Hitler England & USA. His puppet master, then Who killed the jew?

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Look at all the graphic elements shared in common between those two propaganda posters. Not only depicting Stalin & Hitler standing in exactly the same position, and in the same framing within the image -- but also the large flag and the many smaller flags arrayed in a line, the buildings in the distance, and soldiers standing in line. An excellent example of visual typology.

Suchender, I'm curious if you're familiar with Grover Furr's work on the Stalin era? I've only seen his articles, but haven't read any of his books.

I'm particularly interested in Furr's work on Leon Trotsky. Furr says that Trotsky was guilty of conspiring with Germany and Japan, as well as his Trotskyite followers within the Soviet Union, to overthrow Stalin's government. He claims that the Moscow trials of the late 1930's were not "show" trials, but legitimate proceedings that uncovered a real conspiracy. A review of Furr's book Leon Trotsky's Collaboration with Germany and Japan by William Podmore at Amazon's page states:

In this extraordinary book, Professor Furr refutes many of the anti-communist lies about the Moscow trials in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s. In particular, he exposes the lies about of the leaders of the Opposition. He shows that the defendants were indeed guilty of treason.

He writes, “of the defendants at the three public Moscow trials eight men claimed to have heard directly from either Trotsky or his son Sedov about contacts between Trotsky and German or Japanese officials: Ol’berg, Piatkov, Radek, Shestov, Rakovsky, Krestinskii, Bessonov, and Rozengol’ts. One man, Sokol’nikov, heard of Trotsky’s collaboration with Japan from a Japanese diplomat.”

He explains, “There is no reason whatever to doubt that Bukharin was telling the truth in his pre-trial and trial confessions and in his post-trial appeal. Bukharin was very clear and explicit that Radek had told him more than once about Trotsky’s involvement with the Germans and Japanese. This is corroborative evidence. Bukharin’s first confession corroborates Radek’s confession at the January 1937 trial – Bukharin confirms what Radek said, meanwhile adding a bit more detail.” “Radek, Sokol’nikov, and Iakovlev testified that they were approached by German and Japanese officials who told them about Trotsky’s collaboration with their countries.”

There is documentary evidence of Marshal Tukhachevsky’s collaboration with the Japanese – “the Arao document, a communication from a Japanese military attaché to his superior in Japan testifying to secret contact with a representative of Marshal Tukhachevsky.” “three of the eight figures in the Tukhachevsky Affair – Primakov, Putna, and Tukhachevsky himself – had direct contact with both Trotsky and the Germans.”

On 27 February 1937 Trotsky wrote, “It is quite certain that in the next trial, with Rakovsky participating as the accused, there will be charges of conspiratorial dealings between Rakovsky and the Japanese diplomats and military (under orders from Trotsky, of course).” Furr comments, “This was a ‘prediction’ so precise that the only way Trotsky could have made it is if he knew what Rakovsky would say – that is, if Rakovsky’s confession was true.”

Georgii Cherniavskii, the Russian Trotskyist biographer of Rakovsky, “read Rakovsky’s confessions. Unfortunately for us he chose not to reproduce them. But Cherniavskii would certainly have told us of any sign that the NKVD investigators had invented the accusation that Rakovsky had become a Japanese spy and forced Rakovsky to confess to it. Cherniavskii says nothing of the sort. In fact Cherniavskii thinks that Rakovsky himself invented the charge of Japanese espionage in order to make the trial look ridiculous. This means that according to Cherniavskii, the NKVD did not force Rakovsky to confess to espionage for Japan but that Rakovsky volunteered this information on his own.”
This is all circumstantial evidence & hearsay, and by itself it reveals very little about the specifics of Trotsky's scheme. But perhaps it's another piece of the puzzle.

In other books and articles, Furr claims to show that the picture of Stalin as a bloodthirsty maniac who deliberately caused the deaths of tens of millions of Russians, was largely invented by later anti-Communists. But even if Stalin is exonerated for those crimes, now he stands accused of preparing a massive aggressive war designed to conquer all of Europe, using Hitler as a vanguard; and also of self-sabotage of his own diabolical plot?

If Stalin was indeed a traitor to the Communist revolution, it's hard to see where this came from in his youth or his early party activities. At Seminary? He seems to have rejected religious traditionalism from a very early age; from Wikipedia:

At his teachers' recommendation, Stalin proceeded to the Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis.[30] He enrolled at the school in August 1894,[31] enabled by a scholarship that allowed him to study at a reduced rate.[32] Here he joined 600 trainee priests who boarded at the seminary.[33] Stalin was again academically successful and gained high grades.[34] He continued writing poetry; five of his poems were published under the pseudonym of "Soselo" in Ilia Chavchavadze's newspaper Iveria ('Georgia').[35] Thematically, they dealt with topics like nature, land, and patriotism.[36] According to Stalin's biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore, they became "minor Georgian classics",[37] and were included in various anthologies of Georgian poetry over the coming years.[37] As he grew older, Stalin lost interest in his studies; his grades dropped,[38] and he was repeatedly confined to a cell for his rebellious behaviour.[39] Teachers complained that he declared himself an atheist, chatted in class and refused to doff his hat to monks.[40]

Stalin joined a forbidden book club active at the school;[41] he was particularly influenced by Nikolay Chernyshevsky's 1863 pro-revolutionary novel What Is To Be Done?[42] Another influential text was Alexander Kazbegi's The Patricide, with Stalin adopting the nickname "Koba" from that of the book's bandit protagonist.[43] He also read Capital, the 1867 book by German sociological theorist Karl Marx.[44] Stalin devoted himself to Marx's socio-political theory, Marxism,[45] which was then on the rise in Georgia, one of various forms of socialism opposed to the empire's governing Tsarist authorities.[46] At night, he attended secret workers' meetings,[47] and was introduced to Silibistro "Silva" Jibladze, the Marxist founder of Mesame Dasi ('Third Group'), a Georgian socialist group.[48] In April 1899, Stalin left the seminary and never returned,[49] although the school encouraged him to come back.[50]

From that point forward, Wikipedia depicts that Stalin participated in a whirlwind of revolutionary activities, interspersed with years of exile and imprisonment under the Tsar's secret police.

All a fake? Stalin, an agent of the Jesuits and the Okhrana? Trotsky, involved in some sort of parallel attempt at collaboration with the Nazis and the Axis? My head is spinning.


Active Member
Look at all the graphic elements shared in common between those two propaganda posters.....An excellent example of visual typology.
Doesn't this look like it was done by the same designer studio ?!
A higher echelon doing the propaganda for both, German and Russian "socialists" ?
Some things flash to one's mind when "unrelated" objects are juxtaposed.....


Active Member
Suchender, I'm curious if you're familiar with Grover Furr's work on the Stalin era?
No. First time I hear his name :) Will look out for his book.

