Only a few years ago far from Washington and on the opposite side of the world the former President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko declared November 21 a day of national mourning in honor of ten million victims of Terror-Famine of the Ukraine known as the Holodomor (“Death by Hunger” in Ukrainian pronounced with a “G” as in “Golo”). In fact, as terrible as it really was maybe the death toll was as high as 14.5 million as declared by former Soviet Premier Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. Impossible? Unthinkable? Why? Gorbachev had supreme authority and access to the most secret Soviet archives. Or, perhaps the true death figure is “between three and six million”. Or, as “claimed from six to eleven million lives, depending on how the estimates are made”. (Martin Malia, The Soviet Tragedy, A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991, NY: Free Press-Macmillan, 1994, 1999; Orest Subtelny, Ukraine, A History, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1988, 1994, 415)

“My courage sinks to stand up before my fellow humans as a prophet,” Freud declares, “and I bow before their reproach that I do not know how to bring them consolation – for that is fundamentally what they all demand, the wildest revolutionaries no less passionately than the most conformist pious believers… “Men have now gone so far in the mastery of natural forces that with their help they could easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this, hence a large part of their current unrest, their unhappiness, their mood of anxiety.” (Peter Gay, Freud: A Life For Our Time, NY: Norton, 1988, 551-2)

“The first step in liquidation of a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was,” writes Czech author Milan Kundera about life under communist dictatorship in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting (1978)

“The destruction of Bolshevism and the enslavement of the Soviet Union’s vast population were core objectives of Nazism, flagged in Hitler’s speeches and writings since the 1920’s. Overlaid on them was the desire to appropriate Russia’s enormous natural resources.” – Max Hastings, British World War II historian and author of some 20 books.

“The struggle for Normandy was the decisive western battle of the Second World War, the last moment at which the German army might conceivably have saved Hitler from catastrophe. The post-war generation grew up with the legend of the Allied campaign in 1944-45 as a triumphal progress across Europe, somewhere unrelated to the terrible but misty struggle that had taken place in the east. Today, we can recognize that the Russians made a decisive contribution to the western war by destroying the best of the German army, killing some two million men, before the first Allied soldier stepped ashore on 6 June 1944. It is the fact that the battle for Normandy took place against this background which makes the events of June and July so remarkable.” (Max Hastings, Overlord, D-Day, June 6, 1945, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1984)

“Between 1941 and 1945, British and American sailors and airmen fought at sea and in the sky, but relatively small numbers of Western Allied ground troops engaged the Axis in North Africa, Italy, Asia and the Pacific. The Soviet Union suffered 65 percent of all Allied military deaths…the United States and Britain 2 percent each… One Russian in four died, against one in twenty British Commonwealth combatants and one in thirty-four American servicemen. Some 3.66 percent of Marines died, compared with 2.5 percent of the Army and 1.5 percent of the Navy.” (Max Hastings, Inferno, The World at War, 1939-1945, NY: Knopf, 2011)

Neil Ascherson’s Black Sea and his edifying account of barbarian lore: “Barbarians, by definition, are so-called; they do not consider themselves to be barbarous. … When Blok (‘Yes – we are Scythians. Yes– we are Asiatics, / With slanted and avid eyes… / For the last time come to your senses, old World! To the brotherly feast of work and peace, / For the last time to the bright brotherly feast/ The barbarian lyre calls.’ sic ) snatched up the ‘barbarian’ conceit for revolutionary Russia, it had already been well-worn in the service of imperial nationalism, above all in Germany. … The Third Reich hardened this fashion into a full cultural dogma… ” (N. Ashcerson, Black Sea, 108-9)

Reader, please bear in mind that the total military loss in World War II for the USSR alone was 8,668,400 which includes Ukraine, Byelorussia, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan and its other republics, according to General M. Moiseyev, Chief of General Staff, USSR Armed forces. Compare the figures and think again about history and the strategy of leaders: Ukraine lost 19 per cent of its population, while Great Britain lost 0.7 percent and the USA lost 0.2 percent. (Andrew Gregorovich, “Population Loss by Country WWII, citing “Voennoistoricheskiy zhurnal”, no. 3, March 1990 cited by Peter G. Tsouras, The Great Patriotic War, 240, A. Gregorovich, Forum Ukrainian Review No. 92, Spring 1995)

To plunge underground”, writes Solzhenitsyn, “to make it your concern not to win the world’s recognition, – Heaven forbid! – but on the contrary to shun it: this variant of the writer’s lot is peculiarly our own, purely Russian, Russian and Soviet!” (C. Andrew and V. Mitrokhin, 10-1)

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)

“We also know”, Andrew Gregorovich observes, “that Hitler in World War II adopted Stalin’s famine weapon and starved millions of Soviet prisoners of war including many Ukrainians. Aided by his incisive scrutiny Andrew Gregorovich cites figures by Dr. Wolodynmry Kosyk (The Third Reich and Ukraine, 1993) as high as 2.5 million military and 4.5 million civilian deaths resulting in “a total loss of 7 million for Ukraine compared to a total German loss of 6.5 million”. Losses by other countries in World War II include Poland, more than 5 million, Japan 2.36 million, Yugoslavia 1.7 million, France 600,000, Italy 500,000, Romania 500,000, Greece 450,000, Hungary 430,000, Great Britain 350,000, Czechoslovakia 340,000, Austria 374,000, USA 300,000, Holland 210,000, Belgium 88,000 and Canada 42,000. Byelorussia lost 2,198,000 civilians. The Russian SFSR, or Russia, he states “lost 1,781,000 civilians and about 3 to 4 million military or about 5 to 6 million total according to Kosyk.” (George Orwell, Tribune, 31 March 1944, M. Hastings, “Victims”, in Inferno, 499; A. Gregorovich, reprinted from Forum Ukrainian Review No. 92, Spring 1995; A. Gregorovich, address, “Genocide in Ukraine 1933, Town Hall, Hamilton, Ontario, Nov. 14, 1998)

Gregorovich found material losses for Ukraine amounted to “about $60,000,000,000 prewar dollars for Ukraine or trillions of dollars today”. No wonder Premier Nikita Khrushchev rebuffed Averell Harriman over a paltry $11 billion Lend-Lease bill when the freedom of the western world was in hock to the Russians to a degree far greater. But by then the world had changed and the Soviet-Russian war debt would be renegotiated under new agreements for the postwar New World Order economy. In due course in Moscow during the Kennedy administration after arduous negotiations Khrushchev invites Harriman into the Kremlin for dinner to celebrate their agreement with Britain for a limited nuclear test ban treaty July 1963. As they walked past the Old Palace formerly Stalin’s gloomy fortress and now a public park.
Schlesinger tells the story in A Thousand Days: “Harriman remarked that he saw few security men around. ‘I don’t like being surrounded by security men,’ Khrushchev said. ‘In Stalin’s time we never knew whether they were protecting us or watching us’.” Then Khrushchev turned towards the public crowd, and joked, “This is Gospodin Garriman. We’ve just signed a test-ban treaty. I’m going to take him to dinner. Do you think he’s earned his dinner’.” (A. Gregorovich, Soviet Ukraine, 155; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., A Thousand Days, John F. Kennedy in the White House, Cambridge, MA.: Riverside Press-Houghton Mifflin, 908-9; italics added.)

“In February 1942, Churchill raised that point in an irate cable to Roosevelt that was never sent: ‘It must be remembered that for a large part of 27 months we carried on the struggle single-handed… Had we failed, the full malice of the Axis Powers … would have fallen upon the United States.’ In a cable that was dispatched to the president, Churchill noted that the British cabinet had already decided the issue. It voted against swapping imperial preference for Lend-Lease, feeling that, if Britain did so, ‘we should have accepted an intervention in the domestic affairs of the British Empire’.” (Lynne Olson, Citizens of London, The Americans Who Stood with Britain in its Darkest, Finest Hour, Random House, 2010, 299-300)

“American supplies made a critical contribution,” Hasting writes, and he adds, It was often suggested in Washington and London that the Soviets were ungrateful. Stalin might have given the contemptuous response he once gave to Zinoviev, who made the same charge; ‘Gratitude? Gratitude is a dog’s disease!’” Hastings adds, “Churchill observed, with justice, that Britain entered the war in 1939 as a matter of principle, and fought alone for almost two years, while Russia was content to play vulture on the carcasses of Hitler’s kills until Germany invaded the Soviet Union. It was impossible to dispute, however, that Stalin’s people were overwhelmingly responsible for destroying Hitler’s armies.” (M. Hastings, Armageddon, NY: Knopf, 2004, 114)

Toronto-based historian Orest Subtelny observes in his Ukraine, A History (1994), “Even a cursory listing of losses reflects the terrible impact that the Second World War had on Ukraine and its inhabitants. About 5.3 million, or one of six inhabitants of Ukraine, perished in the conflict. An additional 2.3 million had been shipped to Germany to perform forced labor.” Millions of captured Soviet soldiers and the Ukrainian population died there in the factories and death camps. (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine, A History, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1994, 479. italics added)

The official Soviet encyclopedia (1978) statistics state: “During this war over 20 million Soviet people were killed including many peaceful citizens. On the territory of Ukraine along the Hitlerites destroyed over 5 million people and more than 2 million people were carried off into slavery to Germany.” … “Even if we accept the conservative figure offered by Prof. Kondufor (during Soviet rule it should be mentioned), Ukraine’s loss of about 7.5 million people is greater than the total military loss of the USA, Canada, British Commonwealth, France, Germany and Italy all put together. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the total military losses of these countries in World War II was 4,305,214. The statistics are: USA 292,100; British Commonwealth 544,596 (including 39,139 Canadians); France 210,671 (+107,847 civilians); Germany 2,850,000, and Italy 300,000. In conclusion it seems reasonable to estimate that because of the German occupation and the Soviet repression from 1939 to 1945 during World War II, that Ukraine lost about 10,000,000 citizens or one Ukrainian out of four.”(Ukrainska Radyanska Entsyklopedia, Kyiv 1978, v. 2, 152 cited by A. Gregorovich; italics added)

The body count tells the story. “It is reasonably estimated that about 50 million people perished because of World War II which means 20 per cent of all the victims were Ukrainians; in this figure are about 600,000 Ukrainian Jews. In 1939, as Andrew Gregorovich observes, the Jewish population of Ukraine was 1.5 million (1,532,776) or 3% of the total population of Ukraine. When the War started on June 22, 1941 the Soviet Government first of all ordered the execution of all 19,000 Ukrainian political prisoners in western Ukraine (750,000 had already been killed or exiled to Siberia) and then the evacuation of 3.5 million key personnel to the east, to Russia. These evacuees included many Jews who were highly educated, and were scientists, skilled workers, Communist bureaucrats, and NKVD secret police. The total evacuated was estimated to be about one-half to two-thirds of the total Jewish population of Ukraine.” Would any of this have been possible had world leaders vigorously objected to the Holodomor Genocide? (Italics added)

