cutting away the truth, these so-called truth-seekers who undertake a journey only to suddenly stop and turn away. Have they “… taken fright? Gone soft with fame? And betrayed the dead?” he asks. (A. I. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, Sketches of Literary Life in the Soviet Union, Harper & Row, 1975, 1979 ed., 311)

Declassified government documents, mostly State Department files, provided many of the detailed dispatches and correspondences revealing knowledge and concern by US government officials of the Holodomor and the cover-up in Washington. Currently, the activities of secret government are a constant menace to a free and democratic society and undermine its basic foundation and principles. Co-authors dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties and free speech for an open, honest and transparent democratic government Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell write in their book, 63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You To Read (2011), citing the Washington Post, “there are now 854,000 American citizens with top secret clearances. * The number of new secrets rose 75 percent between 1996 and 2009, and the number of documents using those secrets went from 5.6 million in 1996 to 54.6 million last year. There are an astounding 16 million documents being classified top secret by our government every year! Today, pretty much everything the government does is presumed secret. Isn’t it time we asked ourselves whether this is really necessary for the conduct of foreign affairs or the internal operation of governments? Doesn’t secrecy actually protect the favored classes and allow them to continue to help themselves at the expense of the rest of us? Isn’t this a cancer growing on democracy?”

As for Julian Assange and Wikileaks, Vetura and Russell state unequivocally, “Julian Assange is a hero … . Wikileaks is exposing our government officials for the frauds that they are. They also show us how governments work together to lie to their citizens when they are waging war … . If our State Department is asking diplomats to steal personal information from UN officials and human rights groups, in violation of international laws, then shouldn’t the world know about it and demand corrective action? Maybe if they know they’re potentially going to be exposed, the powers that hide behind a cloak of secrecy will think twice before they plot the next Big Lie.” (Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell, 63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You To Read, NY: Skyhorse, 2011, 3-9; That number has increased to “more than a million”, writes Steve Coll, “Comment: The President and the Press”, The New Yorker, June 10, 2013)


How much more he knew about the evil hand behind the Holodomor Dr. Mace did not say. It was his choice. He chose not to. But in every act, there lay the so-called non-act, that which is not done. It is what is undone, and left for others to do. In the case of the Holodomor, that which he didn’t do, – and this is where lay the moral dilemma,– is left implied in what Dr. Mace does reveal.

The other side of good is evil. Dr. Mace did not deliver us from evil. Implicitly, however, Dr. Mace leaves it behind for another time, for others to sort out. That moral dilemma is omnipresent. It doesn’t go away by willing it to disappear. It’s there even when you don’t see it. It’s always there when Roosevelt turns his eyes away to ignore it completely. Nor does the Holodomor go away by not thinking openly about it or discussing it with notes among his closest advisers. Or when Putin says it’s not so, or that Stalin was not at fault.

What we do know ever so carefully broached by Dr. Mace is that the record still hidden of evil deeds by Stalin and the Consortium then clearly out front and right behind him pushing forward, and bankrolling his grandiose communist social and economic scheme were all politically linked as they were aware of events of the Holodomor during those years before and after what amounted to the worst Holocaust the world has ever known …”, observes US Senator Charles Schumer from New York, FDR’s home state in a memorial ceremony in November 2009. (Remarks by Senator Charles Schumer at the 2009 annual Memorial Service hosted each year by the Eastern Eparchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America with the Stamford Eparchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, in November. The senator’s official website declared, “After graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Law School in 1974, Chuck returned home and ran for the New York State Assembly, becoming at 23, the youngest member of the State Legislature since Theodore Roosevelt…”)