I have read a book about Yakov Sverdlov (not his real last name).
About Trotsky only what Viktor Suvorov wrote about him in his books where he writes about the reasons Stalin let Trotsky go instead of doing what he always did with old revolutionaries, and later needed to silence him. I'm not an expert on this topic :)


Active Member
In other books and articles, Furr claims to show that the picture of Stalin as a bloodthirsty maniac who deliberately caused the deaths of tens of millions of Russians, was largely invented by later anti-Communists. But even if Stalin is exonerated for those crimes, now he stands accused of preparing a massive aggressive war designed to conquer all of Europe, using Hitler as a vanguard; and also of self-sabotage of his own diabolical plot?
"...invented by later anti-Communists." Really !?
Since Communists never understood economics (and will never understand), they killed millions of peasants.
Was it deliberate ? Not necesarily. Was it arrogance by economically uneducated ? Yes, definitely. We can reasonably call the starvation of millions to death deliberate.

Yes, Stalin's self-sabotage looks crazy. But only if we consider him an independent player.
If he is just a subordinate, then this becomes the only logical conclusion, in my opinion.

We were talking about the brain of the U.S.-Israel dog and those who are the real brain. Those who are the directors of this theater play we call history.

Now let's say the controllers control not only London, New York, Paris, but also Moscow. Stalin has to produce a machine that will "conquer the world" - so he is told. He is the right man for this - actual history is proof ! He is up to the task.

But the war in Europe does not go as planned by the "brain" !
Yes, Hitler did bite into that Poland trap. But the German Wehrmacht is crashing Poland too fast. They are crushing France too fast ! They are not able and not willing to expand that war. Britain has to do it instead !

There are no millions of dead soldiers in Europe !
There are no millions of dead civilians !
There is just not enough HORROR produced for the people to accept the merger of their countries to a superstate. And they will never accept it, if that new war does not produce that much needed HORROR !

This war MUST go global !
This war has to produce MILLIONS of victims. Almost everyone of import must be affected by the horror (except the U.S. - the later victor and "savior").

Sorry, dear Stalin !
But now you are the only one who can save the day !
You must be the pawn that will be sacrificed on the chessboard to produce the needed win.
It is true, we told you that, eventually, you will emerge as the new Queen on the newly aranged chessboard (they lied, of course). But we miscalculated the situation with this miserable Germany (that must be true) ! Sorry for that.
Now we need you to lay down and let them crush you, for a while. Don't worry, we will help you to survive (true). Those impertinent Germans don't stand a chance anyway (true).
We really need millions of victims in Europe and the only way is to prolong that war for several years so we will have time to do our work.

Stalin : I hate that, but if this is the only way..... I have to agree to follow up on your suggestion, my masters.

The rest is "history" !
sherlock holmes 2.jpg
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member

Molotov and Nikolai Yezhov walking with Stalin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism#/media/File:Voroshilov,_Molotov,_Stalin,_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.jpg

Hmmm, 8 hidden hands, but only one real one.

It seems that Stalinism was much different from other gradations of Marxist thought, particularly in Stalinism's demand for a pyramidal totalitarian state, subordinating not only USSR workers' soviets to him but foreign communists to him as well. His 1924 development of "Socialism in One Country" seems belied by his demand for such foreign subordination and militarily in what Suvorov detailed in Icebreaker -- with the latter in quoting from numerous Soviet sources and high level personal accounts.

From one particular POV, perhaps Trotsky et al. can indeed be considered a traitor, but to what or whom? It would seem that the possible treason would be against Stalin and Stalinism, and not to the wider principles of the 'revolution', based upon their lifetime of efforts, especially like Trotsky.

And, curiously, as Hitler built Nazi Germany and its war machine, Stalin did so with Western Capitalism's aid, via the likes of Henry Ford (very odd considering his raging anti-Semitism) and Armand Hammer (Occidental Petroleum, etc..).

While some historians view Stalinism as a reflection of the ideologies of Leninism and Marxism, some argue that it stands separate from the socialist ideals it stemmed from. After a political struggle that culminated in the defeat of the Bukharinists, Stalinism was free to shape policy without opposition, ushering forth an era of harsh authoritarianism that soldiered toward rapid industrialization regardless of the cost.[13]

From 1917 to 1924, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Stalin often appeared united, but they had discernible ideological differences. In his dispute with Trotsky, Stalin de-emphasized the role of workers in advanced capitalist countries (for example, he considered the American working class "bourgeoisified" labour aristocracy). Stalin also polemicized against Trotsky on the role of peasants as in China whereas Trotsky's position was in favor of urban insurrection over peasant-based guerrilla warfare.

Whilst all other October Revolution 1917 Bolshevik leaders regarded their revolution more or less just as the beginning, they saw Russia as the leapboard on the road towards the World Wide Revolution, Stalin eventually introduced the idea of Socialism in One Country by the autumn of 1924. This did not just stand in sharp contrast to Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution", but in contrast also to all earlier Socialistic theses. But by time and through circumstances, the revolution did not spread outside Russia, as Lenin had assumed it soon would. Not even within the other former territories Russian Empire such as Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia had the revolution been a success. On the contrary, all these countries had returned to capitalist bourgeois rule.[14] But still, by the autumn of 1924, Stalin's idea of socialism in Soviet Russia alone, initially was next to blasphemy in the ears of the other Politburo members- Zinoviev and Kamenev to the intellectual left, Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky to the pragmatic right and the powerful Trotsky, who belonged to no side but his own. None of them had even thought of Stalin's concept as a potential addition to Communist ideology. Hence, Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" doctrine couldn't be imposed until he had become close to being the autocratic ruler of the U.S.S.R. (from around 1929, as Trotsky had been exiled, and Zinoviev and Kamenev had been thrown out of the party, Bukharin and the Right Opposition expressed their support for imposing Stalin's ideas). [15]

While traditional communist thought holds that the state will gradually "wither away" as the implementation of socialism reduces class distinction, Stalin argued that the proletarian state (as opposed to the bourgeois state) must become stronger before it can wither away. In Stalin's view, counter-revolutionary elements will try to derail the transition to full communism, and the state must be powerful enough to defeat them.[16] For this reason, Communist regimes influenced by Stalin have been widely described as totalitarian.