“At the beginning of the war,” Gregorovich observes, “Ukraine’s population was 41.9 million. Let us review some of the estimates of losses from largest to smallest. According to A Short History of Ukraine published by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev in 1986, as a result of the Second World War: ‘The population (of Ukraine) contracted by 13,614,000.’ This statistic is not explained. In 1977 Stephan G. Prociuk estimates in a detailed analysis that Ukraine’s World War II loss of population was 11 million.” (Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the USSR, NY, 1977, v. 13 no. 23-50)

He goes on to tell us that “The American journalist Edgar Snow, who visits Ukraine in 1943 during the war, and at the end of the war in 1945, reported in his book The Pattern of Soviet Power (1945) that according to a high Ukrainian official ‘No fewer than 10,000,000 people had been lost to … Ukraine since 1941.’ This statistic excluded ‘men and women mobilized in the armed forces’. Yet it was not till I went on a sobering journey into this twilight of war that I fully realized the price which 40,000,000 Ukrainians paid for Soviet—and Allied—victory. The whole titanic struggle, which some are apt to dismiss as ‘the Russian glory’, was first of all a Ukrainian war. … I was told by a high Ukrainian official. That excluded men and women mobilized for the armed forces. A relatively small part of the Russian Soviet Republic itself was actually invaded, but the whole Ukraine, whose people were economically the most advanced and numerically the second largest in the Soviet Union, was devastated from the Carpathian frontier to the Donets and Don rivers, where Russia proper begins. No single European country suffered deeper wounds to its cities, its industry, its farmland and its humanity.” (A Short History of Ukraine, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, 1986; Edgar Snow, The Pattern of Soviet Power, NY: Random House, 1945, 73; italics added.)

The Russian counter-offensive to Berlin left behind a country of decimated ruins. Gregorovich tells us his former homeland’s population had fallen “by 25 per cent – that is, by approximately 10.5 million people; 6.8 million had been killed or died of hunger or disease, and the remainder had been evacuated or deported to Soviet Asia as political prisoners or had ended up as slave laborers or emigrés in Hitler’s German,” states Ann Lencyk Pawliczko in Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World (1994). Prof. Kubijovych, a geographer, says “the population of the Reichskommisariat Ukraine fell from 24,100,000 in 1939 to 16,900,000– a drop of 30 percent. The population of the larger cities dropped by 53 percent. … We may assume that in 1943 the population of the Ukrainian SSR in the current boundaries was about 30 million, that is, 10.5 million less than in 1939.” Trembitsky in Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopedia (1963) gives a total of war losses to Ukraine in 1941-45 of 8,545,000. (Za Vilnu Ukrainu, 24 serpnia, 1994 3; Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Shcherbitsky gives a “statistic” of 6,750,000 as Ukraine’s World War II losses. (Radyanska Ukraina, 18 October, 1974); Ann Lencyk Pawliczko in Ukraine and Ukrainians Throughout the World, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1994, 62; Trembitsky, Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopedia, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1963, v.1, 204)

Once Germany invaded Stalin adopted extreme measures of internal counter-espionage and subversion of the Wehrmacht. Boris Levytsky writes, “The NKVD rendered inestimable service in the defense of the Soviet Union. Their fanaticism contributed decisively to raising the morale of the fighting forces. Still more valuable was their services to the armaments industry. … The NKVD was unique in its display of toughness, iron discipline, and loyalty to the regime.” Much of the responsibility of organization in the Caucasus fell to Beria and Kagonovich including State security services, intelligence, and espionage. The creation of Smersh, “the anti-espionage department of the People’s Commissariat of Defense, with the title of ‘Death to Spies’, in Russian Smerty Shpionam. This gave Stalin all he needed … On each staff there was a Smersh office which de factor watched all officers. … The Smersh gradually became a weapon of offense,” Levytsky writes. Soon it handles “more and more political tasks.” It penetrates the partisans flushing out anti-communists and infiltrates the Gestapo. “At the end of 1942 the NKGB succeeded in activating the network of its secret agents in the areas occupied by Germany. Their task was trenchantly formulated by Stalin himself– ‘to make life behind the enemy lines intolerable for them’. Their agents infiltrated all the activities of the Gestapo and other authorities.” (B. Levytsky, “In the Front Line of the ‘Patriotic War’”, 156-75)

For ill-fated Ukraine more horrific tragedy would follow the Holodomor as it escalates into a larger more terrible world catastrophe and realignment of world power. “The great puzzle is: Did Hitler or Stalin during WW II kill the most Ukrainians?”, Gregorovich asks hauntingly. Unfortunately, this is a most relevant question and no more absurd than the silence of the West to ignore it. And ever more so relevant today with Genocide currently inflicted on defenseless populations in various forms. His reply is no less creepy: “Hitler’s crimes in Ukraine have been better documented and are better known. Stalin said that history is written by the winners. As a victor over Nazi Germany Stalin’s USSR was able to hide its Genocide of Ukrainians. After the war Stalin conceded that 7 million Soviet citizens died but we know he concealed the real figures. Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in 1961, set the death toll in the USSR at 20 million and this seems to be an accurate accounting. More recently Moscow has set figures as high as 25 million; in Washington in 1990 Gorbachev declared 27 million dead but he may have included non-combat deaths as well. (F. Wilheilm Christians, Paths to Russia, from War to Peace, NY: Macmillan, 1990)

Hitler’s Final Solution applied to the extermination of the Ukrainians as well as Jews; and the destruction of everything Ukrainian. It was Hitler who ultimately was in charge of the Nazi Empire.” Of the 650 major legislative orders issued during the war”, Niall Ferguson observes, “all but 72 were decrees or orders issued in his name. It was Hitler who argued, shortly after the invasion of the Soviet Union, that ‘In view of the vast sie of the conquered territories in the east, the forces available for establishing security in these areas will be sufficient only if, instead of punishing resistance by sentences in a court of law, the occupying forces spread such terror as to crush every will to resist among the population’. It was Hitler whose preferred method for pacifying occupied territory was ‘shooting everyone who looked in any way suspicious’.” (N. Ferguson, Civilization, 194)

From day one in his first administration as the nation’s Commander-in-Chief FDR kept steady vigilance standing by on the bridge preparing for the inevitability of war and final American acceptance necessary to get in it. A full two years before Pearl Harbor and America’s declaration of war on Japan and Germany, FDR wrote his ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy on October 30, 1939, “We over here, in spite of the great strides towards national unity during the past six years, still have much to learn of the ‘relativity’ of world geography and the rapid annihilation of distance and purely local economics.” Kennedy installs his eight children with him in the Embassy compound at the Court of St. James with its floral gardens and grand mansion that once belonged to banker JP. Morgan. But Kennedy is not very popular here for his pro-German views confident that Hitler would crush England. MI5 keeps him under close surveillance; his phones are tapped, associates are followed and secretly searched. When the bombs began to fall on London, “the American Embassy was, to Roosevelt’s disgust, the first to flee from the capitol”, writes Churchill’s personal secretary Jock Colville. Kennedy prefers refuge in his large country home. Roosevelt promptly fires him. (John Colville, The Fringes of Power, 753)

Seymour Hersh disclosed in The Dark Side of Camelot that British intelligence compiled a secret file on ambassador Joe Kennedy “known as the ‘Kennediana’ file, which would not be declassified until after the war. In those pages Sir Robert Vansitart, Undersecretary of the Foreign Office in early 1940: ‘Mr. Kennedy is a very foul specimen of a double-crosser and defeatist. He thinks of nothing but his own pocket. I hope that this war will at least see the elimination of his type’.” (M. Hastings, Inferno, “We over here…”, 180; re. Kennedy at Notre Dame, Joseph E. Persico, “A Secret Unshared”, Roosevelt’s Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage, NY: Random House, 2001 337; S. M. Hersh, 65)

In the events carefully calculated by FDR compelling Japan to launch a suicidal attack on America Undersecretary Berle remains throughout the war a key intelligence link between his Commander-in-Chief and the urbane Henry L. Stimson who received perhaps his worst brow-beating from the president over delayed 1941 Lend-Lease shipments to Russia, instead diverted to England. Weeks after the German invasion FDR harangued Stimson in a cabinet meeting August 1, 1941 that the Russians weren’t receiving fast enough what they asked for including some 140 P-40 fighter planes packed in crates and sent to England instead. “The Russians have been given the run-around,” then Stimson insists. “I am sick and tired of hearing that they are going to get this and they are going to get that. Whatever we are going to give them, it has to be over there by the first of October, and the only answer I want to hear is that it is under way.” As we enter the dark labyrinth of the war powers of these giant nation states it will become clear reader how the Stalin’s man-made Genocide Terror-Famine of the Holodomor figures into the steely cold-hearted calculations of rapidly cascading events and the spiral into the Second World War in 1941.

In March of the decisive year 1942 Roosevelt tells his close friend and cabinet adviser Morganthau, “Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse…I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia, or anything else than have the Russians collapse.” The following year Russia took the offensive. (Beatrice B. Berle, and Travis B. Jacobs, Navigating the Rapids, 1918-1971, Harcourt Brace, 1973, 314, cited in M. Hastings, Inferno, 181-3; Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, NY: Simon & Schuster, The Free Press, 2000; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1985, 593; Eric Larrabee, Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants & Their War, NY: HarperCollins, 1987, 629)

“The senior officers of the Wehrmacht”, writes historian Max Hastings, “flattered themselves that they represented a cultured nation, yet they readily acquiesced in the barbarities designed into the Barbarossa plan. These included the starvation of at least 30 million Russians, in order that their food supplies might be diverted to Germany, originally a conception of Nazi agriculture chief Herbert Backe. At a meeting held on 2 May 1941 to discuss the occupation of the Soviet Union, the army’s armament-planning secretariat recorded its commitment to a policy noteworthy even in the context of the Third Reich: 1 The war can only be continued, if the entire Wehrmacht is fed from Russia in the third year. 2 If we take what we need out of the country, there can be no doubt that many millions of people will die of starvation.” The Hitlerian extermination plan also included total starvation and destruction of Petrograd to be replaced by a modern marvel of futuristic Germanic urbanism. (Germany and the Second World War, Potsdam, v. 4, Research Institute for Military History, Oxford Univ. Press, 341, in Max Hastings, Inferno, The World at War, 1939-1945, NY: Knopf, 2011, 138-9)