You would have to be a veritable idiot defying the logic of gravity not to expect that FDR and his liberal-leaning wife Eleanor Delano were not both alarmed by press reports and private conversations and documents that filtered through the State Department. Roosevelt played with consummate skill the leading actor in the center role, a grandmaster many steps ahead of his advisers, and who with a wave of the back side of his hand could nonchalantly dismiss the infiltration of Soviet spies and betrayal in his government as though he knew more about them than they knew themselves. High above the valley with the Hudson flowing from the mountain streams and forests to the wide ocean there at Hyde Park Roosevelt may have felt aloft on his Everest above the temptations of life and removed from its fears and where a Christian is compelled by an inner force and intuition to act and cannot resist the workings of History. As we are told in good counsel by the reflections of French philosopher and professor of the history of religion at the University of Chicago, Mircea Eliade, writing of our epoch, “evasion is forbidden to the Christian. And for him there is no other issue; since the Incarnation took place in History, since the Advent of Christ marks the last and the highest manifestation of the sacred in the world in Myths, Dreams and Mysteries (1957): the Christian can save himself (and mankind sic) only with the concrete, historical life, the life that was chosen and lived by Christ.” (sect. “Powers and History” in “Power and Holiness” of Mircea Eliade, Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, Paris: Gallimard; NY: Harper & Row, 1957, 1960 ed. English, 154)

Politics follows different patterns in defiance of the laws of Nature. Why was news about the Holodomor taboo in free and democratic America? The consequences can be equally tragic and as we saw with the unfolding events of the thirties culminating in the Second World War and the Holocaust subsequent events were even more catastrophically horrific ultimately leading to not disease and pestilence this time but atomic annihilation giving birth to a new globalized world order of federated nations and increasingly powerful centralized banks and giant media organizations bent on Cold War mythology churning out constant propaganda. What were the reasons for the censorship and black-out by the editors at home?

At the same time in Soviet Russia a distant association to a Ukrainian was grounds for arrest and even execution.

It also seemed odd that neither the distinguished and highly honored American in Kiev Dr. Mace nor the ranks of apparently earnest researchers of the Holodomor pursued those most important questions of moral imperative inherent in public service and humanitarian aid which today act as cornerstones bridging freedom with the legal system of an open democratic society. Dr. Dalrymple draws some valuable lessons from his experience as a researcher into the Holodomor and the problem of Genocide in general as it was handled at the time. “American and English studies on the USSR,” Dana writes, “occasionally mention a famine in Ukraine. But that is the end of it, and in most cases, lack all details.” The question of ethics is banished along with the problem. If the problem doesn’t exist then there is no ethical question to discuss. Divert, change the subject, “reset” or reposition the debate. Move on. And that’s what happened. We know that the American presidents Herbert Hoover and FDR did nothing to stop it.


In spite of an international outcry and national protests in the streets and newspapers in the United States and abroad, the Holodomor Terror-Famine was neither officially recognized nor examined. Instead, and in spite of the continuing forced death of millions of Ukrainians and other Russians FDR granted his “brother” Stalin official diplomatic recognition in 1933. American businesses and banks continued to build the industrial infrastructure of the economy of the Soviet totalitarian monopoly.

How many of famine-related documents in US State Department archives remained classified, inaccessible, misplaced, lost or destroyed is not known. Over a span of decades hundreds of uncounted hours, endless weeks and months in the vaulted archives of Yale, Harvard and Princeton I can personally attest to that.

Since Dr. Mace went public, scholars and historians debate the maze of numbers in the tragic toll. “As with the Holocaust and the Armenian massacres,” Mace declares, “the exact number of victims can only be estimated. But we know that the 1926 Soviet census counted 31.2 million Ukrainians and that the probably inflated census of 1939 counted only 28.1 million, an absolute decline of 3.1 million or 10 percent. Once probable population growth for the period is considered, the probable number of victims is in the range of 5 to 7 million, more probably closer to the higher end of this range than to the lower.”

In New York, in November 2009, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA declared the figure of “ten million men, women and children lost in Josef Stalin’s horrifying effort to destroy a people – a nation – long proud of their rich land, which was known as the “bread basket of Europe”. And always when examining “official’ facts and records in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in particular, even the numbers can be life-threatening, if not satisfactory to the always right Stalin, as with his first census in the thirties, discontent led to executions of the census takers until he got the numbers respecting the “perfectio” of his bold new socialist society.


In a unique concurrence of political events a newly established United States Congress Commission on the Ukraine famine in 1988 examines the role of foreign journalists, among them the Americans Walter Duranty, Louis Fisher, William Chamberlin, Ralph Barnes and three Britons– Gareth Jones, Eugene Lyons, and Malcolm Muggeridge. They all witnessed and reported in varying measure with wide divergences and contradiction the Holodomor Terror-Famine. Some deliberately told the truth. Others intentionally suppressed it. But the truth was not forgotten and found its way out of the depths of despair and denial. A serious and dramatic correction in the compass of inquiry was needed before facing the truth.