On the purges:

In the 1930s, Stalin apparently became increasingly worried about the growing popularity of the Leningrad party boss Sergei Kirov. At the 1934 Party Congress where the vote for the new Central Committee was held, Kirov received only three negative votes (the fewest of any candidate) while Stalin received at least over a hundred negative votes.[24][25] After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin, Stalin invented a detailed scheme to implicate opposition leaders in the murder, including Trotsky, Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev.[26] The investigations and trials expanded.[27] Stalin passed a new law on "terrorist organizations and terrorist acts" that were to be investigated for no more than ten days, with no prosecution, defense attorneys or appeals, followed by a sentence to be executed "quickly".[28]

Thereafter, several trials known as the Moscow Trials were held, but the procedures were replicated throughout the country. Article 58 of the legal code, which listed prohibited anti-Soviet activities as counter-revolutionary crime, was applied in the broadest manner.[29] Many alleged anti-Soviet pretexts were used to brand someone an "enemy of the people", starting the cycle of public persecution, often proceeding to interrogation, torture and deportation, if not death. The Russian word troika gained a new meaning: a quick, simplified trial by a committee of three subordinated to NKVD troika—with sentencing carried out within 24 hours.[28] Stalin's hand-picked executioner Vasili Blokhin was entrusted with carrying out some of the high-profile executions in this period.[30]

Nikolai Yezhov, walking with Stalin in the top photo from the 1930s, was killed in 1940 and following his execution was edited out of the photo by Soviet censors[31] (such retouching was a common occurrence during Stalin's rule)

Many military leaders were convicted of treason and a large-scale purge of Red Army officers followed.[32] The repression of so many formerly high-ranking revolutionaries and party members led Leon Trotsky to claim that a "river of blood" separated Stalin's regime from that of Lenin.[33] In August 1940, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico, where he had lived in exile since January 1937—this eliminated the last of Stalin's opponents among the former Party leadership.[34]

With the exception of Vladimir Milyutin (who died in prison in 1937) and Stalin himself, all of the members of Lenin's original cabinet who had not succumbed to death from natural causes before the purge were executed....


Also of note, it seems that many Marxists, including Trotsky felt that a country such as Russia was ill suited to bring the movement to completion, because of the small size of its capitalist and bourgeois political classes. Russia was a country still deep in traditional fuedalism.

In 1905, Trotsky formulated his theory of permanent revolution that later became a defining characteristic of Trotskyism. Until 1905, some revolutionaries[10] claimed that Marx's theory of history positioned that only a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to this position, it was impossible for a socialist revolution to occur in a backward, feudal country such as early 20th century Russia when it had such a small and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of permanent revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win their own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid and socialism could develop worldwide. ...


Trotsky's and the others' approaches were more democratic, and thus Stalin's approach was best suited to being co-optive and surreptitiously run by a "hidden hand". Because there was only one person in authority to steer, not a herd of revolutionary cats.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Doesn't this look like it was done by the same designer studio ?!
Either they were from the same studio, or one of them is a very deliberate copy of the other. Do you know if anyone has done any research into the origins of these posters?

"...invented by later anti-Communists." Really !?
Since Communists never understood economics (and will never understand), they killed millions of peasants.
Was it deliberate ? Not necesarily. Was it arrogance by economically uneducated ? Yes, definitely. We can reasonably call the starvation of millions to death deliberate.
For whatever it's worth, here is a debate at Counterpunch between Grover Furr and the blogger Louis Proyect...

The Holodomor and the Film "Bitter Harvest" are Fascist Lies, by Grover Furr


There was a very serious famine in the USSR, including (but not limited to) the Ukrainian SSR, in 1932-33. But there has never been any evidence of a “Holodomor” or “deliberate famine,” and there is none today.

The “Holodomor” fiction was invented in by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who found havens in Western Europe, Canada, and the USA after the war. An early account is Yurij Chumatskij, Why Is One Holocaust Worth More Than Others? published in Australia in 1986 by “Veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army” this work is an extended attack on “Jews” for being too pro-communist.

Proyect’s review perpetuates the following falsehoods about the Soviet collectivization of agriculture and the famine of 1932-33:

* That in the main the peasants resisted collectivization because it was a “second serfdom.”

* That the famine was caused by forced collectivization. In reality the famine had environmental causes.

* That “Stalin” – the Soviet leadership – deliberately created the famine.

* That it was aimed at destroying Ukrainian nationalism.

* That “Stalin” (the Soviet government) “stopped the policy of “Ukrainization,” the promotion of a policy to encourage Ukrainian language and culture.

None of these claims are true. None are supported by evidence. They are simply asserted by Ukrainian nationalist sources for the purpose of ideological justification of their alliance with the Nazis and participation in the Jewish Holocaust, the genocide of Ukrainian Poles (the Volhynian massacres of 1943-44) and the murder of Jews, communists, and many Ukrainian peasants after the war.

Their ultimate purpose is to equate communism with Nazism (communism is outlawed in today’s “democratic Ukraine”); the USSR with Nazi Germany; and Stalin with Hitler.

Collectivization of Agriculture – The Reality

Russia and Ukraine had suffered serious famines every few years for more than a millennium. A famine accompanied the 1917 revolution, growing more serious in 1918-1920. Another serious famine, misnamed the “Volga famine,” struck from 1920-21. There were famines in 1924 and again in 1928-29, this last especially severe in the Ukrainian SSR. All these famines had environmental causes. The medieval strip-farming method of peasant agriculture made efficient agriculture impossible and famines inevitable.
What Caused the Holodomor, by Louis Proyect


Stalin’s forced march did not discriminate between rich and poor peasants. In the name of “liquidating the kulaks”, every peasant in the USSR was herded into state farms or collective farms, called sovkhozesand kolkhozes respectively. The state farms were conceived strictly as agrarian factories based on wage labor while the collective farms were collective in name only. The peasants forced to work on them were not even entitled to sell crops from their own private gardens in the marketplaces and were paid a wage tied to their output and, even more against the spirit of Lenin’s “acceptable to the peasant”, were chained to the kolkhoz that became a virtual concentration camp.

For the most exhaustive treatment of why they failed, you can read R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft’s 582-page “The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933” that considers Stalin’s policy throughout Russia. Despite not being focused on the Ukraine, it is the most authoritative account of why the famine took place there. Rejecting Tauger’s “the drought did it” argument specifically, they blame Stalin’s feckless and brutal forced collectivization for the death of millions, both Ukrainians and elsewhere.

The Ukrainian Famine: Only Evidence Can Disclose the Truth, by Grover Furr


No detective can solve a crime without carefully and objectively studying the evidence. Likewise, no one can know what actually occurred in history without studying, in an objective manner, the relevant primary sources – the evidence. I have spent decades in studying the primary sources concerning many specific events of the Stalin period. Mark Tauger has studied the primary sources on Soviet agriculture for more than 25 years.

Louis Proyect has not done this. Consequently he has no chance of discovering the truth, or of recognizing it when he sees it. He is inevitably doomed to “believe” whatever fits his preconceived ideological bias, and to reject everything else. This is fatal to any attempt to learn what really happened.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As we can see below, Stalin was indeed a break from Leninism, similar to how Hitler redirected the NSDAP workers' party from its supposed original focus, per Otto Strasser. The same general modus operandi.