The peasants are the least to blame. But how could they even dream that the American leaders in the free world could be so utterly cynical and evil unless of course they were the corrupt bourgeois counter-revolutionary capitalists of the West. The name of President Hoover and the American Red Cross persisted as symbols of goodwill since the American intervention during the Russian famine immediately after the First World War. Was there no other way to build “the New Society” of the great new communist state? Did life in Soviet Ukraine have to be a fascist communist hell in a maze of absurd totalitarian nightmares? In 1929 in April when the Sixteenth Communist Party Conference adopted the first Five-Year Plan for the Development of the People’s Economy, the peasants made up over eighty percent of the total population in the Soviet Union. “A hundred thousand tractors will turn the muzhik, the peasant, into a Communist,” declared Lenin. Newsweek bureau chief in Moscow, Owen Mathews (of Ukrainian descent) writes that in that year there are only five tractors for the spring planting in the Ukraine. (Owen Mathews, Stalin’s Children: Three Generations of Love, War, and Survival, NY: Walker, 2008, 25-6)

FDR cajoles that he is a farmer too, “a gentleman farmer” on his 1500 acre estate “Springwood”, high overlooking the Hudson River; his friendly neighbor and close adviser Henry Morgenthau, Jr., is also an apple farmer. His father, President Wilson’s politically appointed ambassador in Turkey in 1915 witnessed the Armenian Genocide and pleads with Ottoman government officials and his own State Department to intervene to cease the bloodshed of mass extermination but it was all in vain. Now his son enjoys trading secrets of good cultivation and prized fruits of their farm labor tilling the soil of the earth under the sun. FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture and future vice-president, is also a farmer. Whereas for the gentlemen farmers this work is a hobby; and relief from the stress of Consortium business, politics and war, for Henry Wallace, FDR’s vice-president during the Holodomor years, farming is a living passion that assumes a cosmic mystical delight. Wallace is fascinated by the life of plants, and what he calls plant “intelligence”. None of these men ever lift a finger to save the Ukrainian population of peasants from Stalin’s campaign of extermination by hunger and terror.

Fascism, pure and simple? Call a spade a spade. Is it not so that it was always meant to be the way it was? The America President Woodrow Wilson, a great expert on the Constitution and former President of Princeton University, saw it already infesting his government during the first year of his first term and fought valiantly but in vain for the ideals of democracy till his death in 1924, repudiated at home and abroad, isolated, and alone. In 1921 Lenin warns his band of Communist Party Commissars of the Politburo which this year becomes the real center of power in the country, to adopt his pro-capitalist New Economic Program (NEP) with food distribution rather than a food tax as the incentive of food production by the peasants still burdened in their backwardness, that fatal curse gripping Russia for centuries. His days are long but his time is brief. Lenin will be dead too soon to see it implemented. Uncertain of a new beginning he warns others in his political testament to remove Stalin, and slowly wasted away poisoned, “incapacitated by his third stroke in March 1923”, and, nearing his end he and his wife are kept virtually a prisoner of Stalin who he had fatally made General Secretary, head of the Secretariat of the communist bureaucracy in 1922 which allows him to stack the nomenklatura and emerge the incontestably the dominant master of the Party by 1929. For Mother Russia it was too late. (Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, NY: Basic Books– Perseus Books Grp, 1999, 31)

Americans must do the same. So must many journalists responsible for honesty and integrity in their jobs of reporting the news and informing the public if not for anything more than to protect the rights of free speech and the freedom of information. For example, the two Wall Street Journal writers of recently published “Enough, Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty (Perseus Books 2009). A heart-wrenching story or an artful cover-up? First look at its funding sources: The Rockefeller Foundation, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Oh my God! I thought. What is this? What is going on here? And there it is, smack from page one the reader is told of the “patriotic duty” of DuPont; then followed by FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace praised for trail blazing “from the beginning, the Green Revolution”; on the next page ultra-conservative Republican Consortium boss Herbert Hoover and often more aptly described as the mysterious wizard behind the curtain is introduced as the “wealthy mining engineer (who) organized private food-aid drives that fed millions of Europeans during World War I”. Reader, as we go hand-in-hand through this dense forest before catching your breath – keep up! Be careful! Try not to stray off the path for its so easy to get confused and feel lost, – that is what they want! – we are told how Rockefeller Foundation’s president Raymond B. Fosdick is praised for its research to increase harvests with a team of agronomists led by Harvard and Cornell.
The Rockefeller team of Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman write, “Like Wallace, the professors were big believers in ‘scientific farming.” Bulls-eye! Here again with a traditionally correct twist smacks of elite propagandizing ingenuity aimed to protect the most powerful interests in America and around the world. Rockefeller-funded scientists lead the way to solving the world hunger problem! Amazing, yes? Perhaps. Ha! On closer scrutiny its apparent that these two authors for no odd reason fail to tell readers that from Berlin to Moscow, Rockefeller money led to famine across the whole of the Soviet Union, Genocide in the Ukraine, and the Second World War. Nice little war game this, eh?

Reader remember this: It’s all about money, power and influence, – using it, taking it, and never offending it. Woe to these guys who lost their place in what they liked to call “Our Game” when the USSR came tumbling down in 1991. Read John Le Carre’s novel by the same title and only five years with the British secret service to become England’s great spy raconteur on par with Graham Greene and Ian Fleming, also former FO operatives of the Consortium. The WSJ authors promoted their cause on National Public Radio (NPR), America’s most listened to propaganda agency with “news” virtually manufactured and approved for domestic consumption by the US government. Just substitute “Propaganda” for “Public” before the brainwashing begins. It never ends. Everyday, more of the same, more or less. That’s the way it goes.
Rising and uncertain oil prices, chemical fertilizers, biofuels, soil depletion, climate change, and a host of problems leave it strikingly unclear how world leaders will find the political will to resolve famine in the future. When Rockefeller oil money made the world what it is today, it will take more than money alone to change it. A free mind with new positive and constructive ideas is a good start. Even with a global push to increase food production by 50% by 2029, – and another 100 million people deprived by the 2008 economic slide of adequate means to buy food, – the awareness is growing that the problem is even more severe.

Neil MacFarquhar, reporter for The New York Times listened intently for the record. A senior economist at the organization Kostas G. Stamoulis tells him, “‘The way we manage the global agriculture and food security system doesn’t work. There is this paradox of increasing global food production, even in developing countries, yet there is hunger.’” (Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman, Enough, Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty, Perseus Books, 2009; Neil MacFarquhar, “Experts Worry as Population and Hunger Grow”, The NYT, Oct. 21, 2009)

But at the time the world outside their villages and country was kept from knowing the reality because the leaders of the West including two Presidents of the United States refused to intervene to stop it. Instead President Roosevelt in his first year in the White House officially refuses to acknowledge it. And in the same year 1933 FDR officially recognized Stalin’s regime of socialist terror. The following year the Soviet Union is invited to join the League of Nations, in September 1934 to put a good face on the strategic alliance forged in betrayal and treachery of the ideal of freedom and the dignity of mankind, but the League “was still a taboo issue in American politics”, notes historian Joseph P. Lash in “From Pacifist to Anti-Fascist” from his book Eleanor and Franklin (1971). (Joseph P. Lash, Eleanor and Franklin, Forward by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., NY: W. W. Norton, 1971, 556)

Consequently, our propagandists are mostly old-fashioned and inept, and they try to make up by sheer volume of words for what they lack in ability. Yours are subtle and pervasive, ours are crude and obvious. This is one thing. Another is that we Russians are not, by nature, a gullible people. We are, and always have been, suspicious of what we cannot see for ourselves. You can call it the peasant mentality if you like. At any rate it is quite a different attitude from the rather charming naviété which makes many North Americans incapable of doubting or assessing what they are told by their leaders and their communications media. I think the fundamental difference between our two worlds, with regard to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend do disbelieve ours’.” (Farley Mowat, The Siberians, NY: Penguin, 1970, 83-4)

And so it happened in Soviet Russia in the early 1930s that a holodomor, “death by starvation” was inflicted on this nation of peasants. Holo means hunger in Ukrainian, domor means death. As many as ten million people were deliberately killed according to widely quoted figures of some Holodomor protagonists. Perhaps to the reader it it sounds so incredible that it couldn’t be true. Impossible! You say. A Genocide of that magnitude in the thirties? Could it really be true?
The Powers-that-Be buried the history with skulls and bones of the dead. The perpetrators of the notorious crime showed no mercy and left barely a trace to remember the victims and blasphemy of the crime. Ten million victims perished. That’s a conservative estimate of Stalin, and his spokesman for The New York Times William Duranty. The death toll may be much higher.
Ten million is an astonishing figure, too abstract to imagine as real, yet Americans today have almost no memory of understanding of the twenty odd million loss, civilians and soldiers, including Ukrainians, who perished in the Second World War less than a decade after the Holodomor while in the same conflict the Americans officially suffered only 416,837 killed.* The incredible disparity of losses among Allies claiming victory over Nazi Germany and Japan alone ought to raise eye-brows that something dark and secret is buried in those figures master-minded by the warmongers seeking empire, i.e. world domination. This same logic of machination is still spell-bound in a fragile balance of political, military and diplomatic intrigue between the superpowers. (*WWII death toll from the US Congressional Research Report, “American War and Military Operations Casualties”, Feb. 26, 2010. The same report cites 10,725,345 Soviet dead and some 6 million captured. Russia today estimates are closer to 17 million military war dead, and twice that of civilian victims.)

In 2007, the Ukrainian delegation to the General Assembly raised the question of recognizing the Holodomor as an act of Genocide against the Ukrainian people. Putin’s alarming resurgence of a Stalinist-inspired monolithic Russian dictatorship and Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovich’s regressive return power with a fiercely pro-Russian alignment are both decidedly against it. The Day newspaper published in Kiev observed “Russia’s official representatives at the UN did everything possible to have the definition of the Holodomor as an act of Genocide excluded from the Joint Statement of 36 nations on the 70th anniversary of Ukrainian Holodomor.” (The Day, Nov. 22, 2005)
The following year on October 23 the European Parliament adopted a resolution that recognized “the artificial famine of 1932-1933” of the Holodomor as a crime against Humanity. (EU Parliament Press Release, October 23, 2008). Earlier in May, on the occasion of a state visit by President Yushchenko to the Canadian Parliament where he was welcomed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Holodomor was formally recognized as Genocide, and to establish a Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day (Bill c-459).