Between the original revelations and more recent research by Dalrymple and Mace over a span of a half-century had passed before the compass needle of the official record began pointing in the right direction. They both concluded that in spite of the official blackout and denial by Americans and the Soviets newspapers had reported worsening famine conditions and soaring numbers of fatalities. It was all too evident that both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations adopted a policy of denial. Their “out of sight out of mind” approach towards business investment in the USSR shadowed the Holodmor victims and relegated them to the back pages of tabloids in scattered articles and classified government documents long sealed away from public scrutiny. Meanwhile politicians and diplomats in the White House State” Department met with bankers of the Federal Reserve America dealt with their own problem of collecting the foreign reparations debts from Germany, England and France. Meanwhile during the years of the Great Depression of the thirties the Consortium gang pursued their corporate profits and investments banking in the struggling American economy and fascist regimes abroad.

During the mounting crisis of the 1932-1934 Holodomor years the risk of exposing at the heart of the matter the Federal Reserve system of centralized and partner banks with its inept currency manipulations strikes at the core of the integrity of America’s democratic institutions. The risk was great of incriminating many of the country’s highest ranked corporate leaders and model citizens of the Consortium, the baronesque wealth of the DuPonts, Mellons, Morgans, Harrimans, Rockefellers and their set, certain to be compromised by any investigation into America’s economic arrangements with Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. According to Gerard Colby in his extensive detailed inquiry DuPont Dynasty (1974) fierce anti-communist rhetoric of the conservative end of the political parties provokes a real threat of a military take-over of the US government in a scheme financed by Gerald MacGuire, “a lawyer in the Morgan brokerage office of Grayson M. Murphy and an official of the American Legion”. (Gerard Colby, DuPont Dynasty: Behind the Nylon Curtain,Secaucus, New Jersey: Lyle Stuart, 1974, 1984 ed., 324-30)


In view of the 2008 financial crash and world economic slowdown, the dysfunctional years of the Great Depression and Holodomor are brought up-to-date with an understanding that strikes home. Then, as well as today, it was obvious that the economy of the nation was in need of a major over-haul, something more than a correction or drop in the fed interest rate both in terms of the moral leadership of its political leaders and the way the country conducts business at home and abroad. In comparison with the Holodomor thirties, the global banking crisis and economic recession of the last few years since the Wall Street meltdown in 2008 uncovers alarming parallels with that same period of the Great Depression and political turmoil that something is fundamentally and structurally wrong with capitalism in America. Then, too, increasing numbers in the ranks of the hungry and unemployed begged for a correction.

The secret Geitner-Paulson deals between Treasury and the Bank of America killed the giant investment firms Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and lost trillions of dollars sunk in toxic overly- leveraged debt leaving the Obama administration and the US Congress facing a $14 trillion debt in scale with a $30 trillion financial meltdown. World Bank president Robert Zoellick in Washington warned against the unaccountable authority of the Fed’s “independent and powerful technocrats” who far exceed the limits of Congress to hold it responsible and in check”. Not everyone lost, – not by a long shot. In the debacle JP Morgan-Chase and Goldman Sachs stack up over $3 billion profits. Soul-searching Goldman Sachs’ chairman Lloyd C. Blankfein set aside $16.7 billion in bonus money averaging $700,000 for each of his 31,700 workers. Goldman Sachs is perceived as the prime culprit for the total loss of the major global stock exchanges that dropped just under $45 trillion “down from a peak of almost $62 trillion at the end of 2007, before the subprime meltdown wrecked the global economy”, according a report by Bloomberg. Blankfein pockets another $34 million pay package from his firm from 2010-11.