Proponents of continuity [from Lenin to Stalin - rs] cite a variety of contributory factors as it is argued that it was Lenin, rather than Stalin, whose civil war measures introduced the Red Terror with its hostage taking and internment camps, that it was Lenin who developed the infamous Article 58 and who established the autocratic system within the Communist Party.[86] They also note that Lenin put a ban on factions within the Russian Communist Party and introduced the one-party state in 1921—a move that enabled Stalin to get rid of his rivals easily after Lenin's death and cite Felix Dzerzhinsky, who during the Bolshevik struggle against opponents in the Russian Civil War exclaimed: "We stand for organised terror—this should be frankly stated".[87]

Opponents of this view include revisionist historians and a number of post-Cold War and otherwise dissident Soviet historians including Roy Medvedev, who argues that although "one could list the various measures carried out by Stalin that were actually a continuation of anti-democratic trends and measures implemented under Lenin [...] in so many ways, Stalin acted, not in line with Lenin's clear instructions, but in defiance of them".[88] In doing so, some historians have tried to distance Stalinism from Leninism in order to undermine the totalitarian view that the negative facets of Stalin were inherent in communism from the start.[89] Critics of this kind include anti-Stalinist communists such as Leon Trotsky, who pointed out that Lenin attempted to persuade the Communist Party to remove Stalin from his post as its General Secretary. Lenin's Testament, the document which contained this order, was suppressed after Lenin's death. In his biography of Trotsky, British historian Isaac Deutscher says that on being faced with the evidence "only the blind and the deaf could be unaware of the contrast between Stalinism and Leninism".[90] A similar analysis is present in more recent works, such as those of Graeme Gill, who argues that "[Stalinism was] not a natural flow-on of earlier developments; [it formed a] sharp break resulting from conscious decisions by leading political actors".[91] However, Gill notes that "difficulties with the use of the term reflect problems with the concept of Stalinism itself. The major difficulty is a lack of agreement about what should constitute Stalinism".[92] Revisionist historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick have criticised the focus upon the upper levels of society and the use of Cold War concepts, such as totalitarianism, which have obscured the reality of the system. ...

From the same link:

Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist Soviet Union was not socialist (and not communist), but a bureaucratised degenerated workers' statethat is, a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which although not owning the means of production and not constituting a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class. Trotsky believed that the Bolshevik revolution needed to be spread all over the globe's working class, the proletarians for world revolution. However, after the failure of the revolution in Germany, Stalin reasoned that industrializing and consolidating Bolshevism in Russia would best serve the proletariat in the long run. The dispute did not end until Trotsky's assassination in his Mexican villa by the Stalinist assassin Ramón Mercader in 1940.[80]

In the United States, Max Shachtman, at the time one of the principal Trotskyist theorists in the United States, argued that the Soviet Union had evolved from a degenerated worker's state to a new mode of production he called "bureaucratic collectivism": where orthodox Trotskyists considered the Soviet Union an ally gone astray, ...

Stalin even awarded Mercader a medal for killing Trotsky.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
With these extensive quotes from Wikipedia, you're not coming to terms with Grover Furr's challenge to the entire "anti-Stalin paradigm". Furr says that this paradigm is the basis of an "avalanche of anti-Stalin writings" beginning with Trotsky, followed by hundreds of works sponsored by Krushchev and Gorbachev, and of course Western writers like Robert Conquest, from the right-wing Hoover Institute think tank. In many aspects, Furr argues, this anti-Stalin narrative is clearly false. Furr's version of reality, outlined in this article https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_yezhov_jls17.pdf, is:

(1) Stalin was trying to reform the autocratic system he had inherited from Lenin, and wanted to create a democracy.

(2) Kirov was a popular democratic leader. He was indeed murdered by a foreign-sponsored conspiracy involving Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, exactly as Stalin said.

(3) Yezhov was another foreign-sponsored conspirator who betrayed Stalin, running amuck by killing hundreds of thousands of Stalin's loyal supporters and other innocents. Stalin put a stop to it as soon as he realized what was happening.

From one particular POV, perhaps Trotsky et al. can indeed be considered a traitor, but to what or whom? It would seem that the possible treason would be against Stalin and Stalinism, and not to the wider principles of the 'revolution', based upon their lifetime of efforts, especially like Trotsky.
It might well be that Trotsky had reasonable basis for disagreement with Stalin. But his theory of "permanent revolution" called for the revolution to be driven by the proletariat, right? No wonder he was ashamed or afraid to admit that he was working for an overthrow of the Soviet government, by building an alliance with fascists in Germany and Japan.
Last edited:


Active Member
Either they were from the same studio, or one of them is a very deliberate copy of the other. Do you know if anyone has done any research into the origins of these posters?
Just collected it some time ago but never researched the origins myself and did not encounter any mentioning of it anywhere. But there may be something out there on the internet !?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard Stanley said: https://en.wikipedia.org ???
The Conspiracies Were Genuine

On June 17, 1937, just prior to the June CC plenum, Nikolai Ezhov, who had replaced Iagoda as Commissar of the NKVD, transmitted a message from S. N. Mironov, NKVD chief in Western Siberia, reporting the threat of revolts by subversives in concert with Japanese intelligence. Mironov reported that Robert I. Eikhe, Party First Secretary of Western Siberia, would request the ability to form a “troika” to deal with this threat (Furr 2016, 48; Khaustov and Samuel’son 2009, 332–333).

On June 19, 1937 Stalin received a telegram, addressed to the Soviet government, sent by Trotsky from his exile in Mexico. In it, Trotsky stated that Stalin’s policies would lead “to external and internal collapse.” On it Stalin signed his name and wrote: “Ugly spy! Brazen spy of Hitler!” It was also signed by Molotov, Voroshilov, Mikoian, and Zhdanov. Clearly, they all believed that Trotsky really was in contact with the Germans. Given Tukhachevsky’s confession and Marshal Budennyi’s comments on the Tukhachevsky trial, there can no doubt that this conspiracy did exist (Furr 2009, 15).


So far, I've only read this far, and I have to say, "WTF"? I hope that Furr has better evidence than this. Merely believing in something, or wanting to believe in something doesn't make it a fact. Confessions sans hard evidence and comments are frequently untrustworthy, especially given the high stakes involved. If there was hard evidence, then I would have to imagine that Furr would offer up such, but here, at least, he doesn't.

In any case, I now have to consider that Stalin was a Trotskyite, and Trotsky was a Stalinite, based upon the reconciling their claimed actions with their rhetoric. And that Stalin never achieved his goal of grassroots democracy, because as far as I understand it only the members of the Communist Party got to vote on some matters.

How does one reconcile Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" with the fact that the USSR militarily took the Baltic states, parts of Finland, Romania, and half of Poland? That he had no part in these doings?