In November 2008, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev wrote Ukraine President Yushchenko refusing to participate in Ukraine’s 75th commemoration events of what he described officially as “the so-called Holodomor”. Medvedev is Putin’s pawn following in Putin’s steps. When Putin won his contested 2012 presidential election, he immediately switched places with Medvedev stepping down to become Russia’s new Prime Minister in Putin’s new government.
Medvedev left no stone unturned in Putin’s attack blaming Yushchenko even for exploiting the tragedy for personal political gain. President Medvedev wrote, “I am forced to point out that, in our opinion, the tragic events of the early 1930s in Ukraine are being used to achieve immediate short-term political goals. In this regard, the thesis on the ‘centrally planned genocidal famine of Ukrainians’ is being gravely manipulated. As a result, including thanks to your personal efforts, this interpretation has even received legislative support. In particular, I am referring to the law passed on 28 November 2006 by the Verkhovnaya Rada (Ukrainian parliament) that you signed, which states that “the famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine was a genocide against the Ukrainian people”.

Formerly the Financial Times correspondent in Moscow before and after the Gorbachev era David Satter makes a very good point of this essential struggle to uncover the truth of the Holodomor with this compelling link between the surviving memory of the Holodomor and the final resurgence of Ukrainian nationalism which struck at the bloodline of the Soviet Red Army responsible for maintaining internal order and national defense. In Age of Delirium, The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union (1996), Satter handily traces recent insurgent Ukrainian nationalism in this unfolding drama, and he writes, “The Russian soldiers feared they would be excluded from a Ukrainian army or forced to leave Ukraine. Almost all of them were skeptical of the Ukrainian nationalists and pointed out that the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag had been used by partisans who committed atrocities during the war… They spoke about the 1933 famine and Communist Party corruption and argued that the only future for Ukraine was an independent state … an entire air-defense regiment refused to carry out the order to transfer its base to Semipalatinsk, where nuclear tests were conducted. The wives of the officers went on a hunger strike in the town’s central square and officers asked Kravchuk* for political asylum.” (David Satter, Age of Delirium, The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union, NY: Knopf, 1996, 374-5; * Leonid Makarovych Kravchuk, the first President of post-Soviet Ukraine (1991-94) was born in 1934 in the peasant village of Velykyi Zhytyn (Żytyń Wielki) in Poland which became part of Rivne Oblast in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic after the 1939 Soviet invasion.)

Three hundred years after Ivan, the astute French diplomat Marquis de Custine in his 19th century classic travel account to Russia told of his journey to St. Petersburg and Moscow,— and exactly one hundred years before Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. His words ring true today as well they did when he first laid eyes on the East. “In Russia, the government dominates everything and gives life to nothing. In this vast Empire, the people, if they are not tranquil, are silent; death hovers over all heads and strikes them capriciously – this serves to create doubt of the supreme justice; there man has two coffins – the cradle and the tomb.” (Marquis de Custine, The Russian Journals of Marquis de Custine, Journey For Our Time, Gateway Ed., 1987)

Following publication of the Dalrymple findings, that same year the State Department accepts the death toll figure of 5 million Holdomor victims. The US government officially describes the Holodomor as “among the worst famines of all time”. It was a no brainer but still a step in the right direction, albeit dicey. In 1948, in his book Europe on the Move published by Columbia University, an Ivy League establishment icon, writer Eugene Kulischer indicated that at the least 5 million deaths occurred as a result of Stalin’s collectivization drive. Two years earlier, with the Cold War enveloping geopolitics, the New York firm Dutton published Nicholas Timasheff’s The Great Retreat with an 8 million death count. (Eugene M. Kulischer, Europe on the Move, Columbia Univ. Press, NY, 1948, 96. Kulischer suggests the publication of annual mortality data ceased before the famine; Nicholas S. Timasheff, The Great Retreat, NY: Dutton, 1946)

But it was during the crisis it was commonly accepted by well-informed diplomats that the Holodomor was far worse than the terrible famine during the Lenin era with intervention by the Hoover American Relief Administration (ARA), and it was not unthinkable to estimate a total mortality at least be as high as eight million victims. For the record Dr. Dalrymple drew attention to the transcript of a conversation between the astute diplomat Felix Cole, US Chargé d’affaires in Riga, Latvia, and junior embassy officer John Lehrs with “a member of the staff of a foreign legation in Moscow.” The famine, Dalrymple observes, “was frankly admitted on several occasions by officials of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs to members of the Moscow diplomatic corps.” (W. Horsley Gantt, “A Medical Review of Soviet Russia: Results of the First Five-Year Plan,” British Medical Journal, July 4 and 18, 1936, 19 and 128, reprinted in his Russian Medicine, v. XX of Clio Medica, NY: Harper & Bros, 1937. Dalrymple benefited from conversations with Dr. Gantt (1892-1980) in Dec. 1963 and Oct. 1964, and from a letter dated March 6, 1964; Lorimer; Felix Cole to Sec. of State dispatch No. 1633, Oct. 4, 1933, US State Department General Records, National Archives Record Group 59, SDDF 861.48/2450; Dr. D. Dalrymple, “The Great Famine in Ukraine 1932-34”, Soviet Studies Jan. 1964; D. Dalrymple, Letter from Warren Eason, Department of Economics, Princeton Univ., March 27, 1963)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?”

“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)

“…the Holodomor during those years before and after in 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…”

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)

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,” Dalrymple 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. Instead, they exploited it to their advantage, secretly and in partnership with the Kremlin, and in particular, Joseph Stalin, arch-mass murderer in our time of the century and in likelihood in all of human history.

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.”

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 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)

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)

Even at Goldman the average tenure for a partner is eight years. For the third quarter, Goldman announced a profit of $3.19 billion and said it has set aside nearly half of its revenue to reward its employees. After the real estate bubble popped, and in 2008 of this first year of major impact hitting the world stock market meltdown, Goldman paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses, awarding 953 employees at least $1 million each and 78 employees at least $4 million. “If there’s anything worse than a secret Federal Reserve, it’s Congress controlling it,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, the Wall Street Journal reported the next day.”But I do think that there’s a wide majority of Americans who want to know what the Federal Reserve is doing and to make sure that it’s achieving its primary purpose, which is to protect the value of our dollar.” (Brian Swint, “Banker ‘Oligarchs’ Block Break-Up Moves, Kay Says”, Bloomberg, Nov. 13, 2009; John Arlidge, “I’m doing ‘God’s work’. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs”, Sunday Times, London, Nov. 8, 2009; Sudeep Reddy, Damian Paletta, “House Attacks Fed, Treasury, Panel Votes for Tighter Political Rein on Central Bank; Some Call for Geitner to Quit”, WSJ, Nov. 20, 2009)
Goldman Sachs people mix deep with Consortium government types. They always have. They always will. They personify the revolving door syndrome exploiting influence and secrecy of that hidden world of obscure and mighty finance pumping the politicians with a steady flow of campaign dollars in exchange for the right buttons pushed after elections. The expanded Goldman family today regulates the regulators through their maze of partner banks and investment houses. UK journalist John Arlidge wrote, “after selling their soul to Goldman doing good does not mean running an HIV clinic in Kinshasa, it means getting top jobs in treasuries, central banks and stock exchanges around the world.
The list of former Goldman executives who have held key posts in the US administration and vital global institutions in New York and Washington alone is mind-boggling. It includes: treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton (Robert Rubin); treasury Secretary under George Bush (Hank Paulson); current president and former chairman of the New York Fed (William Dudley and Stephen Friedman); chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner (Mark Patterson); chief of staff under President Bush (Joshua Bolten); the economic adviser to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (Robert Hormats); chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Gary Gensler); under-Secretary of State for economic, business, and agricultural affairs under President Bush (Reuben Jeffery); past and current heads of the New York Stock Exchange (John Thain and Duncan Niederauer); ceo of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division (Adam Storch).
Moreover, Goldman’s new top lobbyist in Washington, Michael Paese, used to work for Barney Frank, the congressman who chairs the House Financial Services Committee. To put this in perspective, imagine that Alistair Darling, the chancellor, and his key advisers, Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, Xavier Rolet, the boss of the London Stock Exchange, and Hector Sants, head of the Financial Services Authority, all used to work at the same City firm before shifting to to government postions. Small wonder that another of Goldman’s nicknames is “Government Sachs”. Critics say having friends in high places gives the firm the vital edge. Key government officials, they argue, discuss policy – privately – with Goldman chiefs more than executives from other banks. Understand reader, government is not some mystical elaboration; its access to a huge public architecture of tremendous accounts of money feeding the private sector and leveraging power with a lot of bureaucratic red tape. (John Arlidge, “I’m doing ‘God’s work’. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs”, Sunday Times, London, Nov. 8, 2009)

Economics professor at Harvard’s Business School and a highly respected writer to several generations of cultured Americans, John Kenneth Galbraith, a Kennedy insider and dove during the Vietnam War who had served on the US Strategic Bombing Survey along with George Ball and Walt Whitman Rostow, born in New York City to a Russian Jewish immigrant family (Yale, Oxford, Columbia, OSS) Kennedy and Johnson’s National Secretary adviser (1961-69), and a thousand other “experts” set up in 1944 under Stimson, describes how clear and pertinent weighed the burden of economic misery on the two successive administrations on deck if not at the helm of Consortium investment in the USSR: “After the Great Crash came the Great Depression, which lasted, with varying severity, for ten years. In 1933, GNP (total production in the economy) was nearly a third less than in 1929. Not until 1937 did the physical volume of production recover to the levels of 1929, and then it promptly slipped back again. Until 1941 the dollar value of production remained below 1929. Between 1930 and 1940 only once, in 1937, did the average number unemployed during the year drop below eight million. In 1933 nearly thirteen million were out of work, or about one in every four in the labor force. In 1938 one person in five was still out of work.”

Messrs. Dr. Darlymple and Dr. Mace are among the first to note that during the late twenties and early thirties some two dozen Americans and Europeans including doctors, journalists and émigrés traveled in the Soviet Union and on the scene to observe the Holodomor. For the most part they are not newcomers on the scene and are accustomed to living conditions under the restraint of the Soviet authorities and constant surveillance by the secret police.
Both Darlymple and Mace report a wide divergence in the figures of the Holodomor death toll with estimates for the period ranging from 1 to 10 million and average 5.5 million. Ralph Barnes for the New York Herald Tribune estimates one million deaths; Walter Duranty (NYT) 2 million; Bill Chamberlin (Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Affairs) 4 to 7.5 million; Bernard Pares, Whiting Williams; Eugene Lyons (UPI) 5 million; Thomas Walker (Hearst), 6 million, Richard Sallet, 10 million. (James E. Mace, “The United States and the Famine”, “Recognition and Denial of genocide and Mass Killing in the 20th Century’, a paper presented in NYC, November 13, 1987; Dr. D. Dalrymple, “The Great Famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933’, Soviet Studies, Jan. 1964; Petro Dolyna, “Famine as Political Weapon”; Individual accounts of the famine and excerpts from several Russian-language newspapers, v. 2 of The Black Deeds of the Kremlin; A White Book, ed. by S. O. Pidhainy, DOBRUS, Detroit, 1955, 712. DOBRUS – Democratic Organization of Ukrainians Formerly Persecuted by the Soviet Regime ; R. W. Barnes, “Grain Shortage in the Ukraine Results From Admitted Failure of the Soviet Agricultural Plan,” NY Herald Tribune, Jan. 15, 1933, pt. II; R. W. Barnes, “Million Feared Dead of Hunger in South Russia,” NY Herald Tribune, Aug. 21, 1933, 7)

Ukrainians are descendants of this Trypillian culture of Europe’s first land-tilling population that has existed as far back as 2200 B.C. Ancient Trypillian culture dates to the 4th to 2nd millennia BC and is well-represented by mystical clay figurines of women, tributes to fertility and motherhood. Slavonic civilization is thought to have existed 2,000 years. Since the first century before Christ, when Iranian nomads including the Cimmerians, Scythians and Sarmatians inhabited the vast steppe lands of South-Ukraine and on the northern shores of the Black Sea, ancient Slavic city states were established by both Greek and Asia Minor’s settlers.
Scythian travels and conquests are preserved in ancient chronicles. In History of Greek and Persian Wars Herodotus described the Scythian movement from their Asian lands settling on the steppes from the Don to the Danube. From there they ruled from the 7th to 3rd century BC before the Sarmatians established their own villages within Ukraine. Art and folkcraft of Kyiv Rus’ of the 11th to 13th centuries was inherited by ancient Ukrainian goldsmiths. Archeological gold treasures found in Scythian burial mounds tell of funeral rites practiced by the Eastern Slavs with their supernatural belief of the existence of the other world and the immortality of the soul. Archeological findings “prove that the Trypillians were the first to invent the wheel (6,500 years ago), domesticated horses and cows (8,000 years ago), and cultivated 12 varieties of grain (including three kinds of wheat, barley, rye, and peas).”
“Trypillian ceramics are beautiful,” writes Svitlana Bozhko from Kyiv. “Long before the Sumer and Chinese civilizations our forefathers decorated their earthenware with signs and symbols that would spread across Europe and the Orient, including yin and yang; svarha, the symbol of the sun; the cross, symbolizing the sun, fire, and eternal life; and an image of the Primeval Mother – the woman-protectress.” Anyone who has visited or lived in the Ukraine or has had the fortune to know Ukrainians may have discovered that their homeland is endowed with strong spiritual powers, forces and myth transforming their vast plains and birch forests where young men tilled fields and seldom left their villages except to fight Tsarist wars during the last three hundred years of Russian dominance. The primordial image and power of “the Earth-Mother” is “an image we find everywhere in the world, in countless forms and varieties”, writes Mircea Eliade. (Svitlana Bozhko, “Solving Ancient Mysteries”, The Day, Kyiv, July 24, 2007; “Mother Earth and the Cosmic Hierogamies” in M. Eliade, Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, 155-89)

Whereas the U. S. State Department, besieged with paranoia about Communists under every bed and spies in every office, estimated a more conservative figure of twenty million. Finally, in 1991, released Russian archives (those the Soviets filtered) cited 27 million. Estimates vary but the general figure is somewhere between 40 and 50 million people estimated to have died or disappeared as a result of Stalin’s inhuman policies of terror and repression. John Mosier, in Deathride (2010) cites 25 to 27 million Russian deaths by the war.
Poison is historically considered the customary method for assassination in the Kremlin. A few years after the Holodomor Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria, like Stalin a Georgian Bolshevik, is promoted Commissar of Soviet internal affairs in charge of the secret police and national security and later feared more than any man in the USSR. Stalin dies in 1953, most probably poisoned by his closest associate since 1938 and who he feared most, the wretched Beria who takes control of the NKVD in 1939. It is widely accepted that Stalin was poisoned by one of Beria’s men. Ryumin, the secret police official who engineers the “doctors’ case” that apparently murdered Stalin is quickly liquidated in 1953. After Stalin’s sudden death,– most likely by Beria’s men, Beria himself was quickly eliminated by the Molotov-Khrushchev gang.
In that same year, 1957, it’s the veteran Bolshevik and Stalin’s foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov’s turn, spared by Khrushchev in the so-called anti-Party coup. It is all part of the brief Soviet thaw against the Stalin’s totalitarian dictatorship and the rehabilitation of those purged by the Great Dictator. In 1961, followed the next year by the sensational publication of Solzhenitsyn’s gulag novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Molotov loses his relatively minor job in Vienna as the Soviet rep to the International Atomic Energy Agency, then is finally ousted from the Party and retires to a dom otdykhya, a ministry rest home shared with junior and mid-level diplomats, in Chkalovskaya, a small village outside Moscow where he is observed by Arkady N. Shevchenko,who later becomes the highest ranking Soviet defector from the UN General Secretariat in Manhattan. In 1984, Molotov is rehabilitated under Brezhnev (a die-hard Stalinist who despises Sakharov) leading to his readmission to the Party, at 94. (Arkady N. Shevchenko, Breaking With Moscow, NY: Knopf, 1985, 111; Amy Knight, Beria, Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)

Part of the problem of dealing with the historicity of the Holodomor is academic. War-time death figures dwarf Holodomor numbers. Responsibility for as many as 23 million deaths is placed with Stalin and his NKVD* henchmen…” But then the figures are complicated by the institutional conditions of living under a state of totalitarian terror. In his article Stalin’s War; Victims and Accomplices, Charles Lutton declares, “The Stalinist policy to deceive the West is well-know to anyone who traveled to the Soviet Union as a tourist or journalist. Everything must be locked away – every image of the slave labour camp, torture chamber, execution squad, even pictures of the daily, dreary life of the people, the daily bread and soap queues, everything except the model farms dolled up for showing off to foreign visitors.” (*NKVD, Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, political police, 1934 successor to OGPU, Obeydinennoe gosudarstvennoe politcheskoe upravelenie)

Nor did Mace explore in any significant way the reasons for governmental denial and policy of diversion waged by newspapers publishers and their editors and journalists in America and England to conceal the truth about Soviet Russia. Investments by the Bank of England, Rothschild and the American family of Federal Reserve banks combined to yield an awesome power linked to the Democratic administrations of Hoover and FDR. Few scholars and writers apart from pioneering works by Antony C. Sutton (1925-2002) and Eustace C. Mullins (1923-2010) have traced the money trail of Stalin-supported repression and Genocide leading straight back to FDR’s White House, thereby setting a pattern of arrangements that had placed Bolsheviks in power since 1917 and all done in complicity with the American Red Cross intelligence mission under the direction of the Morgan Bank in New York, with agents on the ground in Moscow and St. Petersburg and Jewish bankers in Hamburg, Frankfurt, London and New York.
It is remarkable that during this era of consolidation of war and revolution the occurrence of world tragedies of epic proportions followed a particular logic and pattern. The Consortium is ever-present. The impact of its involvement was immediate and consequential. Far too little has been published about the Holodomor, with virtually nothing in the book stores and mass media. British spy Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow (1986), and The Great Terror (1973) are on American university reading lists. Professor James E. Mace’s lesser known work was dedicated to restore the memory of the Ukrainian Holodomor as an act of Genocide to be forever acknowledged by the world community.

Only a few months in 2005 separated the deaths of two key individuals to the Holodomor story. Their disappearance is not insignificant: Holodomor specialist Dr. James Mace (1952-2004) and diplomat George Kennan (1904-2005), the American icon of “containment” of “the Cold War” and perhaps the State Department’s first official mystifier of the Holodomor. The Consortium takes care of its own. That’s how it works and maintains its power. Immediately after World War II Kennan co-authored the euphemism “Cold War”. By then it was forgotten that George “X” Kennan deserved more than a little credit for his role in the State Department’s Holodomor debacle as well as its internment deep in the classified secret government archives buried safely away from public scrutiny.

As it were, while serving two masters, – Stalin and the Consortium, – Kennan deceived and betrayed the American people and deprived them of knowing the true nature and extent of Consortium investment in the Soviet gulag. George Kennan was a poor, sickly junior officer in the elite diplomatic Foreign Service who learned fast how to serve his masters; he survived department dismantling of the Russian section and remained close to America’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union, William C. Bullitt, described by Washington columnist Marquis Childs as the “Iago of Iagos”. Kennan climbed the career ladder under more heavy handlers, political shyster and Bullitt’s successor in Moscow, Joe Davies, and the inimitable Ave” Harriman, arch don of State US Department hierarchy. (re. Iago, J. E. Persico, Roosevelt’s Secret War, 256)

Solzhenitsyn recalls the ordeal in The Oak and the Calf (1975): “My work was going to pieces. I was short of air, short of room to move. I couldn’t even go near the windows, in case someone spotted a stranger. I had put myself in jail, except that the windows had no ‘muzzles’ and I was not on short rations. But oh, how reluctant I was to go to the Lubyanka! Those who know what it is like. … On the whole, I was on a firm footing. I had been allowed to get away with a lot. But I would not get away with Gulag! If they caught it on the way out, before anyone knew about it, they would smother it and me with it.” It is a “must- read” for anyone seeking to grasp the simplicity of understanding freedom within the context of US-Soviet rapproachment made complex by its estrangement especially once they had been seized by the Gulag.
During the sudden international uproar over the Sakharov affair and Gulag’s secret appearance in the West, Solzhenitsyn observed, “Eastern tyranny found even stauncher supporters in Western businessmen: in other words, the most loyal supporters of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” were the capitalists. They tried to persuade the US Congress that trade was the very thing to reinforce the rights of man in the USSR!” Even Solzhenitsyn could not fathom the depth of Consortium double-play. (A. I. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, 358)

Long after the Terror-Famine of the Ukrainian Genocide British Slavic scholar Pares writes, “The foreign capitalist was indispensable, as the heavy plant had to be obtained from abroad, but he was attracted by the possibilities of this practical program. The foreign technician was equally indispensable at the outset, and he too was attracted by the scope for his enterprise…” (Bernard Pares, A History of Russia, Dorset, 524)