The next day the world learns that J. P. Morgan bought out its investment bank partner Cazenove in London described as “a 190-year-old British brokerage that counts the Queen among its clients” with the aim to consolidate its activities in business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa for the $1.7 billion deal. At the same time England’s Parliament and the City,– London’s financial investment district,– is thrown into mayhem following the Bank of England’s rescue deals that by the end of 2009 cost U.K. taxpayers about 850 billion pounds. And as the bankers count the billions that came and went elsewhere in America unemployment lines grow longer so that by the end of 2009 some 7.3 million workers lose their jobs within the last two years. In the wake of the meltdown by January 2010 a total of 10.5 million people were receiving unemployment benefits all the while Jamie Dimon laughs his way to the bank. (Julia Werdigier, “J. P. Morgan Buys Out a British Banking Partner”, Bloomberg, Nov. 18, 2009; The NYT,Nov. 19, 2009; Caroline Binham, “Turner Plan on ‘Socially Useless’ Trades Make Bankers See Red”, Bloomberg, Jan. 7, 2010; Bloomberg, Jan. 8, 2010)

On August 1, 2013, a jury decision in New York found Fabrice Torre, a 34 year old former Goldman Sachs vice-president Fabrice Torre guilty on seven counts of charges of insider trading and fraud in a failed mortgage deal that went terribly wrong in 2007 costing investors billions. Goldman had bartered with the SEC back in July 2010 and pay $550 million to bury the case over Abacus, and neither admit nor deny any wrongdoing while at the same time it concedes, according to Reuters, that “some of its marketing materials were misleading.” Reuters added, “Wall Street crashed the global financial system and almost caused a second Great Depression,” according to Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial regulation advocacy group Better Markets, and he declared, “the SEC failed to go after Wall Street’s bonus-bloated executives who ran the banks that sold trillions of dollars of worthless securities,” adding that the SEC merely needed Toure as an isolated lone “scapegoat” with an incriminating trail of emails in which “bragged” about the deal and imminent collapse of the markets to his girlfriend. The SEC had earlier, in November 2012, backed off from pursing civil charges against, a former director at GSC Capital Corp involving a $1.1 billion CDO crafted by JP Morgan Chase. To avoid the law suit both two banks settled out of court a nine-figure payment neither admitting or denying the charges. As I write the Jamie Dimon, chief of JP Morgan-Chase late September 2013 announced a deal with the US Justice Department for a $13 billion settlement to end the government’s inquiry into its “questionable mortgage practices”. And that doesn’t include Dimon’s $9.3 billion payoff to the lawyers. (Nate Raymond, “SEC wins as ex-Goldman executive Tourre found liable for fraud”, Reuters, Aug. 2, 2013; Ben Protess, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, “JP Morgan Said to Be Near Deal on Mortgages”, The NYT, Sept. 27, 2013)

Despite intervention by the world’s central bankers pumping trillions into failed banks and credit institutions newspapers report daily stories by world economists and bankers predicting that the US and global economy is still close to the brink of a gigantic financial tsuami. In the wake of billion dollar bonus payouts to Wall Street investment banking investment firms (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan-Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch), the Fed bail-out of the banks ensnares the Obama administration in a fury over the lack of accountability and transparency. Just where all the money went no one knows with any certainty leaving the people in a lurch and the economy in a steadily declining free-for-all tailspin.

In our time Americans appear to take a more critical look into the secrets of the Federal Reserve Bank operations and its taciturn chairman. In October 2009 The New York Times published an Op-ed. piece titled “Who’s Looking at the Fed’s Books?” by William A. Barnett, a former Fed staffer, and at present professor of macroeconomics at the University of Kansas and the editor of the journal Macroeconomic Dynamics. William Barnett wrote, “it should be clear that we depend on the Fed for high-quality financial data and that the Fed should be held to the highest standards of transparency. And yet we cannot be assured of either of these things unless the Fed is subjected to a thorough audit of its numbers. … I know that without comprehensive audits to double-check Federal Reserve data, the risk exists of inadequate and sloppy accounting from the Fed.” Oh, but nothing criminal, no arrests or prison terms for the elite. They are untouchable, so far. In the words of billionaire T. Boone Pickens referring to a high price of oil,– which speaks same for Consortium control of the Fed and economic uncertainty, the Texan grunted, “ Get used to it. You’re going to have to live with it.” In other words, “eat it and shut up”. Putin’s Russian expressions are more vulgar and direct. (“World Bank Head Expects Dollar’s Role to Diminish”, The NYT, Sept. 29, 2009; “Return of Record Paydays”, The NYT, Oct. 16, 2009; William A. Barnett, “Who’s Looking at the Fed’s Books?”,The NYT, Oct. 22, 2009; “Oil Skyrockets Above $80 as the Dollar Sinks”, The NYT, Oct. 22, 2009)