Iakovlev’s Arrest and Confession

The Saratov oblast’ Party organization had distrusted Iakovlev, who had been a Trotskyist in 1923. Stalin had stood firmly by him. But on October 12, the day after the opening of the CC Plenum, Iakovlev was arrested. Two days later he confessed to having been a clandestine Trotskyist “sleeper” since 1923. An even greater shock was the fact that Iakovlev also confessed to having been recruited by a German agent who told him that they, the Germans, were in contact with Trotsky and wished to work with Iakovlev on the same terms. Iakovlev’s confession is arguably one of the most important documents from the former Soviet archives published in recent years. That no doubt explains why it is virtually never mentioned, let alone studied, by mainstream historians of the USSR. Iakovlev inculpated as conspirators a number of leading Soviet figures. In a few cases, we also have one or more confessions that confirm Iakovlev’s confession.

This is pretty bizarre. The man who was just prior described as being one of Stalin's closet associates in drafting the 1936 Constitution calling for contested democratic elections then confesses to being a sleeper Trotyskyite, ... when it seems that Trotsky's rhetoric was that of a democratic socialist?

One wonders why the Politburo and such allowed Stalin to continue on, considering how he was so going against the grain of those holding the power over him, otherwise preventing him from doing what he wanted? On the other hand, Trotsky's position of permanent revolution seems more consistent with Suvorov's presentation of a plan to attack 'Hitler's Europe'.

Ezhov was arrested on April 10, 1939. According to Ezhov the idea of an NKVD conspiracy was first suggested to him by German military attache General Ernst Kostring. After the Tukhachevsky Affair trial and executions Marshal € Egorov (already a conspirator) and the Germans reconsidered this original plan, which was oriented towards aiding an invasion of the USSR by Germany and/or allies. With the top figures in the military conspiracy now removed, the Germans suggested a coup d’etat instead.

Operation Barbarossa started June 22, 1941, more than two years after Ezhov was arrested. So Stalin et al. had to have understood that Hitler planned to attack at some point.

Perhaps Furr's general argumentation is evidence that Stalin has indeed been framed by hidden 'others', a Deep State of sorts, something akin to the argument that Trump is merely a useful idiot?


Jerry Russell

Staff member
I hope that Furr has better evidence than this.
As far as I've been able to find, Furr's only claim to external (third party) confirming evidence is in the case of Tukhachevsky's conspiracy with the Japanese, “the Arao document, a communication from a Japanese military attaché to his superior in Japan testifying to secret contact with a representative of Marshal Tukhachevsky”, as I mentioned above. Everything else is based on circumstantial reasoning from documents in the Soviet archives.

Furr's Amazon page lists ten books on the Stalin era, and I don't have any of them. There may be more to it than I'm aware. If you parse the above-quoted paragraphs carefully, he may be making very specific claims about which of the various "conspiracies" must be true, vs. who believed in them, and when.

How does one reconcile Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" with the fact that the USSR militarily took the Baltic states, parts of Finland, Romania, and half of Poland? That he had no part in these doings?
Maybe Stalin's argument about "One Country" was being presented as an argument for industrialization in Russia, and participation in world trade; as opposed to the Trotskyite argument that the Soviets ought to devote their resources towards promoting proletariat uprisings in Europe.

Stalin's later actions to spread socialism by means of military conquest, seems perfectly consistent with his impatience with waiting for the European workers to revolt against their capitalist overlords.

However, it was certainly hypocritical for Stalin to present Russia as a neutral non-combatant state, while he was so actively preparing for an offensive war.

So Stalin et al. had to have understood that Hitler planned to attack at some point.
I agree, and apparently Hitler also understood that Stalin planned to attack at some point. So it was a classic gunslinger's duel: whoever shoots first (and aims well) wins. It seems that Stalin might have been merely days away from launching his offensive, when Hitler beat him to the punch.

Coincidence? Or, the hidden hand guiding Hitler and Stalin to maximize their mutual costs? Perhaps the amount of 'guidance' required, could have been accomplished with a very light hand.

A review of Furr's book "Khruschev Lied" by George Gruenthal, posted at the "Espresso Stalinist" blog, provides some information on Furr's evaluation of the Barbarossa attack. I don't see any evidence that Furr has read Suvorov.


8) Let us now take up some of Khrushchev’s lies, since repeated by many others, about Stalin’s actions during the war.

a) The first is that Stalin was not prepared for the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union. There is no question that Stalin knew that Nazi Germany would eventually attack the Soviet Union. The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact was signed to delay that attack for as long as possible. ...

c) In his speech, Khrushchev also told of a German citizen who crossed the border with the Soviet Union on the eve of the invasion and stated that the Soviet Union would be attacked at 3 AM the following morning, June 22. Khrushchev claims that ‘Stalin was informed of this immediately, but even this warning was ignored..

Furr points out that the warning was not ignored, that the information was transmitted to Moscow as quickly as possible considering the need to find a reliable translator and to verify the information. ...

Furr also refutes Khrushchev’s statement, again repeated by many others, that Stalin was demoralised at the beginning of the war and that he had withdrawn from any activities in those first days. Furr points out that the logbooks of visitors to Stalin’s office show that Stalin was extremely active in those days and quotes from Dimitrov, as well as Zhukov and the anti-Stalinists Volkogonov and Sudoplatov, all of whom testified to Stalin’s activity in the first days of the war.

Khrushchev also denigrated Stalin’s abilities as a wartime commander. In response, Furr quotes military figures such as Marshals Zhukov, Vasilevsky and Golovanov, all of whom testified in their memoirs not only to Stalin’s great abilities as wartime commander but also to the great respect felt for him by other commanders at the front.

Perhaps Furr's general argumentation is evidence that Stalin has indeed been framed by hidden 'others', a Deep State of sorts, something akin to the argument that Trump is merely a useful idiot?
I think that's a very plausible interpretation of Furr's argument. Certainly, Furr sees Khrushchev as Yezhov's acolyte, and that the forces arrayed against Stalin took power in the Soviet Union after his death.

I haven't run across anything in Furr's material online, representing an overview of Stalin's legacy. Whenever his many critics accuse him of being a Stalinist fanboy, he vehemently denies it, but without presenting any specific criticisms of Stalin's leadership.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
I've been tracing Suchender's paired posters, using the image search tool at www.tineye.com. The first appearance of the paired images on the Web was in a 2009 blog at https://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/hitler-was-a-socialist-inconvenient-truth/, where it is credited to the 2008 documentary "The Soviet Story". The Stalin poster is well-attested as a stock image, but the Hitler poster doesn't appear by itself anywhere on the Internet. The documentary makers claim to have done original research in the German Political Archives, so they may have discovered the poster there.

Henry Makow picked up the posters for the headline of his article "Hitler & Stalin Colluded in Operation Barbarossa" which first appeared in 2010. His article contains some more clues, towards the more conspiratorial interpretation of events.