In the forward to A Russian Diary, published posthumously (2007), Scott Simon writes, “Pravda, the other best-known daily (but in no sense a competitor) was the official voice of the Communist Party. Pravda means ‘truth’, Izvestiya means ‘news’, and the joke among Russians was, ‘There is no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestiya’.” Three suspects said to have been FSB agents were acquitted in a trial; in 2011 the prosecution won the right for a new trial to bring her killer(s) to justice. (Anna Politkovskaya, A Russian Diary: A Journalist’s Final Account of Life, Corruption, and Death in Putin’s Russia, NY: Random House, 2007, viii)
The Reuters news agency quotes the imprisoned former oil billionaire and head of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky declaring, “‘For Russia, there is nothing unusual about convicting political opponents on criminal charges’.” Khodorkovsky compared the Navalny case to similar tactics of Stalinist “terror” in the 1930s. In Putin’s xenophobic Russia the Ukrainian Holodomor is still just a fairytale of anti-Stalinist lies sponsored by the imperialist West. With thousands of Ukrainains protesting on the streets of Kiev denouncing President Yanokovich’s kowtowing to Putin, the Russian dictator surprises the world with a general amnesty in December 2013 days before the long Christmas holidays and released the Pussy Riot women. In a separate arrangement Putin also freed Khodorkovsky who never admitted guilt and vowed not to return to politics but instead use his hidden fortune to help secure the release of Russia’s fellow political prisoners. (Gabriela Baczynska, “Russia jails top opposition leader; Putin denounced as dictator”, Reuters, July 18, 2013)
There is no Game, no war, no skillfully managed enterprise of terror without propaganda using words to deceive. The NY Times had their Duranty to lie and conceal the reality of Stalin’s systematic campaign of mass-murder and rewarded him a Pulitzer and refuses to this day to take it back. Like he said, no omelets without breaking eggs, and once the egg is broken it is no more. So it is with the word; abuse it and lose it. Words lose their meaning, and men lose their values. The words and their men of the Consortium became empty shells.
Entrenched in the Kremlin Putin rules over 109 million cynical, terrified and disenfranchised voters. Commenting on the oppressive climate of a neo-Soviet system of loyal gangster oligarchs feeding on the postmortem ruins of a parliamentary democracy, in which the three branches of power in Russia, – the executive, the judiciary and the legislature – are welded in the fists of Putin, Politkovksaya once said quoting Molotov’s grandson, “Ivan the Terrible and Stalin are more to the taste of the Russian people.”
Whether Putin can survive to transform his state oligarchy into a pluralist economy of denationalized capitalist companies without taking “decades to collapse through creeping stagnation” and elections “rigged in the Soviet fashion”, remains to be seen. As I write Moscow Times reports “The Kremlin has compiled a dossier on the 126 members of the Public Chamber that measures their degree of loyalty and whether they would be willing to act on Kremlin orders, Novaya Gazeta reported. If confirmed, the internal documents would back suspicions that the Public Chamber, an elected group of citizens that was formed in 2005 with a mandate to influence government policy is little more than window dressing of a civil society.

The Holodomor was shrouded in secrecy, denial and distortion. Officially it never happened. That view no longer holds. Change always confronts resistance. It remains inside Russia a zealously guarded secret as Putin stages new culture wars in search for identity and power in the Stalinist syndrome of post-Soviet society. Archived State Department documents reveal eye-witness accounts of famine in the Ukraine all meticulously recorded in American embassies and consulates before being transmitted to Washington and organized by the Department’s Eastern Europe Affairs Division. Documents were buried away and many perhaps lost forever. At the same time Stalin’s Sovietized Russians shot burned and buried Ukrainians official US government files were grounded in deep silence inside the Hoover-Roosevelt administrations with entangling roots of incalculable dire consequences for the health and integrity of future democracies. Startling testimonies, combined with facts and figures from all directions inside and outside the former Soviet Republic of the Ukraine, bear witness to the extent of the Famine Terror.
This was unmistakably a deliberate and planned Genocide against the Ukrainian people. And it spreads this deterioration of Democracy with a sickening gangrene on Humanity in general. Understand reader this is no accident. What to do? Get the poison out of the system or chuck the system. Is recovery a viable option? For the vibrant fresh scent of youth it most certainly is. But for the sordid stale putrid smell of rotten cynical businessmen and bankers and seasoned diplomats a reversal of their fortunes is not in their deck. For them the game is stacked in their favor. Look at the power of the central banks and their button-pushing politicians asking for more.
Fortunately in the West government documents and private archives are more accessible. With an increasing number of journalists assassinated inside Russia freedom of expression in 2009 appears not only dangerous but sometimes fatal. A few years ago Russians were tearing down statues of Stalin; at present criticism of the dictator will likely lead to a imprisonment. The NYT reports late 2009 the official push by Russia’s enduring Communist Party celebrating Stalin’s 130th birthday, part of Putin’s never ending drive to brighten the image of Stalin with “an appeal for people not to bring up the more unseemly aspects of his record.”
The evil of fascism always seeks to strengthen its hand in the struggle against the good. “Stalin is a polarizing figure in Russia, still popular for winning World War II and industrializing the Soviet Union while reviled for the purges that killed or displaced millions of people,” the NY Times added, without citing the number of Stalinists parading at Red Square to lay flowers on his grave. “‘We would like very much on this day for the discussion about any mistakes of the Stalin era to stop, so that people can reflect on the personality of Stalin as a creator, thinker and patriot,’ said Ivan Melnikov, a senior party official”. (Clifford J Levy, “Russia: A celebration of Stalin”, The NYT, Dec. 22, 2009)

So why all the secrecy?
Would exposure have compromised America’s foreign policy? Was it done to protect the Presidency and the State Department from public scrutiny, and subsequent embarrassment from public scrutiny over the lack of accountability? Would it have weakened the moral fiber of the image and example of American democracy exported around the world if government secrets had been exposed? The denial and secreting away of official recognition of the Famine Terror was in fact part of a carefully orchestrated political maneuvering within the ranks of Washington and Wall Street stretching to the capitals of world powers unbeknownst to the American public and the masses of the so-called free world.
In November 1933 Roosevelt invited Stalin’s foreign envoy Maxim Litvinov (born Meir Henoch Mojszaewicz Wallach-Finkelstein 1876-51) to the White House. They shook hands and then signed their notorious “Gentleman’s Agreement” granting official American recognition of Stalin’s terrorist communist dictatorship. Did the American president cynically sacrifice America’s extolled fundamentals principles of Humanity lost to his generation and quite possibly for generations to come? And why was their meeting– exposed as a farce mocking the entire free world– further jaded by the Consortium’s strategic geopolitical agenda of the inevitable war with Hitler and Japan?
The official record does not bear kind witness that President Roosevelt suffered any sleep over Stalin’s mass murder of untold millions of Ukrainians. Just another day at the office in a world gone mad, or just to make the people think while they hold their breath living in fear and ignorance and told to mind their own business. Champagne toasts, handshakes, back-slapping, this was a festive day in Washington and far away in Stalin’s fortified labyrinth of the Tsarist Kremlin. No spilled tears here. An amazing campaign of disinformation and suppression in the western press of the reality of the Soviet death camps and slave labor system working in tandem with corporate America.
FDR did not leave much behind if any visible record of agonizing soul-searching over their tragic plight. No trace of compassion for the Ukrainians emerged from the White House. This fit with his complex and aloof style of playing White House politics with his advisors and closest insiders while preserving his all options.
The President’s ally in Moscow was soon to be America’s “Uncle Joe”. Between Stalin and FDR not even God could save the Ukrainians from their fated destinies more than a decade before Yalta and Roosevelt’s selling out of half of Europe to the Soviet Communist dictatorship intertwined with the plots and purse strings of the powerful Consortium that unleashed the terror that eventually divided Germany, but saved Paris and Western Europe from occupation by a Soviet Russian nuclear superpower. Of course for the innocent hardworking peasants in the fields, all this was far over their heads, and only a decade away on the path.
What they could not trust they knew to be true. Men, not God, betrayed the Ukrainians. Believers knew it was so. Even to this day skeptics, particularly post-Soviet apologists in the Kremlin and their friends found the scale of horrors of the Ukrainian Holodomor utterly unimaginable. FDR and the State Department ignored it, brushing it aside off the public record, branding it a virtual taboo. Even the Soviet Union could boldly disclaim preposterous lies by enemies of Russia’s communist state for the socialist future of the New World Order. But these were no lies or mere excesses. Stalin systematically exterminated the indigenous population of the Ukraine, selecting not one group among many but instead all but the least resistant rural peasant and factory workers as well as engineers and the national intelligentsia. Putin’s Russia – Putinism – maintains a policy of secrecy and denial that keeps state archives off-limits and this at a time when the Holodomor has already become a football in the culture wars of Russia’s contemporary identity crisis with Washington.
In 2003, the Ukrainian Government conducted a special hearing about the famine and pledged to build a National Famine Memorial Complex. That year it drafted a resolution for the 58th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations to “secure recognition of the famine in Ukraine as an act of political genocide against the Ukrainian people.” It was a giant first step that had been the lifelong ambition of Holodomor historian Dr. James Mace who died in 2005. That year President George Bush awarded Robert Conquest a US Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civil award, citing his book The Great Terror. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s own father was a victim of the purges sent to the Belomorkanal construction project. Not until the election victory of Yushchenko in 2004 rejecting more than a decade of Soviet dominance did Ukraine gain its first genuine independence. Yushchenko continues to manifest publicly his sincere respect to the millions of tragic famine victims killed by Stalin’s totalitarian dictatorship however contested by the oppositionist Yanokovich pro-Russian camp.
This book is dedicated to the memory of the victims and to encourage efforts like those by President Viktor Yushchenko, himself a former head of Ukraine’s central bank during the turbulent 1990s under Yeltsin and Kuchma. Nor did he forget them. And a special place of dedication is reserved to the living who still have their memory buried in their hearts bearing witness to those painful years. Friends and acquaintances in Kiev and around the world where Ukrainians have settled tell me about their babushkas and grandfathers who disappeared, and of survivors who remember how they barely lived while others were more or less fortunate.
Under Yushchenko stories and pictures of the 1932-34 Holodomor appeared more frequently on Ukrainian national television and in the press. The Ukrainian government recently began preserving recorded testimonies of survivors, scorched memories that never heal, bearers of history that has been etched on their hearts.

