Suvorov’s Methodology

Jeffrey Nyquist comments on Suvorov’s book The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II and reflects on the lessons to be learned from history.

Soviet GRU defector Viktor Suvorov has come out with a new book titled The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. It is Suvorov’s thesis that Stalin tricked Hitler into starting the war. This was easily done because Hitler was impetuous. Stalin, on the other end, had the virtue of patience and was more deceptive. In addition, Stalin had absolute control over the Soviet Union. He enslaved hundreds of millions of people for one purpose: to build a military machine second to none for the conquest of Europe. To assure his grand design, Stalin implemented a strategy of “divide and conquer.” He plotted to set Hitler against France and Britain. At the same time, Stalin set about to build the greatest war machine the world had ever seen.

At the Nuremberg trials in 1946, the defense attorney for deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess argued that Stalin was equally responsible for starting the war. The Soviet leader set the war in motion by signing a secret pact with Hitler. The agreement involved a joint invasion and partitioning of Poland. In the course of this invasion Stalin cheated Hitler by delaying the Soviet invasion of Poland for 17 days. Hitler was shocked at the betrayal. “Where are the promised Russian troops?” Stalin’s coy answer: “Our forces aren’t ready.” As Nikita Khrushchev later explained, “According to this agreement [the Hitler-Stalin pact], it turned out that Hitler started the war. This was beneficial for us from the military and from the moral standpoint. With his actions, he would provoke war with France and England, by going against Poland. We could remain neutral.”

While Germany was at war with England and France, the Soviet Union was free to invade its neighbors without risk. “The Soviet Union entered World War II as an aggressor,” wrote Suvorov. “Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania – all the western neighbors of the Soviet Union – fell victim to the Red Army.” Millions of gulag prisoners were harvested in the newly conquered territories. Stalin got what he wanted, and had no qualms about helping resource-starved Germany by sending oil, grain, cotton, iron ore, magnesium, chrome, zinc, nickel, and tin to Hitler. “Without these things,” wrote Suvorov, “Hitler could not have fought.” But Stalin wanted Hitler to fight, because Hitler was – according to Stalin – the “icebreaker” of the revolution.

After the war Hitler’s foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was arrested and put on trial at Nuremberg. What war crimes did this diplomat commit? He had direct knowledge of Stalin’s secret treaty with Hitler. During the Nuremberg trials the Russians warned Ribbentrop to keep his mouth shut. But under cross examination the Nazi diplomat was forced to admit that Stalin and Hitler had worked together. A copy of the secret Hitler-Stalin pact was produced during Deputy Fuhrer Hess’s trial. This created a sensation in the court room, until a Soviet judge demanded the suppression of “this anonymous document.” The Allied judges supported their Soviet colleague.

The West is always slow to understand Russian strategic thinking. The Hitler-Stalin pact was about dividing and conquering. It was aimed at the West. And today, the bosses in the Kremlin continue to aim at the West. By giving nuclear and missile technology to Iran, the Russians prepare a new “icebreaker.” But today, there are many strategies on many continents: there is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the North Koreans, and the rapidly arming Chinese.

Strategy is not always about fighting. It is about long-range consequences. If you unloose X, then you unleash Y. Therefore, strategy is psychological and sociological. Consider the strategic outcome of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Thousands of Americans were killed and the U.S. president responded by invading two Islamic countries – Afghanistan and Iraq. These invasions exposed the U.S. administration to withering criticisms from the Left. As long wars invariably prove unpopular, the discrediting of Bush and the Republican Party became a foregone conclusion. In this case, the “icebreaker” of the revolution was al Qaeda. The result of Bush’s overreaction spelled defeat for the Republican Party and victory for the American Left. And now the Americans have elected a president who wants to get rid of 80 percent of America’s nuclear arsenal.

The Americans never reckoned with the fact that their real enemy sits in Moscow. And so, America has been played off against the Islamic world. The Republican Party has been defeated. The American people have turned to the Left, and the American economy is being “socialized.” Here is a disastrous outcome, and one that promises worse violence to the future. What will happen when American troops leave Iraq? What will happen to the world economy as the American’s spend trillions they haven’t got? Will there be communist revolutions? Will the United States continue as a great power?

Suvorov asked the question: who really started World War II. Perhaps, before it’s too late, we should ask who started the “war against terror.” Was Osama bin Laden the mastermind, or was it the KGB agent, Ayman al-Zawahri? (Before his death, the assassinated FSB/KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko publicly stated that al-Zawahri was working for Moscow, and that Russia was behind the global terror campaign.)

Suvorov’s methodology is to look at facts that haven’t been properly analyzed. When asked by a journalist why so many historians missed the role that Stalin played in starting World War II, Suvorov responded: “Are you asking why they are all so brilliant?” If someone asks today why the CIA and FBI haven’t grasped Moscow’s role in 9/11, I must give Suvorov’s answer. It is an amazing truth, that most events aren’t properly examined after the fact. Myths are propagated and false interpretations become set in stone. This is because normal people don’t question first impressions. They are superficial in their analysis. That is the way the world works. To question a myth, one has to have a questioning mind. Facts speak truth only to the few. As Suvorov points out, “Poland was divided not in the Imperial Chancellery, but in the Kremlin.” We might also recall that modern terrorism wasn’t invented in Baghdad or Kabul, but in Moscow.