According to author David Murphy, Stalin had precise intelligence regarding Barbarossa yet "rejected it and refused to permit his military to take necessary actions to respond lest they 'provoke' the Germans." (What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa, 2005, p.xix)...

Russian intelligence had thoroughly penetrated Nazi ranks. There were hundreds of accurate reports as early as August 1940 pointing to the future Nazi invasion. One of the most definitive came from spy Victor Sorge, a journalist on intimate terms with the German ambassador to Japan.

On May 5, 1941, Sorge sent Moscow a microfilm of a telegram from Foreign Minister Ribbentrop saying, "Germany will begin a war against the USSR in the middle of June 1941." Ten days later, Sorge reported the exact date, dawn, June 22. (87)

For his reward, Stalin castigated Sorge as "a little shit," a pimp and war profiteer. After Sorge's arrest, the Japanese proposed a prisoner exchange with Russia. Stalin let the gifted spy die. Why? Because he was a witness of Illuminati collusion. ...

On April 17, 1941, "Starshina" an agent in Luftwaffe Intelligence reported that bombing targets had been selected and the occupation authority organized. (100) On April 18, a Nazi NCO deserted with the exact hour of the Nazi attack: 4 a.m. June 22. The next day Churchill also warned Stalin of the Nazi plan. (262)

How could Stalin ignore all these warnings when the Nazis had nine Armies consisting of 150 Divisions amassed on his border? Four and a half million soldiers. 650,000 vehicles.

Are we supposed to believe that Stalin, a ruthless criminal, accepted Hitler's "word of honor" that this troop concentration was intended for an invasion of England, and was being kept out of bomber range? (258) He refused to authorize countermeasures even after the invasion and bombing had begun saying Hitler was just testing defences! ...

In 1937, Stalin purged the Red Army, murdering Marshall Mikhail N. Tukhachevsky and decimating the officer corps. Murphy writes: "Thousands of officers with combat experience and higher education were executed, sent to the Gulag or discharged from the service. These actions ...continued right up to the early days of the German invasion." (xvi)

Significantly, the pretext for executing thousands of patriotic Russian officers was "treasonous" letters forged by Reinhard Heydrich, Deputy Chief of the Gestapo, another example of Illuminati collusion.

Moreover, for a year prior to the invasion, Stalin allowed the Luftwaffe to make hundreds of reconnaissance flights over western Russia, forbidding his air force from interfering. Why on earth would he do that?

Makow also posted this image showing more uncanny matches between Soviet and Nazi propaganda:


Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Chapter 29 of Icebreaker has Suvorov discussing why Stalin would not have trusted Churchill's so-called "warning letters" to him, and that, in any case, they should not be interpreted as "warning letters". Instead, rather as encouragements to attack Germany by opening up a second front, thus repeating the disastrous situation Germany found itself in in WWI. But as Suvorov explained, Hitler had sealed Germany's fate by signing the fateful Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty that resulted in the loss of effective defensible space in the intermediate countries, even beyond that of Poland.

Stalin knew that war on two fronts would be suicide for Hitler. Stalin calculated that Hitler would not commit suicide, and that he would not begin a war in the east without having first ended the war in the west. Stalin was patiently waiting for the German tank corps to land in Britain. He was not alone in looking upon the brilliant airborne assault on Crete as a final rehearsal for landing in Britain. At the same time Stalin did everything possible to convince Hitler of his peaceableness. That was why Soviet anti-aircraft guns were not firing on German aircraft, while Soviet newspapers and TASS proclaimed that there would be no war between the Soviet Union and Germany.

Had Stalin succeeded in convincing Hitler that the Soviet Union was a neutral country, then the German tank corps without any doubt would have landed on the British Isles. And then a truly unprecedented situation would have arisen. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, France, Greece and Albania no longer had armies, governments, parliaments or political parties.

Millions of people had been driven into Nazi concentration camps and the whole of Europe was awaiting its liberation. All that remained on the European continent was the regiment of Hitler's personal guards, the guards of the Nazi concentration camps, German rear units, military schools and . . . five Soviet airborne assault corps, tens of thousands of fast tanks built specially for moving along motorways; tens of thousands of aircraft; pilots who had not been trained for fighting in the air, but who had been taught how to make air strikes on ground targets; divisions and whole armies of the NKVD; armies made up of prisoners from the Soviet labour camps; extra-high-power formations of the Glider Air Force to make rapid landings on enemy territory; mountain divisions trained to make swift thrusts into the mountain passes over which flowed oil, the life- blood of war.

Has anyone in history ever been in such a favourable position to 'liberate' Europe? And this situation did not come about by itself. Stalin, working long, persistently and in sustained fashion, had made a subtle mosaic from the smallest of fragments. It was Stalin who helped to bring Hitler to power, and made Hitler, in Stalin's phrase, a real icebreaker for the revolution. It was Stalin who encouraged the icebreaker to move into Europe. It was Stalin who demanded of the French and other communists that they should not prevent the icebreaker from breaking up Europe. It was Stalin who supplied the icebreaker with everything it needed for its victorious advance. It was Stalin who closed his eyes to all the crimes being committed by the Nazis and rejoiced in the pages of Pravda 'when the world was shaken to its foundations, when powers perished and greatness fell'.

But Hitler guessed Stalin's design. That was why World War II ended catastrophically for Stalin. He only got half of Europe, and some places here and there in Asia.

One final question. If Churchill did not warn Stalin that an invasion was being prepared, why do the communists hold on so tenaciously to the legend that he did? To show to the Soviet people that Churchill was a good man? Or to prove that the Western leaders were to be trusted? It was not, of course, for either purpose. The communists need the legend of Churchill's warnings to justify their own preparations for war. The 'warnings' bolster the orthodox view that the 'big plan' for which such elaborate preparations had been made was simply intended to forestall German aggression. 'We knew that Hitler was going to attack,' they say. 'It was Churchill who warned us . . .'
(Icebreaker, pp. 294-296)​

Regarding the red highlighted (mine) text above, I have mentioned elsewhere that the failure of the German communists to compromise with the German socialists upon a candidate to oppose Hitler in 1933 resulted in the election of Hitler. It is pretty agreed, as far as I know, that communists beyond the USSR took their marching orders from the Kremlin.

While Suvorov discusses that Stalin was indeed is such a great position to achieve total victory in Europe, Suvorov has also discussed (and besides this chapter) that Hitler had to have been aware that the Soviets would indeed be attacking him, sooner or later. And so we are generally left with historians, including Suvorov, debating about whether and how Churchill, Stalin , and Hitler were gaming each other. But perhaps we should be considering more that all these were more gaming their own people than each other. As Suvorov noted, in the one Churchill warning that he quoted, Churchill's literal words could not really be taken seriously by anyone that was reasonably abreast of the real situations. And so they were yet sufficient to use as post-war justification propaganda by the USSR for decades. We have also seen that both the German and Soviet sides had to be aware of each others' intentions and actions in preparing for offensive actions against each other.

Such forms a nice segue into Chapter 30, where Suvorov tells us that Stalin liquidated the top levels of the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence agency, 8 times before 1940.

Stalin prepared himself very seriously for war. He showed particular concern for Soviet military intelligence which is known today as the GRU. It is sufficient to read through the list of all the GRU chiefs since the institution was set up prior to 1940 to appreciate Stalin's touching concern for his valiant intelligence officers:

Aralov— arrested, spent several years under investigation, in which 'measures of physical coercion' were used
Stigga— liquidated
Nikonov— liquidated
Berzin— liquidated
Unshlikht — liquidated
Uritsky— liquidated
Yezhov— liquidated
Proskurov — liquidated

It goes without saying that when the military intelligence chiefs were liquidated, their first deputies, their deputies, advisers and directors of their services boards and departments were liquidated as well.
And when the heads of departments were liquidated, a shadow invariably fell over the executive officers and agents whom they were directing. The liquidation of the heads of military intelligence, therefore, meant the liquidation of the entire military intelligence.
(Icebreaker, pg. 297)​

It is understandable that from time to time one can find either incompetent or treasonous 'agents' within one's intelligence services and thus must be replaced. In the case of the latter 7 top layers, they were apparently 'liquidated', according to Suvorov. In this case "dead men tell no lies", or otherwise.

Suvorov goes at some length to explain that each time the GRU was purged in such a manner it became more effective. If so, I would imagine that this could be the case only after the first few episodes, in that the incoming replacements 'aggressiveness' also leads to its own biasing mechanisms. Instead, this reads to me more like Stalin and his own hidden hand needing to make sure that various dirty laundry is taken care of as they go along. We seem to be witnessing similar in the curious cases of James Comey, Peter Strzok, and General Flynn, etc. in relation to handling matters related to Obama, Hillary, and Trump.

The following is written by a former high ranking FBI official, Kevin Brock: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/422801-three-oddities-in-fbi-handling-of-flynn-interview

Also apropos: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/422792-top-national-security-posts-with-turnover-under-trump

In our case today, we do not have the established culture of such quick and irreversible 'justice'. Likely, these 'players' were following their script, and probably many of the Soviet and Nazi 'players' were as well. Were they 'liquidated' ... or given new identities and assignments?
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following is an excerpt from a Guardian article about Suvorov (mostly) and Skripal.

Viktor Suvorov is a literary pen-name: he was born Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun in Soviet Ukraine; his father a military officer, his mother a nurse. (His Ukrainian roots are another reason the Kremlin might have it in for him, sources in Moscow tell me.) His father was a confirmed Bolshevik who believed the USSR could flourish were it not for the “bad guys at the top”, and Suvorov grew up a “fanatical communist”. He attended military school, joined the Red Army and took part in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. An outstanding officer, he trained tactical reconnaissance sergeants and served in the intelligence division of the Volga military district headquarters – an experience Suvorov describes in Aquarium.

In 1970, he was recruited by the GRU. He was now part of an elite organisation that was a bitter rival of the KGB. His disillusionment with the Soviet system began only when he got to Geneva, he says, where he was attached to the UN mission. Suvorov says he was summoned to the airport one day to watch the arrival of an Ilyushin-76 transport plane from Moscow. When its ramp was lowered, gold bars were taken out of the cargo bay – to buy food from America. “We couldn’t feed ourselves,” he says.

Further disillusion came when he and his “wonderful spy wife” Tatiana went on holiday. They took the train from Basel and travelled across West Germany to east Berlin, passing the wall. “It was the same people, same history, same bloody Germans. [But] it’s a Mercedes here and it’s a Trabant there,” he recalls with a laugh. He read George Orwell’s Animal Farm. “At first I thought: ‘These aren’t Russian pigs, they’re pigs from Berkshire.’ Then I realised it was about the people in the Kremlin. They had banned the book inside the Soviet Union because they recognised themselves.”

He read Nineteen Eighty-Four. “Orwell was never a communist, but was close to them. He understood the totalitarian state has to be like that. He never visited the USSR, but he realised everything better than anybody could imagine,” Suvorov says. He says his wife – the daughter of an intelligence officer – agreed to defect with him. They have been married for 47 years. “It’s an achievement,” he says.

From his new home in the UK, Suvorov wrote one of the most influential books of the perestroika era, Icebreaker. When it was published in 1988, his argument was heretical: that Stalin had been secretly plotting an offensive against Hitler’s Germany, and would have invaded in September 1941, or at the latest by 1942. Stalin, he wrote, wanted Hitler to destroy democracy in Europe, in the manner of an icebreaker, thereby clearing the way for world communism. The book undermined the idea that the USSR was an innocent party, dragged into the second world war. Russian liberals supported Suvorov’s thesis; it now has broad acceptance among historians.

Altogether, Suvorov’s books have appeared in 27 languages. His first, Liberators, was a vivid personal account of life in the Soviet army, and his primers on Soviet military intelligence have become mainstream texts. In a previous interview, he pointed out that there is a tradition in Russian literature of military officers turning their experiences into books – Tolstoy, Lermontov and Solzhenitsyn. Suvorov doesn’t rank himself with these greats, but notes that war offers rich material. “There is a sense of romance in battle,” he says.

Post-Skripal, he has written a new book about the GRU, currently being translated from Russian into English and scheduled for publication next year. He says his trainers at the GRU academy in Moscow never explicitly mentioned novichok to him; the USSR developed the powerful nerve agent in the 1970s, and it appears to be one of many lethal substances at the GRU’s disposal. But his instructors did make clear that, “from time to time”, the GRU has to eliminate its enemies. He was told: “When you have such an operation, an expert will meet you. He will personally explain how to do it.” The GRU has its own dedicated chemicals directorate, he says. ...

Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
The following is an excerpt from a Guardian article about Suvorov (mostly) and Skripal.
Suvorov is losing credibility points with me for his unquestioning acceptance of the mainstream Skripal narrative. Suvorov admits to a high level of ignorance about the case, which doesn't in any way limit his eagerness to jump to conclusions:

In exile, Skripal had such a low profile that Suvorov confesses he hadn’t heard of him. But when he learned of Skripal’s fate, poisoned by a super-toxin, he had no doubt who was behind it. “Of course, the GRU,” he says, matter-of-factly.
And, furthermore:

He says his trainers at the GRU academy in Moscow never explicitly mentioned novichok to him...

Suvorov's remarks on the logistics of the alleged operation also raises eyebrows.

He is scathing about their professionalism and competence. “In my time, this would not have been possible! Such idiots!” he says. He describes the operation as a clue-leaving “chain of stupidity”: flying in from Moscow, staying in a hotel and going to Salisbury twice.

So why is Suvorov so quick to believe the UK government's narrative about the Skripal case? Outside of mainstream sources, it's been subjected to devastating criticism. For example, see this summary article by Bernhard Horstmann at Moon of Alabama, with links to much of his earlier commentary:


The Best Explanation For The Skripal Drama Is Still ... Food Poisoning

Doctors at the Salisbury District Hospital announced today that Sergej Skripal's health is rapidly improving. He and his daughter Yulia will likely be well again.

It is unlikely that any targeted poisoning with a real 'military grade' nerve agent would have allowed for such an outcome. This brings us back to food poisoning as a possible cause of the Skripals' ordeal. '...

Sergej and Yulia Skripal were found on a public bench in Salisbury at about 4pm on March 4. They had collapsed, were conscienceless and were brought into emergency care at the Salisbury District Hospital. Local media wrote of a potential Fentanyl overdose.

Half an hour before the Skripal's collapsed they had eaten at Zizzi, a seafood and pizza outlet.

But that story smelled fishy from its very beginning. To target an exchanged spy would guarantee that no further exchanges would ever happen. Sergej Skripal had links to the "dirty dossier" about Donald Trump that was created for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Russia had no good motive, others potentially had one. If there was something nefarious going on it seemed unlikely that Russia was involved.

I now believe that the British government jumped onto the case because it needed to divert attention from the seriously bad results of the Brexit negotiations in Brussels. There are local elections coming up in May and Theresa May's Tory party was lagging in the polls. (There may have been additional reasons related to a planed 'chemical weapon' surprise in the east-Ghouta campaign in Syria.)

Whatever it was - the spin-masters in Downing Street 10 saw a chance to convert the poisoning of the Skripals into something big that would help their political aims. The general push was to blame Russia. The idea to speak of the fearsome nerve-agent 'Novichok' came from a spy drama that had just run on British TV.

On March 12 the British Prime Minister Theresa May spoke in Parliament and claimed that the Skripals were 'attacked' with 'Novichok', a "military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia". It was her "45 minutes" moment. Russia was declared guilty without any evidence. Britain and other NATO countries expelled Russian diplomats.

'Novichok' is a name for a group of chemicals that are indeed deadly. But Russia never had a 'Novichok' program. It had worked on a different class of chemicals than the ones described in Vil Mirzayanov's 'Novichok' book. Moreover, if 'Novichok' chemicals were involved than Russia was only one of many suspect. The formulas for 'Novichoks' are known, various military laboratories have made some and any decent organic chemistry laboratory can create them too. The U.S., which had produced some of the 'Novichok' agents for itself, had long told its diplomats to avoid any discussions about them.

The first serious unraveling of the dubious case came on March 18 when a doctor at the Salisbury District Hospital publicly denied that any of its patients had been hurt by a nerve agent. We wrote at that time:

Commentator Noirette had suggested here that the Skripal case was about food poisoning or a food allergy, not nerve agents. The Skripals had visited a fish restaurant one hour before they were found. The letter points into a similar direction. Food poisoning would also explain why a doctor who gave emergency help to the unconscious Yulia Skripal for over 30 minutes was not effected at all.
To my best knowledge none of the main stream media picked up on the doctor's letter.

Then a miracle happened. On March 29, just in time for the Roman Christian Easter, the doctors in Salisbury said that Yulia Skripal was no longer in a critical condition. We headline: Last Act Of 'Novichok' Drama Revealed - "The Skripals' Resurrection":

It seems that the 'Novichok' fairy-tale the British government plays to us provides for a happy ending - the astonishing and mysterious resurrection of the victims of a "military grade" "five to eight times more deadly than VX gas" "nerve agent" "of a type developed by" Hollywood.
Happy Easter!
The alleged nerve agent should have killed anyone who came even into slight contact with it. Survival did not fit to the earlier claims by the British government.

Now, just in time for the Orthodox Christian Easter, the condition of Sergej Skripal is reported to be rapidly improving. Another Resurrection! Hallelujah!

In my view all the stories we were told about 'Novichok', the 'doorknob' or a 'Russian attack' are fairy tales. They simply do not make sense.
Last November, Horstmann uncovered the existence of "The Integrity Initiative", which he described as "a secret operation", organized by the British government, whose purpose is "to insert anti-Russian propaganda into the western media stream."


The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British government that hides behind a 'civil society' pseudo-NGO.

The organization is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network. ...

The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones" delusion. When "we" 'educate' foreign national audiences through a secretive government operations it is a legitimate operation. When others do similar, it its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself, created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong. If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from behind the curtain as an NGO?

... The 2018/19 budget application shows a planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00.

Just recently, Craig Murray (another longtime Skripal-narrative skeptic) has been uncovering links between the Integrity Initiative, and the Skripal case. Some "anonymous" leak has revealed Chris Donnelly's contact list of attendees at a meeting, which leads Murray to speculate that the meeting was for planning Skripal-related propaganda.


So what do we have here? We have a programme, the Integrity Initiative, whose entire purpose is to pump out covert disinformation against Russia, through social media and news stories secretly paid for by the British government. And we have the Skripals’ MI6 handler, the BBC, Porton Down, the FCO, the MOD and the US Embassy, working together in a group under the auspices of the Integrity Initiative. The Skripal Case happened to occur shortly after a massive increase in the Integrity Initiative’s budget and activity, which itself was a small part of a British Government decision to ramp up a major information war against Russia.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Is it possible, Jerry, that such as Mr. Suvorov is a victim of binary thinking, that having witnessed the totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union, that upon his exposure to the differences in the West that he came to romanticize this and, having achieved economic success, via such as his books, that he can ignore the negative aspects of his new masters?

I had posted the above mostly to provide some background on Suvorov as opposed to commenting on the Skripal affair, which I concede looks rather fishy. But what's new?
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Is it possible, Jerry, that such as Mr. Suvorov is a victim of binary thinking
Of course that's possible. According to Occam's Razor, that's the simplest explanation. Applying Bayesian priors (the vast majority of middle-class Westerners romanticize the West and ignore negative aspects), it's the most likely.

But, there's one other hypothesis that deserves some weight as a possible explanation. Suvorov was a highly skilled espionage agent with excellent connections within the GRU. As such, he might have promptly been recruited as an agent by British intelligence -- perhaps even by the "Russian-speaking British spook" that expedited his defection. And I sincerely don't mean to insinuate any rush to judgment here... innocent 'til proven guilty is the rule.


Active Member
I guess we should stay wit Viktor Suvorov's great Icebreaker research and ignore his opinion about Skripal, to which he admits very limited knowledge.