Oles Yanchuk’s film Holod-33, produced in 1991, will probably never be surpassed for its terrifying dramatization of the 1930s famine. A New York Times review of the film stated, “The Soviet forces who carry out the savagery are portrayed as uniformly monstrous. They take sadistic pleasure in flaunting their grain, vodka and sausages in the faces of the hungry and think nothing of slaughtering hundreds of unarmed protesting farmers with machine guns. When Myron Katrannyk (Georgi Moroziuk), the head of the household, is suspected of hiding a sacred chalice, he is summoned to Communist party headquarters, suspended on a rack and beaten. After he and his wife, Odarka (Halyna Sulyma), refuse to talk, they are held prisoner and their children are left to fend for themselves. One of the perils they face is being kidnapped and eaten.” (Stephen Holden, The NYT, Dec. 15, 1993)
Ukrainian journalist Oksana Shapova recounted a true story how the young girl Vera barely lived through the repressions only to then lose all her relatives in WWII and postwar misery. As Milan Kundera reminds us, “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” As Oksana Shapova tells us the Holodomor Genocide is “a history that is impossible not only to forget but which cannot be converted into a mere succession of historical facts, happenings, and dates. These people are reliving it every day of their lives. They wake up and fall asleep, looking back on the past with a fear that this might reoccur someday…Only God knows how much love and care it takes to ease their tormented hearts. Whoever considers himself human cannot help bowing to the memory of these people and do his best to alleviate their sufferings today and ensure that tomorrow will not create a hell on earth.” During Yushchenko’s presidency Holodomor stories surfaced weekly of remembered personal histories rebuilding Ukraine’s collective identity and preserving respect to their lost but not forgotten ancestors. (Oksana Shapova, “Wounds that Time Cannot Heal”, The Day, Kiev, March 28, 2006)

How do you put “a face on the faceless”?
Former British intelligence op Robert Conquest tried to do it in 1986 with his book Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Information is disinformation. That might seem like a contradiction in logic. It is not. It is no mere coincidence that the Conquest famine book was published the same year research findings were published by Holodomor historian and Kiev resident James Mace and the US Commission Investigation of the Ukrainian Famine, 1932–1933. Two years later Washington published the US Congress Report on the Ukraine Famine (1988). An interesting synchronicity was in play.
In fact, Mace and Conquest actually collaborated on their famine research. Both were Harvard research fellows and at the time both were funded by Harvard University’s Ukrainian Research Institute.
Think about it. Immediately that should tell raise eyebrows. Follow the money. There are always strings attached. And they can be cut as easily as they are pulled. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Leave it to the Harvard, Princeton and Yale cronies and that’s what you get: the Harvard-Princeton-Yale take. Conformity has many versions of coercion with subtle but no less brutal methods of persuasion.

Conquest and Mace had to move quickly to get their propaganda version neatly embedded in historicity of the politically correct and indelible path of memory, if not only to reach beyond the landscape of bitter suffering and truth that surfaced a decade before, in 1973, when Solzhenitsyn made public his remarkable trilogy of The Gulag Archipelago. After all, the Russian writer and former Soviet army officer had lived and witnessed first-hand the Holodomor terrorism of those same years, when it was called the “Plague”. It was incredible. How could it be! He wrote how so many were lost, without the odes and poets to recall the souls of these dead Ukrainians and fellow Soviet citizens of famished territories.
Solzhenitsyn recalls the vanquished lives before their last traces vanished completely from the collective memory. “Fifteen million souls. Fifteen million lives. They weren’t educated people, of course. They couldn’t play the violin. They didn’t know who Meyerhold was, or how interesting it is to be a nuclear physicist … about the silent, treacherous Plague which starved fifteen million of our peasants to death, choosing its victims carefully and destroying, the backbone and mainstay of the Russian stones mark the crossroads where they went in creaking carts to their doom. Our finest humanists, so sensitive to today’s injustices, in those years only nodded approvingly: Quite right, too! Just what they deserve! It was all kept so dark, every stain so carefully scratched out, every whisper so swiftly choked, that whereas I now have to refuse kind offers of material on the camps – ‘No more, my friends, I have masses of such stories, I don’t know where to put them!’ – nobody brings me a thing about the deported peasants. Who is the person that could tell us about them? Where is he? … I cannot document even one chapter thoroughly. All the same, I shall make a beginning. Set my chapter down as a marker, like those first stones – to mark the place where the new Temple of Christ the Savior will someday be raised.”
So, throwing up his hands in frustration, Solzhenitsyn asked, “Where did it all start?” Why not start with 1929 and its “murder lists, the confiscations, the deportations”, and the gavel crashing down on the peasants with the official Party decree of February 1, 1930 for “complete confiscation of the property of the kulaks” and deportation from their village homes “to points beyond the boundaries of certain regions and provinces”. (A. I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, v. 3, 350-2)

If you want a new perspective on history you owe it to yourself to discover Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Put his volumes alongside Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Antony Sutton’s Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965, monumental contribution published ironically by the conservative Hoover Institute at Stanford University from 1968 to 1973. With exhaustive detail and source referencing Sutton showed the extent of financial and industrial collaboration and technology transfer between Washington and Moscow behind Stalin’s Five-Year Plans and the Terror-Famine totalitarian regime of the Holodomor. Capital and technology imported from the West; slave labor, police terror and propaganda, a home brew of Marxist-Leninist Bolshevism and totalitarian Stalinism cooked up from East.

Washington and Moscow. Hoover and Roosevelt and Stalin. Capitalism and Communism. Together these forces combined to secretly build the Soviet gulag state system implementing a Consortium strategy in a race with time to crush the rising pyramid of Hitler’s Nazi fascism and emerge as unchallenged victors of the Second World War. Most uncanny bedfellows! The political observer Gareth Jones wrote in November 1932 nearing the peak of the Holodomor winter “In short it forecasts that in this the last winter of the Five-Year Plan the question will still be: “Will there be soup? ”
By the mid-1930s economic conditions in America and Soviet Russia began to improve. Recognition of the Communist regime by the richest capitalized nation is a boost of enormous magnitude as were the huge industrial complexes installed under the supervision of Bolshevik commissars, Soviet and American engineers and their American companies all with household names: General Electric , with its headquarters in Schenectady, New York, Westinghouse, Detroit’s Ford Motor Company, US Steel, DuPont, American Caterpillar and many more well-known and lesser known firms including the controlling investments by the Rockefellers, Morgans, Mellons, Harrimans and others. When pro-Stalin supporters cheered the great achievement of the military and industrial success of the USSR’s first and second Five-Year Plans, it was never said that the technology came mostly from the West. To admit Stalin was a patsy of the capitalists was a counterrevolutionary attack on sacred Communist Party doctrine. Anyone in the Soviet Union who dared to make such a claim would regret it, and probably shot as an “enemy of the people”. After all, didn’t the Party provide the mass labor necessary to build and run the factories and industrial plants?
The Ukrainian Terror-Famine was man-made as was its concealment, two sides of the very same coin. Master-minded in the labyrinth of the ornate rooms of the ancient fortified Palace of Russian Czars, the Kremlin is as daunting and mysterious as the men who lived there, as it were, haunted by the ghosts of Ivan the Terrible and his successors who ruled the empire after pushing back the Moguls in the 13th century. Protected in this ancient fortress for over three decades Stalin ruled like a God controlling the fate of more than a hundred million people of diverse ethnicity living in nations that became republics of Moscow’s central authority symbolized by the impregnable Kremlin. Those who caught a glimpse of the omnipotent ruler overlooking the glorious Red Army on May Day parade or for the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. From here Stalin issued orders to implement his Terror-Famine campaign of the Holodomor against the Ukraine with blood-soaked hands of his accomplices in the Anglo-American Consortium’s network of banks, law firms and corporations eager to use the slave labor of soviet terrorism for profit.
The Holodomor cover-up does not end there. It continues today with conferences and memorial ceremonies orchestrated by propagandists from Washington and academics invited the honorable universities where they are rewarded with lofty salaries and publishing deals unthinkable in the Ukraine. Oh! Don’t offend the conference hosts at Harvard’s Ukrainian Institute, or Princeton’s George Kennan Center or at Yale’s Slavic Studies. These good people relish the rituals living in America with healthy salaries and benefits, neat incentives for their career? But who is to blame them?

As we examine later, the shadow of his past shatters the flimsy political motives and any claim to integrity of Conquest’s anti-communist books. It is clear that Conquest like his predecessors was bent on protecting the puppet-masters both in London and Washington from public exposure for their hidden complicity and denial in the Ukrainian Holodomor for over a half-century. This is not an incidental or trite piece of rhetorical disorder. Moreover it’s an intellectual corruption of the first order. But lets face it; his career and pension depended on that complicity and subterfuge. Instead of academic exile the intellectual is rewarded for his complicity in the crime of cover-up, deception and denial. And his sordid career lends itself to the masquerade of a darker wretchedness. Conquest is a tool of the spymasters.
The case of the young Welshman Gareth Jones as we shall see is also invariably tied with intractable knots and emboldened mystery. During Ukraine’s newly resurgence and all too brief break from Moscow, the chapter of the Holodomor in world history enters a new revision of political football between Moscow and Washington, each with their own agenda to protect. In 2005 President George Bush the Younger actually awards Conquest the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest acclaim for civilians exercising exemplary patriotism in their craft, yet slight compensation for a second-rate spy who never achieved the fame or notoriety shared by Smiley’s people or the likes of contemporaries Somerset Maugham, Lawrence Durrell, Graham Greene or John Le Carre.
First Duranty then came Conquest. The Consortium always honor their own. It’s a process for the continuity of legitimacy of power, lies and deceit. There is a long line of establishment academic writers lining up and waiting to pay their dues for just rewards. When monuments are erected in Washington for the victims of the Holodomor, what will these future historians write then?
In the early 1930s, Ukraine was ravaged by the wholesale slaughter and destruction of peasant village communities. No body count has ever been released by the Soviet Russian authorities. Bodies disappeared, buried in the fields burned or vanished in unmarked and mass graves along the route in all directions to forced labor concentration camps in the mines and forests deep inside the immense regions of the Soviet Union and never to be seen or heard from again. Party hierarchies in the Ukraine, and elsewhere were regularly purged of “wreckers”, “saboteurs”, “bloodsuckers”, and “enemies of the people”. Survivors would soon perish a few years later fighting the German Nazi invasion in World War Two. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 mass graves of executed prisoners began to appear in the press of shattered propaganda myths and smashed communist icons.
No family in the Ukraine was immune or unaffected. It is hard to put words on a political and humanitarian catastrophe of such unthinkable proportions. But that is just it, the problem is that it is not unthinkable and never was. Few were spared first Stalin’s, then Hitler’s machinations. “This was the nub of the plan,” observed Solzhenitsyn, writing, “the peasant’s seed must perish together, with the adults. Since Herod was no more, only the Vanguard Doctrine has shown us how to destroy utterly down to the very babes. Hitler was a mere disciple, but he had all the luck; his murder camps have made him famous, whereas no one has any interest in ours at all.”(A. I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, v. 3, 359)
Serious establishment authors who refuse to recognize the vital role played principally by American corporations in the development of the modern Soviet state are simply not credible. “A regular flow of American machines and industrial equipment fueled soviet industrial development”, wrote Kings College historian Richard Overy and British journalist Andrew Wheatcroft in their book The Road to War (1987). Unfortunately, they too failed to observe that the flow continued virtually uninterrupted until the era of the Holodomor in the Ukraine and famine elsewhere disrupting life throughout the Soviet Union and threatened to shake Stalin’s tyranny and end his inhumane regime of terror, forced labor, and propaganda. Such misreading of the historical record is overtly suspicious of complicity with the secret agenda of the Consortium and its agents in academia and publishing. (Richard Overy and Andrew Wheatcroft, The Road to War: The Origins of World War II, 1987)

This astounded author-engineer-historian Antony C. Sutton who wrote about but never really experienced firsthand the secretive Yale Bones culture. Sutton writes, “an American banker under guidance of a member of The Order had a key post in a Soviet bank!”
Averell Harriman is the closest link to Stalin and Churchill after Hitler invaded in 1941 the key negotiator handling the administration’s Lend-Lease supply line to Great Britain and the Red Army. The significance of this unfolds in the US-Soviet politics of famine from the fall of the Imperial Czarist Empire and the return to Moscow of Lenin and Trotsky.
Other researchers and writers stayed in the loop becoming awed and inspired to pull back the curtains on these makers of mega profits and doom. In his article “Building Communism” in American Opinion (1975) Gary Allen writes, “After the Czar abdicated, Leon Trotsky was sent to Russia from New York on an American passport supplied by Woodrow Wilson. The interim Socialist boss in Moscow was A.F. Kerensky who spent the remainder of his days in New York. When he died he left behind sealed records to be opened after 1987 detailing the ‘conspiratorial organizations modeled on freemasons lodges’ which were responsible for the revolution. It is now clear that an arcane conspiracy, backed by finance capitalists in the United States, has been behind the Reds from the beginning.” But 1987 came and went and nothing apparently was revealed. (Gary Allen, “Building Communism”, American Opinion, Dec. 1975)
The Ukrainian Holodomor had all the trappings of the conspiratorial plot. Only it was much more than that. Murder by man-made famine, by deportations of the peasants in below freezing conditions to Arctic death camps, sent to work on giant industrial projects from Magnitogorsk, to the White Sea Canal, the Volga Canal was normal business under “dekulakisation”. Solzhenitsyn described the chaos and devastation caused by eradication of the peasants already occurring in 1929, a scene repeated in all directions and once prosperous villages during the next five years.
Solzhenitsyn wrote, “Great streams of deported peasants poured through Archangel, and for a time the whole town became one big transit prison. … This was how they lived in that plague-stricken winter. They could not wash. Their bodies were covered with festering sores. Spotted fever developed. People were dying. Strict orders were given to the people of Archangel not to help the special resettlers (as the deported peasants were now called)! Dying peasants roamed the town, but no one could take a single one of them into his home, feed him, or carry tea out to him: the militia seized local inhabitants who tried to do so and took away their passports. A starving man would stagger along the street, stumble, fall – and die. But even the dead could not be picked up (beside the militia, plainclothesmen went around on the lookout for acts of kindness). At the same time market gardeners and livestock breeders from areas near big towns were also being expelled, whole villages at a time (once again – what about the theory that they were supposed to arrest exploiters only?), and the residents of Archangel themselves dreaded deportation. They were afraid even to stop and look down at a dead body. (There was one lying near GPU headquarters, which no one would remove.) They were buried in organized fashion: by the sanitation department. Without coffins, of course, in common graves, next to the old city cemetery on Vologda Street – out in open country. No memorials were erected.” (A. I. Solzhenitsyn, “The Peasant Plague”, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956, An Experiment in Literary Investigation, v. 3, V-VII, 361-2)
In order to accomplish their goals, the Anglo-American Consortium (call it what you will, Order, Elite,– don’t be confused, it’s the same) mixed public policy with private business to profit themselves and corporate shareholders with vast holdings in the companies they controlled. Strategic calculations for short and long-term objectives were the business of the day, and the livelihood of generations of the elite. Their goal was always the same, relentlessly pursued in secrecy and fear to control the accumulation of unlimited power and enormous wealth. And by controlling the public debate from generation to generation – they still do— through a web of ownership of media conglomerates, private institutes, foundations and universities, the depth and magnitude of their penetration of power stretched throughout society virtually unchecked. This Consortium linked first by method and access to the centralized national banks of England and France, then used the Fed’s system of select banks make and finance war, trade in armaments and supplies with belligerents, mobilize national armies, negotiate peace conditions, scheme and intrigue launching reconstruction plans for the conflicts that follow.
Make no mistake about it. There is a ruling class in America. It is mercilessly proud and arrogant when it needs to be but for the most part when seen in public members of the ruling class take special pleasure to appear at ease engendering a consensus of fusion between the national and local community. Of course, with the agenda is always set to serve their ends of continuity of power and control over the comfortable masses. They like to wear a happy smile while appearing unabashfully benign and innocuous, even folksy. The reality is different behind the mask. These same families of extraordinary and exponential wealth assumed the social status that only that kind of wealth can afford and for whom hundreds of thousands dollars are counted as nickels and dimes. They comprise the class that rules and governs, long thought to have been a thing of the past, superseded by the proliferation of fortunes and wealth, but actually meticulously maintained in career positions filtered and selected to advance their agenda decided by their fathers and their fathers, going back generations. In so doing the very rich and chosen few protected and extended their invaluable legacy of wealth, possessions and social reputations. And get away with murder by proxy.
While a relatively miniscule number of members of the capitalist Consortium blithely calculated and accumulated vast fortunes, the Consortium reduced Nazi Germany and the USSR to the status of slave-like client states, vassal proxies, and destroyed the lives of millions of people forever lost in an abyss of ignorance. Stalin reduced the Ukrainians to a statelessness torpor of animal existence. What did they reap in the deal? Nothing but misery, hardship, famine and death inflicted on them by Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, all favorite clients of the Anglo-American Consortium of the West. Diplomats and governments they represent ought to be made to pay for their crimes. But how? The Consortium controlled the national and international courts. Do you really believe today they do not? Take your blinders off! The American masses retreat further into passive indifference, bloated inertia unable to march on Washington after the Bush election coup or mount a serious movement of dissent against the give-away of trillions of unaccountable government dollars to the same the banks responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008-2009.
For the supporters of Stalin’s social transformation of Bolshevik Russia into a totalitarian monopoly trading with the West the gain far outweighed the cost counted in dollars, not human lives US relations with Stalin was paved in American dollars and cheap Soviet slave labor without which the investment would not ever have been possible. In fact by 1928 the bankrupt Soviet economy starved of foreign exchange would take only Red gold and dollars to pay for Stalin’s crash Five-Year Plan for national industrialization. During six years of the two Five-Year Plans (July 1929-January 1, 1934) the number of prisoners incarcerated in labor camps increased 23 fold. (Sistema ispravitel’no-trudovjkh lageri v SSR 1923-1960, 35)
By 1928 Stalin was ready to resume the social and economic revolution in Russia. A “Five-Year Plan” was announced to replace the NEP program for a state capitalist monopoly under Soviet communism. From the beginning Stalin’s primary objective of each plant was to satisfy military requirements. Sutton writes, “It is ironic, from the Western viewpoint, that contracts viewed as serving the cause of world peace (Henry Ford, for example, elected to build the Gorki tractor plant to advance peace) should have been utilized immediately for military purposes.” The masses desired peace more than anything so the Consortium let them believe they had it. Rockefeller’s publicist Ivy Lee used this double standard adopted by all public relations employees of private corporations to legitimate and morally condone their business relations with autocratic monopolies.

The economic industrial growth of the U.S.S.R, according to G. Warren Nutter’s book, The Growth of Industrial Production in the Soviet Union (1962) in fact greatly benefited from the stimulus of those Consortium Lend-Lease provisions supplying the Soviets with one-third of its prewar industrial output. Separately, writers Sutton and Nutter both traced the emergence of the USSR from the utter destruction and ruin by the War with a powerfully devastating factor concealed in the apparent and immediate advantage assured them by America’s Lend-Lease “pipeline agreement” providing that Lend-Lease supplies continued after the war through 1947 at a time of extreme postwar deprivation and outrageous repressions by Stalin who denied the good Russian people the fruits of their hard sacrifice and victory over Nazi fascism.
Sutton in a similar light concludes, “There is no question that the Soviets ended World War II with greater industrial capacity than in 1940 – in spite of the war damage – and on a technical parity with the United States.” Furthermore, capital flows from the occupied countries significantly contributed to rebuilding the postwar Soviet economy. Soviet forces stripped and transported whatever they could salvage in the reconstruction effort. Sutton found that 25 percent of the economy of the USSR was destroyed by the Germans. Still, Russian factories “were far better off in terms of both capacity and technology by 1946 than before the war when at that time its steel production compared with 70 percent of the Americans. Destroyed facilities were more than replaced by debt repayments and Lend-Lease, and more, importantly, replaced with equipment 10 to 15 years more advanced.” Nor were these observations overlooked by the British and American war strategists. (A. C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917 to 1930, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford Univ., CA. 345-6. v. II, 1968; G. Warren Nutter, The Growth of Industrial Production in the Soviet Union, Princeton, 1962)

The previous year Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (1891-40), Russia’s great satirist who despite official harassment is given time to live, – yes! Stalin the Great Defender of the Party, Hero of the Revolution, Master of the Sun, Moon and the Universe, – but of course only illiterate idiots believed it so) – gave him more life, twelve years writing his best work of which one is considered among the world’s greatest novels, The Master and Margarita, and still perplexed, piquantly alive, he reads Pravda about Trotsky’s “illness”. Mikhail Bulgakov … “On 8 January 1924 Trotsky was given the push. God alone knows what will happen to Russia. May He come to her aid!” Under constant watch by the secret police, his confiscated diaries and manuscripts are returned years later only after his protest reach Maxim Gorky. Poor but courageous he would not be disappointed and though he dies in 1940 it takes another generation before his work is published, – yes he hid it well! – and KGB chief Yuri Andropov denounces him in 1978 “a dangerous weapon in the hands of (Western) ideological centers engaged in ideological sabotage against the Soviet Union”. So even if these monstrous idiots denounce it with such fattening vigor it must be something not to miss! During the years of chaos and Party disputes, Stalin is said to have absolutely nothing to do with all the troubles blamed on the dirty swine around him. Andropov becomes Premier in 1982 but dies within the year; yet Russia still must wait several years before Gorbachev makes his causal rounds unescorted in Moscow and Leningrad shaking the country out of its brutally dulled and schizophrenic paralysis. (C. Andrew and V. Mitrokhi, 11)
(And the above extracts are only a few on the first 83 pages of this 750 page book!)