Jeffrey Nyquist is the President of the Strategic Crisis Center and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Political Science at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

This article was originally published on Financial Sense on Feb 16, 2009. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Who Rules The World?

From the readings of my youth, more than four decades ago, few questions struck me so much as that which is the title of the second part of José Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses: “Who rules the world?”

The philosopher did not formulate the question in a metaphysical sense, where it could be answered with something like “God,” “chance,” “fate,” but in the geopolitical sense, and he arrived at the conclusion that it was a pity that Europe had lost its position of leadership in the world, yielding it to Russia and the United States.

However, the answer did not seem to match the question. In fact, states, nations, continents, and governments cannot rule anything. The actual rulers are individuals and groups that control states and nations. Prior to geo-politics is politics tout court. And here is where things get formidably complicated. It is easy to see what states or countries prevail over others. But finding out who really rules a state or country—and thereby may rule other states and countries as well—is a more daunting intellectual challenge than an ordinary political analyst can imagine.

The English verb “to command” ultimately derives from the Latin expression manus dare, that is, “to give one’s hands”: he who commands lends his means of action (his “hands”) to others so that they may perform something he has planned. It is true that rulers give orders to their subordinates, but when you look into the practice of ruling closely, you will see that only very few leaders in history—a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan—were themselves the creators of the ideas they put into practice. Early theorists of the modern state hit the nail on the head when they coined the term “executive power”: in general, a statesman is an executor of ideas which he did not conceive nor would have the ability—or the time—to conceive. And those who conceived these ideas were the same ones who gave him the means to get into office to put them into practice. But who are they?

Applying the question to the specific case of the United States, the sociologist Charles Wright Mills, one of the mentors of the New Left, published a book in 1956 that would become a classic: The Power Elite. The answer he found took the form of a very complicated network of groups, families, corporations, official and unofficial intelligence services, cults, clubs, churches, and circles of overt and discreet personal relationships, including mistresses and call girls. In that picture, the American political class, which culminated in the person of a nominal ruler, appeared as foam on the surface of dark waters. Mills was obviously on the right track. But he died in 1962 and did not have the opportunity to witness a phenomenon that he himself helped bring about: the New Left itself has become the power elite and lost all interest in “transparency.” In fact, the New Left has taken great pains in becoming opaque, to the point of placing a complete unknown in the presidency of the most powerful country in the world and surrounding him with a protection wall that blocks any attempt to discover who he is, what he has done, with whom he walks, and what interests he represents. If you want to have an idea of what the power elite in the United States has been up to, you will have to look for information on the other end of the ideological spectrum, for it is conservatives who are the current inheritors of the tradition of studies inaugurated by Wright Mills.

 It is thanks to conservatives that the Fabian globalist elite, the living nucleus of power behind practically all governments of the West, has become visible in its composition and the details of its modus operandi to the point of almost obscenity, making some people’s insistence in calling that elite “a secret power” unintentionally comical. Google the words “Council on Foreign Relations,” “Bilderberg,” “Trilateral Comission” and the like, and you will get more information than your neurons will be able to process for the next ten years—information whose level of credibility ranges from scientific evidence to downright fabrication.

 In contrast, little or nothing is known of the deep sources of power in Russia, China, and Islamic countries. Even the descriptions we have of the visible ruling class in those regions of the globe are schematic and superficial, bearing no possible comparison with the meticulous Who’s Who of the Western elite. This is easily explained by differences in access to information sources. For it is one thing to research in Western archives and libraries, under the protection of the law and democratic institutions—and in the Unites States it is even possible for someone to pierce the barrier of official unwillingness through the Freedom of Information Act. It is a totally different thing to try to guess what goes behind the impenetrable walls of the Russian-Chinese establishment.

 Neither the KGB nor China’s secret services have ever allowed independent researchers to gain access to their files. Even the files of the Communist Party of the USSR were closed again after a brief period of tolerance, motivated not by some sudden love of freedom, but by the illusory conviction, soon to be dispelled, that Western researchers were mostly sympathetic to the Soviet regime.

 In the Islamic world, underneath the ruling class and the hurly-burly of terrorist groups there extends an unfathomable network of esoteric organizations, some of which being a thousand years old, whose power of influence varies greatly from one country to another and from time to time. These organizations, which are the spiritual core of Islam, the deep guarantee of its civilizational unity, and in the long term, the condition of possibility of Islamic worldwide expansion, are still perfectly unknown to Western, journalistic or even academic, political analysts.

The difference in visibility among the great globalist schemes in competition is the source of catastrophic errors in the description of the conflict of power in the world. I will explain some of these errors in upcoming articles.

200px-Olavo_de_Carvalho1Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota.