Monday, February 29, 2016

Will Trump Be Assassinated By The Shadow Government?

Is Donald Trump’s Life In Danger?
By Servando González
February 29, 2016
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. —Harry S. Truman.
A few days ago, NewsWithViews Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri mentioned the possibility that somebody may have already carried out the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump.[1] In his article, Kouri mentions how Trump's personal Boeing 757, on its way from New York to Little Rock, Arkansas, had to make an emergency detour and landed at Nashville International Airport after the plane's captain reported he was experiencing problems with one engine. Fortunately, the plane landed safely.
Kouri is not the first to raise the possibility. In a July 2015 article, Dave Hodges mentioned the possibility that Donald Trump would be the victim of an assassination attempt.[2]
I think that the concerns raised by Kouri and Hodges are valid. In the CFR-controlled America, political assassination has become a common occurrence. The CFR conspirators have been very successful in assassinating anybody they see as a potential threat to their globalist designs.
CFR psychopaths inside the U.S. government have actively participated in the assassination of foreign leaders, among them Colombia’s leader Jorge Gaitán, Italy’s oil executive Enrico Mattei and Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the Dominican Republic’s President Rafael Trujillo, Panama’s Omar Torrijos, Chile’s President Salvador Allende, Congo’s Patrice Lumumba, South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem, Sweden’s Olof Palme, Pakistan’s Ali Bhutto and, more recently, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez,[3] and Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski.

They also planned and carried out the assassination of American leaders, such as General George S. Patton, Admiral James Forrestal, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, and probably even FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.[4]
They also carried out the assassinations of people who, for one or another reason, they have considered a potential threat to their plans. Among them are singer John Lennon, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy Boorda, ex-CIA director William Colby, Clinton’s secretary of commerce Ron Brown, San Jose Mercury News’ journalist Gary Webb, George W. Bush’s biographer J.H. Hatfield, editor of George magazine and presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. Army corporal and football star Pat Tillman, computer hacker and activist Aaron Swartz, journalist Michael Hastings, publisher Andrew Breitbart, members of SEAL Team 6, comedian Joan Rivers, and perhaps even authors Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton, just to mention a few.
The CFR globalist conspirators have always use assassination as a tool to control U.S foreign and domestic policy, and the CIA has been their main executor. Proof of this is that in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11905 banning assassinations. It clearly stated: “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”
The assassination of General Patton
In the spring of 1944, General George S. Patton crossed the Rhine and pushed his victorious Third Army right up to the heart of Germany. His goal was to take Berlin before the Russians arrived. But CFR secret agents Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Marshall ordered Patton to back a hundred miles to await the arrival of the Red Army so that the Russians could capture Berlin and eastern Germany.
Finally, fearing that Patton may disobey their orders and try to take Berlin, the CFR conspirators cut the Third Army’s fuel and ammo lines and thus paralyzed the Third Army. Patton’s Third Army’s failure to advance into Germany resulted in prolonging the war for more than six months, which cost the U.S. Army the unnecessary deaths of many men. This resulted in the division of Germany into two countries, with East Germany becoming a Soviet-block state and Berlin becoming an international zone completely surrounded by East Germany.
Patton was so furious that he openly criticized his superiors for what he suspected was treason. After the end of the war, he had expressed his intentions of using his political contacts and influence to push for opening an investigation of the persons who gave the orders that paralyzed his Third Army on his route into Berlin. Finally, in December1945, following the CFR conspirators’ orders, OSS Chief General William Donovan (CFR), in complicity with Generals Eisenhower (CFR) and Marshall (CFR), ordered the assassination of Gen. Patton.
For many years, the possibility that his own comrades had assassinated Patton had been the motive of speculation. More recently, however, the suspicions seem to have been proved true. In his book Target Patton,[5] military historian Robert Wilcox provides a wealth of information proving that the death of General Patton was not accidental, and pointing to OSS chief, Gen. William Donovan, a secret CFR agent, as the person who gave the order to assassinate Patton. According to Wilcox, OSS head General William Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton.
But the most surprising thing about this story is that the essential facts reported by Wilcox are not new, because Bazata himself, perhaps tortured by is own conscience, already had told the story in detail, including the fact that Donovan had ordered the assassination.
On September 25, 1979, ex-OSS officer Douglas Bazata told the whole story in front of 450 invited guests, some of them ex-members of the OSS, in the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. Bazata’s confession was published in a minor, small circulation newspaper.[6]
Unknowingly, at the very beginning of his book Wilcox himself provides the clue to the true motives of Patton’s enemies: Patton had told some trusted aides, … that he was going to resign —not retire as was normal for an exiting officer in order to retain pension and benefits— but resign so he would have no army restraints. He was independently wealthy and did not need the pension or benefits. He would then be free to speak his mind and give his version of the war and what had happened to him —the truth as he saw it. And his side would be a blockbuster. He knew secrets and had revelations, he said, he was sure would “make big headlines.”[7]
Of course, the conspirators realized that they could not run the risk of allowing Patton, a true American hero who gloried in the nickname “Old Blood and Guts,” to go public and destroy their carefully conceived plans. So, following their standard operating procedure, they ordered his assassination.[8]
The assassination of Senator Joseph McCarthy
In 1951 Senator Joseph McCarthy discovered widespread treason at the highest levels of the U.S. government, particularly in the CFR-controlled State Department. He wrote America’s Retreat From Victory, a book in which he accused the traitors. Among them State Department officials Alger Hiss (CFR) and Owen Lattimore (CFR), as well as Harry Hopkins in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s White House and Harry Dexter White in the Treasury Department. He also accused General George Marshall (CFR) and President Eisenhower of treason.[9] Unfortunately, he made the mistake common at the time of accusing them of being Communists, not CFR agents.
As if on cue, President Eisenhower (CFR), Secretary of State Dean Acheson (CFR), John McCloy (CFR) and journalist Edward Murrow (CFR), joined forces in defending the traitors and vilifying McCarthy. The result was that, despite of the fact that most of the people he accused eventually were proven traitors, McCarthy’s gross mistake cost him his career and his life.[10]
Senator McCarthy was admitted at the Bethesda Naval Hospital April 28, 1957 for a knee injury he suffered while serving in World War II. He was put into an oxygen tent from which he was removed soon after because, though still serious, his condition was improving. Then his health took a turn for the worse, whereupon he died on May 2, with the official cause of death given as “hepatitis, acute, cause unknown” of a “noninfectious type”
Some authors, however, have offered a quite different explanation of his death. According to them, an assassin impersonating a nurse placed McCarthy again in an oxygen tent, through which he was administered carbon tetrachloride, and thus murdered.[11]
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy
In January 20 1961, John F. Kennedy (not a CFR member) was inaugurated President of the United States. His inaugural address was a patriotic call for advancing America socially and economically. In it, he challenged the Soviets to use the “wonders of science” for economic progress and space exploration instead of militarism.
As soon as he got into the White House, Kennedy began an aggressive program to “get America moving again,” (not too different to Trump’s current “Make America great again”) and declared that the 1960s would be the decade of development, stressing the importance of creating an abundant and growing supply of cheap energy.
Unfortunately, however, Kennedy ignored that the CFR conspirators had already decided that the 1960s would be the decade that would mark the beginning of energy scarcity, deindustrialization and non-development in America. Soon after, his own Secretary of State Dean Dusk (CFR), as well as Chester Bowles (CFR) and other CFR agents in the State Department and in the White House, publicly expressed their displeasure with the new policies.
The CFR conspirators’ irritation with Kennedy grew to a point that in July 1962 LIFE magazine featured an unusual exchange of letters between CFR honcho David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In his critical letter, David showed his hostility to JFK by pointing to the president’s economic policies as the source of the country’s problems.
The true reasons, however, were because after he was sworn in as president Kennedy ignored the National Security Council’s structure. Then, after the Bay of Pigs debacle he not only fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, a senior CFR conspirator, but also told some close friends that he wanted to smash the CIA “into a thousand pieces and scatter [it] to the winds.”
Finally, he made what probably were his two biggest mistakes.
The first one was authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue currency backed by the U.S. Treasury Department, not the Federal Reserve Bank. After Kennedy was assassinated, one of the first measures taken by President Lyndon Johnson after he was sworn was to order the recall and destruction of the bills.
Kennedy’s second biggest mistake was that, contrary to his CFR advisors’ opinion, he began taking measures to end the war in Vietnam. On October 11, 1963, he ordered his National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy (CFR) to implement plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of the year. This was believed to be the first step to a complete withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam
Firing Allen Dulles and mentioning that he wanted to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces was a slap in the Rockefellers’ face and JFK knew it. That was his not-so-subtle way of telling them that he was the one in command — or so he believed. Ignoring the NSC, and later creating his own Ex-Comm (Executive Committee of the NSC) during the Cuban missile crisis was another direct attack on the Rockefeller’s power. Finally, just the fact that he signed an Executive Order authorizing the U.S. Treasury Department to print silver certificates, that is, real money, not fiat certificates like the ones printed by the Federal Reserve Bank, and ordering the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, were serious transgressions the CFR conspirators would never tolerate.
As several authors have shown, everything indicates that the main suspects for the assassination of President Kennedy were the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates whose interests JFK had been attacking.[12] According to Professor Donald Gibson, evidence indicates that from an unwitting tool of the CFR conspirators, after the Bay of Pigs[13] JFK turned himself into one of their strongest enemies.[14]
This explains why the one who got destroyed was not the CIA, but John F. Kennedy.
Trump’s threat to the globalist conspirators
Currently, Donald Trump has become not simply a potential threat, but a real and present danger to the globalist conspirators. Proof that Trump has become a nightmare for the conspirators is that he has been a subject of discussion at the recent secret meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the World Economic Forum.[15] Just recently, the Washington Post’s Editorial Board called for the GOP leaders “to do everything in your power to stop Trump.”[16] One may wonder if “everything” includes assassination.
The fact that Trump has been consistently attacking George W. Bush for his handling of the 9/11 events indicates the possibility that, if elected president, he would reopen an investigation of the role of the Saudis in the event. But the Saudis are intimately linked to the Bushes and Cheney. A truly independent investigation would open a dangerous can of worms. To top it off, Trump has recently said that, it elected he would prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server[17] — which most likely would lead to a new investigation of the Benghazi affair.
Moreover, we must remember that, like many Americans, Trump suspects that Obama is an impostor. He even went to the point of offering a 50 million dollar reward to Obama if he presented his birth certificate as proof of being a natural born American.[18] If he pursues this issue, it would open another can of worms very dangerous to the conspirators who put Obama in power.
Even worse, everything indicates that, if elected president, Trump plans to approach Putin and stop the current U.S. and NATO aggressive anti-Russian policies. This would mark a catastrophic defeat to the conspirators’ globalist designs. No wonder they are horrified about the possibility of Donald Trump becoming the next President of the United States.
Recently, Twitter has been awash with threats on Trump’s life.[19] But those have not been the only threats. In October, after an unidentified woman called the Worcester Telegram & Gazette mentioning the intentions of the “Worcester gangsters” to “Kill Donald Trump” in Massachusetts, the Secret Service began providing protection to Trump.[20]
The most recent threat to Trump came from New York Times’ columnist Ross Douthat, who tweeted about how an assassination attempt could end Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The tweet included a link to a video clip from the 1983 movie The Dead Zone, which features a character played by Christopher Walken attempting to gun down a political leader played by Martin Sheen.[21]
So, it seems that the only way the globalist conspirators can get rid of Donald Trump is by killing him. But how?
How will the CFR conspirators try to assassinate Trump?
We must discard up front the lonely nut assassin technique involving a Manchurian candidate psychologically programmed to kill. After the assassinations of JFK, his brother Bobby and Martin Luther King, it has become very difficult to fool the American people with that type of assassination.
Also, the type of suicide by shooting yourself 4 times in the head has become so evidently false that I don’t think that they will try it again.
Another option may be friendly fire. One of Trump’s Secret Service “protectors” may kill Trump accidentally while trying to save his life from an assassination attempt in which the would be assassin would also be killed — dead men don’t tell tales.
Would they resort to the oldest trick in the book: a heart attack? That would be an interesting possibility. But recent efforts to open an investigation on the death of J. Edgar Hoover — a powerful CFR enemy — and the current reaction of the public asking to open an investigation on the “natural death” of Justice Scalia indicates that this option would not work anymore.
So, given the circumstance, they may be forced to resort to a technique they have used over an over with great success: the airplane “accident”.[22] The best thing about an airplane “accident” is that it will take a long time to prove it was actually an assassination, and if someday it is proven, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Donald Trump, America’s last hope
Donald Trump is America’s last hope to solve in a peaceful, legal, civilized way the conundrum into which the CFR globalist conspirators have put our country and the world. As Americans who love this country, we must consider it a cardinal moral duty to defend and protect Trump’s life. But how can we do it? I think that the most effective way is to tell the CFR conspirators that things have changed in America and warning them that killing Trump is not a good idea.
We must tell them that we hate their New World Order. We must tell them that we will protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We must tell them that we will defend our borders. We must tell them that we have discovered that the two parties are the two sides of the same coin. We must tell them that we have finally realized that their War on Terror is a hoax. We must tell them that we are sick and tired of sending our young men and women to fight unwinnable wars to protect the interests of corporations that are not even American anymore.
Finally, we must tell them in a clear way that we know who they are, we know where they are, we know what they are planning, and warn them that if they try to assassinate Trump there will be dire consequences to pay.
Send your e-mails telling them what we think to:
Servando is the uthor of Psychological Warfare and the New World Order and I Dare Call It Treason, and the DVDs Treason in America and Partners in Treason, all of them available at NewsWithViews.
© 2016 Servando Gonzalez - All Rights Reserved
1. Jim Kouri, “Is Donald Trump in Mortal Danger?”, February 6, 2016
2. Dave Hodges, “Will Donald Trump Be Assassinated By a Man with a Diary?” The Common Sense Show, July 23, 2015
3. Servando Gonzalez. “Hugo Chavez: Another Victim of Castro’s High-Tech Political Assassinations?” also “DID CASTRO KILL CHAVEZ?” Karanja’z Place
4. Peter Finn, “Sleuth Suspects J. Edgar Hoover's Murder,” The Washington Post, November 2, 1997
5. Robert Wilcox, Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2008).
6. The Spotlight, October 15, 1979, p. 16
7. Wilcox, op. cit., p. 12, quoting Patton’s diaries, August 29, 1945.
8. For a more detailed account of Gen. Patton’s assassination see, Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order (Oakland, California: Spooks Books, 2010), pp. 103-107.
9. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, America’s Retreat From Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall (Boston: Western Islands, 1951). McCarthy and Patton were not the only ones who accused Eisenhower of treason. In his book 1963 The Politician, Robert Welch provided a wealth of information on how the CFR conspirators helped Eisenhower’s military career by pushing him up from being and unknown lieutenant colonel without much military experience to becoming the Supreme Commander of the largest military force ever organized. The CFR conspirators feared a Patton president for the same reasons they now fear Trump.
10. Medford Evans, The Assassination of Joe McCarthy (Boston: Western Islands, 1970), p. 113.
11. Rosemary Pennington, “The Destruction of Joe McCarthy,” National Vanguard, October 3rd, 2015, also, Dave Martin, “James Forrestal and Joe McCarthy,”, September 29, 2011
12. See, i.e., Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1989).
13. Contrary to common belief, the CIA’s Bay of Pigs operation was a total success. Its true goals were to destroy the opposition against Castro, consolidate him in power and thus convince the reluctant Soviets that he was the anti-American Communist he claimed to be. See, Servando Gonzalez, “The Disinfo History of the CIA.” The Bay of Pigs PsyOp is studied in more detail in my book Psychological Warfare and the New World Order (Oakland, California: Spooks Books, 2010), pp. 193-200.
14. Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994), p.72.
15. Jon Rappoport, “Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral,” August 24, 2015
16. Editorial Board, “GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump,” The Washington Post, February 24, 2016
17. Anna Giaritelli, “Trump: As president, I would prosecute Clinton,” The Washington Examiner, February 22, 2016
18. Bob Unruh, “Donald Trump: Obama Rejected $50 Million For His Birth Records,” WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2015
19. Paul Joseph Watson, “‘Kill Donald Trump’: Twitter Explodes With Violent Threats,” InfoWars, September 22, 2015
20. Kristinn Taylor, “EXCLUSIVE: Secret Service Investigates Donald Trump Worcester Death Threat,” The Gateway Pundit, November 19 2015
21. Paul Joseph Watson, “NY Times Columnist Jokes About Assassination Attempt Ending Trump’s Campaign." Good news guys I've figured out how the Trump campaign ends,” InfoWars, February 25, 2016
22. See Sherman H. Skolnick , “The Secret History of Airplane sabotage,” [Part One], [Part two], [Part Three], [Part Four]
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author's site at
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at and other bookstores online.
Servando's two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.
E-Mail: servandoglez05(at)yahoo(dot)com

Conspirators, the Next American President and Donald Trump
By Servando Gonzalez
September 14, 2015
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” —Yogi Berra (attributed)
I know that making predictions is very difficult. I am also aware that most historical predictions have failed to materialize. On the other hand, I think that, for people who are not seers and don’t have a crystal ball, when you make a prediction, and it happens, it only shows that you have a closer-to-truth explanation of events.
So, knowing the pitfalls of making predictions, particularly about the future, I am making a prediction about the next President of the United States — if there is a next one, but that would be another story.
The next president of the United States has been already selected at the recent Bilderberg meeting in Austria. He will be a not-to-clever, but corrupt politician under the control of the bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of international corporations ensconced at the Council on Foreign Relations. He will be a member of the Republican Party.
Why do I think that the coming president will be a Republican? Because one of the most important things the CFR conspirators need to accomplish before turning the United States into a full-fledged totalitarian society is taking the guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens.
 Granted, puppet impostor Barry Soetoro has advanced the cause of totalitarianism in America by leaps and bounds. Unemployment has grown, the economy is in shambles, and a veritable invasion of illegal aliens is making things worse. The so-called Obamacare — created to benefit Big Med and Big Pharma —will tax even more the limited resources of American workers.
Other valuable accomplishments of Soetoro’s are the success of CFR-backed gay politics: gay marriage, gays in the military, gays in Boys Scouts, and appointing more openly gay officials than any other president in the U.S. history. Of course, this is very difficult to understand if you ignore that the gay movement has wittingly become a spear point, a fifth column of the New Gay World Order the globalist conspirators are working hard to impose upon us.[1]
But there is something Soetoro, or any “progressive” Democrat cannot do: taking the guns from Americans. It he/she/it tries to ban and confiscate guns, it would trigger a shooting war. Therefore, as it happened after Katrina,[2] this has to be done by a “conservative” Republican as the reaction to a 9/11-like catastrophic event.
Of the many Republican candidates currently trying to get the Republican nomination, the only one willing and capable to do this job is Jeb Bush. Most likely he is the one already selected at the last secret Bilderberg meeting in Austria. So, the CFR conspirators, using the mainstream media which is under their full control, already had begun a pervasive brainwashing campaign to convince gullible Americans to give their votes to the presidential candidate they had already selected.
Of course, there’s nothing new about this. Those have been the hidden rules of the game for many decades, and now it was working again to perfection. But then, to the globalist conspirators’ utter surprise, an unexpected phenomenon arrived attempting to destroy their carefully crafted plans. This phenomenon, this anomaly, this disturbance in the Dark Force, is Donald Trump, and it seems that, knowingly or unknowingly, his main goal is to overturn the CFR’s apple cart. No wonder the CFR conspirators are so angry.
CFR agent John McCain provided the first indication that, contrary to the rest of the malleable candidates, Trump was a clear and present danger to the CFR conspirators. Just a few days after Trump began gaining popularity among American voters, McCain declared that Trump had fired up “the crazies” in Arizona with his immigration talk.[3]
McCain’s words opened the gates to a concerted attack on Trump. Since then, both CFR-controlled branches of the Repucratic Party and the CFR-controlled mainstream media are fiercely and tirelessly attacking him.
In just a few weeks, Trump displaced Putin as the focus of the conspirators’ hatred. In his detractors’ words, Trump’s followers are: the crazies, the fearful and the frustrated, the ones who feel themselves betrayed by the politicians and victimized by a changing world, the religious ultraconservatives, extremist white-rights groups, white nationalists, outright racists, the xenophobics, the haters, the intolerants.
A more accurate description of Trump’s followers, however, may be that they are the Americans who have awakened from their media-induced dream state and have become ware of the CFR conspirators’ secret, evil plan to destroy America and enslave the American people. And they are angry about it.
For reasons I have mentioned in a previous article,[4] I will never give my vote to an incumbent or to a candidate running for any of the two factions of the Repucratic Party. Trump is not an incumbent, but he is trying to get the Republican nomination. Now, if he loses the nomination[5] and, despite his promise to support the selected candidate,[6] decides to run as an independent he will surely get my vote. Why? For a few simple reasons:
First, he is a private citizen, he is not an incumbent, and he is not a professional politician.
Secondly, he is not a member of the Skull & Bones cult, the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission. Moreover, he has never attended the secret conciliabula at the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderberg Group, or the World Economic Forum.
Thirdly, contrary to the Bushes, the Clintons, Soetoro and the rest of the globalist crowd, it doesn’t seem that Trump is eager to send young Americans to kill and die in foreign lands protecting the interests of transnational corporations who don’t see themselves as American anymore.
Finally, as far as I know, Trump is not gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual, and he has never expressed his support for the New Gay World Order.
Even more important, I think that Donald Trump is the last hope we Americans have to solve this conundrum in a civilized, peaceful way.
I am aware of Donald Trump’s personal flaws, which, if anything, makes him more human. But we don’t need a saint in the White House. What we need is an American who loves his country and has the courage and integrity to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s all.[7]
According to a common belief created by the CFR conspirators, if Trump runs as an independent he will give Hillary the presidency. Actually, however, if Trump runs as an independent and Hillary is elected —which I doubt— it would not be because of Trump, but because of the votes of “conservative” Republicans who have more love for their treasonous party than for their country. I this happens, they, and only they, would be the ones to blame.
© 2015 Servando Gonzalez - All Rights Reserved
1. One of the globalist conspirators’ goals is the destruction of the family as the ultimate social nucleus, and this is actually the secret goal of the gay marriage PsyOp. To learn it from some gay ideologues’ words, see, Urvashi Vaid, Lisa Duggan, Tamara Metz and Amber Hollibaugh, “What’s Next for the LGBT Movement? With victory in the fight for marriage equality in sight, what should LGBT activists focus on now?” The Nation, June 27, 2013.
2. After the hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, police and military thugs went door-to-door confiscating legally owned guns, mostly owned by Republicans. The gun-grabbers, however, didn’t have to pry the guns from their owner’s dead fingers. Like obedient sheeple, they peacefully surrendered their guns to their beloved President Bush’s storm troopers.
3. Allah Pundit, “McCain: Trump really fired up “the crazies” in Arizona with his immigration talk,” HotAir, July 16, 2015.
4. , Servando Gonzalez, “Voting is Treason,”, November 15, 2014
5. I would rather say when he loses the nomination, because I am convinced that the treasonous Republicans will rather lose a presidential election than elect a President who may oppose the CFR’s secret agenda.
6. If Trump decides to run as an independent, the first thing he must to is to end his Republican affiliation. Once he is not a Republican anymore, there is no reason to honor his promise of supporting the Republican candidate.
7. I am not alone in my appraisal of Donald Trump. According to some of his supporters, “It's not that they are willing to look past Trump’s flaws to fix what they believe ills the country. It’s that those flaws are exactly what makes him the leader America needs.” See, Jill Colvin, “Fed-up and angry supporters let Trump defy political gravity,” AP, September 6, 2015.
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author's site at
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at and other bookstores online.
Servando's two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.
E-Mail: servandoglez05(at)yahoo(dot)com
Also See:
Are Suspicious 'Suicides' Really Government Murders?
(Part 1)
21 January 2013
(Part 2)
25 March 2013
What Happens in Iowa, Stays in Iowa!
08 February 2016
Days Before the Two Candidates Are Known!
14 January 2016
 Best Candidate for President? Donald Trump, Hands Down!
04 November 2015
 Will Donald Trump be the Next President?
(Part 1)
06 June 2015
(Part 2)
19 February 2016

Friday, February 26, 2016

Let's Not Forget That Stalin Murdered Millions!

Talking to Joseph Stalin
Reconstruction of the human brain which obviously lacks many things needed for a perfect social order
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- Bio and Archives 
February 24, 2016
H.G. Wells, the prolific British sci-fi writer, who self-described to be a socialist left of Stalin, interviewed the infamous Soviet dictator for three hours on July 23, 1934. The interview was recorded by Constantine Oumansky, the chief of the Press Bureau of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.
The scope of the interview, after he spoke at length with President Roosevelt, was to find out what Stalin was “doing to change the world.” Wells told Stalin that he tried to look at the world through the eyes of the “common man” not the eyes of a politician or a bureaucrat.
Indicating to Stalin that “capitalists must learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism,” Wells stated that a profound reorganization was taking place in the United States, the creation of a “planned, that is, socialist, economy.” He witnessed Washington building offices, new state regulatory bodies, and “a much needed Civil Service.”
Stalin expressed his skepticism about U.S. being able to build a planned economy. It is not possible, he said, because “the Americans want to rid themselves of the [economic] crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity without changing the economic basis.” Stalin was touting the new economic basis that socialism had built. In his view, the existing capitalist system was rooted in anarchy. “A planned economy tries to abolish unemployment.” But a capitalist would never agree to completely abolish unemployment, Stalin said, because capitalists want to maintain a supply of cheap labor.
Stalin was wrong about unemployment under a socialist Soviet economy for three reasons:
Data in general was never accurately kept or reported.
The labor was highly manual with low levels of automation; under a free market economy automation often displaces labor, causing retraining of workers into other skills.
Women who sought employment worked for shorter periods of time and were thus not included in the statistics.
Stalin believed that Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was a very powerful socialist idea
Stalin explained to Wells that planned economies increase output in those “branches of the industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly.”
Having survived for twenty years in such a system Stalin described, I remember precisely all the shortages of goods and services that the economically illiterate central planners created, the long lines, the rationing we had to endure, and the empty shelves everywhere.
Furthermore, to see how wrong Stalin was, just look today at Venezuela under Maduro’s centrally planned socialist policies, a continuation of his mentor’s, Hugo Chavez, and you will see the empty shelves and suffering. Look at Castro’s Cuba after 50 years of central planning and at its decaying infrastructure and decrepit buildings. Fidel “protected” Cuba’s hapless citizens from the “evils” of capitalism and instead gave them a nightmarish socialist economy and a political socialist dictatorship.
Stalin described to Wells that capital flows into those sectors of the economy where the rate of profit is highest.  A capitalist would never agree “to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people.” A central planner like Stalin did not understand supply and demand, only saw collectivism, and viewed profit as evil. Who wants to open a business if they are going to lose money?
Stalin admitted that “without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create a planned economy.”  When the “financial oligarchy will be abolished, only then socialism will be brought about,” Stalin added.

He believed that Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was a very powerful socialist idea. But, in Stalin’s opinion, Roosevelt would not be able to achieve his socialist goals for many generations because “the banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt’s hands.”
All the railroads, the mercantile fleet, the army of skilled workers, engineers, and technical personnel are all working for private enterprise, he said. Even though the State offers military defense of the country, maintains law and order, and collects taxes, this private ownership of the means of production, renders the State unable to control everything, “the State is in the hands of capitalist economy.”
Stalin explained that, if the State controlled the banks, then transportation, then heavy industries, industries in general, commerce, an “all-embracing control will be equivalent to the State ownership of all branches of the national economy and this will be the process of socialization.”
I wonder if the Millennials understand that they would lose their smart gadgets, TVs, laptops, and other electronics they love to their socialist utopian dream of social justice. If they can’t get rich then everybody must be equally poor and miserable.
The important question is, are American citizens ready to lose everything they own privately, giving government carte blanche to own the means of the production and to tell them what they can and cannot have, consume, and do?
Stalin argued that Roosevelt made an honest attempt to “satisfy the interests of the proletariat class at the expense of the capitalist class.” Today, we, the taxpayers/capitalist class, are still satisfying the interests of the non-producers who receive welfare at our expense from the heavy taxes we pay. Are we willing supporters of such idle individuals? Roosevelt, with his programs, created a generational welfare class that feels entitled to what they receive, and destroyed the family in the process.
Stalin described the two classes in capitalism, as he saw it through the lenses of a socialist:
 “The propertied class” (the owners of banks, factories, mines, farms, “plantations in colonies,” who chased after the “evil” profit)
“The exploited class” (the class of the poor who existed by selling their labor)
Wells told Stalin that, although he personally saw the need to “conduct propaganda in favor of socialism,” he met many educated people such as “engineers, airmen, military-technical people” who regarded “your simple class antagonism as nonsense.” Additionally, he asked, were there not people who were not poor but worked productively?
Stalin admitted that “small landowners, artisans, small traders” did not decide the fate of a country, but “the toiling masses, who produce all the things society requires.”
We sure have a lot of unemployed and disabled “toiling masses” today that are sitting idle at home and don’t seem to mind one bit, benefitting from the “evil” capitalist spoils.
Calling J.P. Morgan “old Morgan,” Wells described him as “a parasite on society,” who “merely accumulated wealth.” On the other hand, Wells admired Rockefeller whom he described as a “brilliant organizer” who “has set an example of how to organize the delivery of oil that is worthy of emulation,” while Ford was “selfish.”
Further excoriating the capitalist system based on profit that, in his opinion, is “breaking down,” Wells surprised Stalin by saying, “It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer to its end than you think.”
Stalin corrects him that these capitalist men possess great organizational talent which the Soviet people could learn from. “And [J. P.] Morgan, whom you characterize so unfavorably, was undoubtedly a good, capable organizer.” But people like him who “serve the cause of profit” are not “prepared to reconstruct the world,” they are not “capable organizers of production.”
Reminding Wells, “don’t you know how many workers he throws in the streets,” Stalin added that capitalism will be abolished by the working class, not by the ‘technical intelligentsia’ or the ‘organizers’ of production. If this “technical intelligentsia breaks away spiritually from their employers, from the capitalist world, that will take a long time and only then can they begin to reconstruct the world.” The working class will become the “sovereign master of the capitalist class.”
In reality, this working class Stalin described as the savior of society, was a dumbed-down, poorly paid, miserable majority who could not care less if the factories under-produced, broke down, and were never repaired. They were paid regardless of how much they produced, how many mistakes they made, what shoddy products they sent to the market, how much theft was going on in order to barter with others to survive, and did not own much of anything. This working class pretended to work and the communist organizers and centralized planners pretended to pay them.
The Soviet economic system was a dismal model which failed miserably and eventually collapsed on its own utopian weight while the free market system thrived.
Unfortunately today, the Democrats and Social Democrats are gaining ground in their efforts to resurrect around the world a mummified model of economic failure, inventing new euphemisms, in order to stay in absolute power and control of the population.
Wells described the Royal Society whose president had delivered a speech on “social planning and scientific control.” The Royal Society, he told Stalin, held “revolutionary views and insists on the scientific reorganization of human society. Mentality changes. Your class-war propaganda has not kept pace with these facts.”
“Capitalist society is in a cul de sac,” Stalin responded, and “A devoted and energetic revolutionary minority requires the passive support of millions.”
“Revolution, the substitution of one social system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and cruel struggle, a life and death struggle,” Stalin admitted. And the process will not be “spontaneous and peaceful, it will be complicated, long, and violent.” And the new world order “revolutionaries” should use the police to support them in the fight against “reactionaries.”
“That is why the Communists say to the working class: Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system.”
Citing history, both Wells and Stalin described how Cromwell, on the basis of the Constitution, resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed the Parliament, arrested many, and beheaded others; how much blood was shed to overthrow the tsars; how the October Revolution overthrew the old and decaying Russian capitalist system and how the “Bolsheviks were the only way out.”
Explaining the Third Estate (the common people) which existed before the French Revolution, Stalin pointed out that “not a single class has voluntarily made way for another class” and the “Communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie.”

Wells argued that force must be used within existing laws and “there is no need to disorganize the old system because it is disorganizing itself enough as it is.” In his opinion, “insurrection against the old order, against the law, is obsolete, old-fashioned.” In addition to the educational system which must be radically changed, this is how Wells explained his point of view:
    He supports order.
    He attacks the present system “in so far as it cannot assure order.”
    He thinks that “class war propaganda may detach from socialism just those educated people whom socialism needs.” (H.G. Wells, p. 20 of the interview transcript)
Stalin countered with his own points:
    “The social bulwark of the revolution is the working class.”
    An auxiliary force must exist; the Communists call it a Party.
    Political power is the “lever of change” to create new laws in the interest of the working class.
From my experience, the only interests represented in the socialism/communism of my youth were the interests of the dictatorial ruling elite of the Communist Party. They became the millionaire rulers at that time, and, when disbanded and stripped of power, their heirs became the billionaires of today.
Ending the interview, Wells thanked Stalin for his explanations of the fundamentals of socialism and said that millions around the world hang on to every word Stalin and Roosevelt utter.
Stalin, engaging the infamous and demagogue idea of ‘self-criticism,’ which had sent many honest intellectuals to gulags, replied that much more could have been done by the Bolsheviks, had they been “cleverer.” Wells suggested making human beings “cleverer” by inventing a five-year plan for the “reconstruction of the human brain which obviously lacks many things needed for a perfect social order.”
The idea of mind control, which is not so far-fetched today, brought shivers down my spine. Bombastic and not-ground-in-reality Five-Year centralized plans issued by the Communist Party elites and their apparatchiks who had no idea how the economy should be run, many of whom did not have but an elementary education and could barely read, write, and do simple math, those plans brought the economies in all Soviet satellite countries to unmitigated disaster.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her website,
Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Killed More?
Timothy Snyder
March 10, 2011 Issue 
Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?
In the second half of the twentieth century, Americans were taught to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the greatest of evils. Hitler was worse, because his regime propagated the unprecedented horror of the Holocaust, the attempt to eradicate an entire people on racial grounds. Yet Stalin was also worse, because his regime killed far, far more people, tens of millions it was often claimed, in the endless wastes of the Gulag. For decades, and even today, this confidence about the difference between the two regimes—quality versus quantity—has set the ground rules for the politics of memory. Even historians of the Holocaust generally take for granted that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, thus placing themselves under greater pressure to stress the special character of the Holocaust, since this is what made the Nazi regime worse than the Stalinist one.
Discussion of numbers can blunt our sense of the horrific personal character of each killing and the irreducible tragedy of each death. As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, the difference between zero and one is an infinity. Though we have a harder time grasping this, the same is true for the difference between, say, 780,862 and 780,863—which happens to be the best estimate of the number of people murdered at Treblinka. Large numbers matter because they are an accumulation of small numbers: that is, precious individual lives. Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.
It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive. Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. The total figure for the entire Stalinist period is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit fewer. The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died.
Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.
In 1937, as his vision of modernization faltered, Stalin ordered the Great Terror. Because we now have the killing orders and the death quotas, inaccessible so long as the Soviet Union existed, we now know that the number of victims was not in the millions. We also know that, as in the early 1930s, the main victims were the peasants, many of them survivors of hunger and of concentration camps. The highest Soviet authorities ordered 386,798 people shot in the “Kulak Operation” of 1937–1938. The other major “enemies” during these years were people belonging to national minorities who could be associated with states bordering the Soviet Union: some 247,157 Soviet citizens were killed by the NKVD in ethnic shooting actions.
In the largest of these, the “Polish Operation” that began in August 1937, 111,091 people accused of espionage for Poland were shot. In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions. The total figure of civilians deliberately killed under Stalinism, around six million, is of course horribly high. But it is far lower than the estimates of twenty million or more made before we had access to Soviet sources. At the same time, we see that the motives of these killing actions were sometimes far more often national, or even ethnic, than we had assumed. Indeed it was Stalin, not Hitler, who initiated the first ethnic killing campaigns in interwar Europe.
Until World War II, Stalin’s regime was by far the more murderous of the two. Nazi Germany began to kill on the Soviet scale only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the summer of 1939 and the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland that September. About 200,000 Polish civilians were killed between 1939 and 1941, with each regime responsible for about half of those deaths. This figure includes about 50,000 Polish citizens shot by German security police and soldiers in the fall of 1939, the 21,892 Polish citizens shot by the Soviet NKVD in the Katyn massacres of spring 1940, and the 9,817 Polish citizens shot in June 1941 in a hasty NKVD operation after Hitler betrayed Stalin and Germany attacked the USSR. Under cover of the war and the occupation of Poland, the Nazi regime also killed the handicapped and others deemed unfit in a large-scale “euthanasia” program that accounts for 200,000 deaths. It was this policy that brought asphyxiation by carbon monoxide to the fore as a killing technique.
Beyond the numbers killed remains the question of intent. Most of the Soviet killing took place in times of peace, and was related more or less distantly to an ideologically informed vision of modernization. Germany bears the chief responsibility for the war, and killed civilians almost exclusively in connection with the practice of racial imperialism. Germany invaded the Soviet Union with elaborate colonization plans. Thirty million Soviet citizens were to starve, and tens of millions more were to be shot, deported, enslaved, or assimilated.
Such plans, though unfulfilled, provided the rationale for the bloodiest occupation in the history of the world. The Germans placed Soviet prisoners of war in starvation camps, where 2.6 million perished from hunger and another half-million (disproportionately Soviet Jews) were shot. A million Soviet citizens also starved during the siege of Leningrad. In “reprisals” for partisan actions, the Germans killed about 700,000 civilians in grotesque mass executions, most of them Belarusians and Poles. At the war’s end the Soviets killed tens of thousands of people in their own “reprisals,” especially in the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine. Some 363,000 German soldiers died in Soviet captivity.
Hitler came to power with the intention of eliminating the Jews from Europe; the war in the east showed that this could be achieved by mass killing. Within weeks of the attack by Germany (and its Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and other allies) on the USSR, Germans, with local help, were exterminating entire Jewish communities. By December 1941, when it appears that Hitler communicated his wish that all Jews be murdered, perhaps a million Jews were already dead in the occupied Soviet Union. Most had been shot over pits, but thousands were asphyxiated in gas vans. From 1942, carbon monoxide was used at the death factories Chełmno, Bełz˙ec, Sobibór, and Treblinka to kill Polish and some other European Jews. As the Holocaust spread to the rest of occupied Europe, other Jews were gassed by hydrogen cyanide at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Overall, the Germans, with much local assistance, deliberately murdered about 5.4 million Jews, roughly 2.6 million by shooting and 2.8 million by gassing (about a million at Auschwitz, 780,863 at Treblinka, 434,508 at Bełz˙ec, about 180,000 at Sobibór, 150,000 at Chełmno, 59,000 at Majdanek, and many of the rest in gas vans in occupied Serbia and the occupied Soviet Union). A few hundred thousand more Jews died during deportations to ghettos or of hunger or disease in ghettos. Another 300,000 Jews were murdered by Germany’s ally Romania. Most Holocaust victims had been Polish or Soviet citizens before the war (3.2 million and one million respectively). The Germans also killed more than a hundred thousand Roma.
All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million. These figures are of course subject to revision, but it is very unlikely that the consensus will change again as radically as it has since the opening of Eastern European archives in the 1990s. Since the Germans killed chiefly in lands that later fell behind the Iron Curtain, access to Eastern European sources has been almost as important to our new understanding of Nazi Germany as it has been to research on the Soviet Union itself. (The Nazi regime killed approximately 165,000 German Jews.)
Apart from the inaccessibility of archives, why were our earlier assumptions so wrong? One explanation is the cold war. Our wartime and postwar European alliances, after all, required a certain amount of moral and thus historical flexibility. In 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union were military allies. By the end of 1941, after the Germans had attacked the Soviet Union and Japan the United States, Moscow in effect had traded Berlin for Washington. By 1949, the alliances had switched again, with the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany together in NATO, facing off against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies, including the smaller German Democratic Republic. During the cold war, it was sometimes hard for Americans to see clearly the particular evils of Nazis and Soviets. Hitler had brought about a Holocaust: but Germans were now our allies. Stalin too had killed millions of people: but some of the worst episodes, taking place as they had before the war, had already been downplayed in wartime US propaganda, when we were on the same side.
We formed an alliance with Stalin right at the end of the most murderous years of Stalinism, and then allied with a West German state a few years after the Holocaust. It was perhaps not surprising that in this intellectual environment a certain compromise position about the evils of Hitler and Stalin—that both, in effect, were worse—emerged and became the conventional wisdom.
New understandings of numbers, of course, are only a part of any comparison, and in themselves pose new questions of both quantity and quality. How to count the battlefield casualties of World War II in Europe, not considered here? It was a war that Hitler wanted, and so German responsibility must predominate; but in the event it began with a German-Soviet alliance and a cooperative invasion of Poland in 1939. Somewhere near the Stalinist ledger must belong the thirty million or more Chinese starved during the Great Leap Forward, as Mao followed Stalin’s model of collectivization.* The special quality of Nazi racism is not diluted by the historical observation that Stalin’s motivations were sometimes national or ethnic. The pool of evil simply grows deeper.
The most fundamental proximity of the two regimes, in my view, is not ideological but geographical. Given that the Nazis and the Stalinists tended to kill in the same places, in the lands between Berlin and Moscow, and given that they were, at different times, rivals, allies, and enemies, we must take seriously the possibility that some of the death and destruction wrought in the lands between was their mutual responsibility. What can we make of the fact, for example, that the lands that suffered most during the war were those occupied not once or twice but three times: by the Soviets in 1939, the Germans in 1941, and the Soviets again in 1944?
The Holocaust began when the Germans provoked pogroms in June and July 1941, in which some 24,000 Jews were killed, on territories in Poland annexed by the Soviets less than two years before. The Nazis planned to eliminate the Jews in any case, but the prior killings by the NKVD certainly made it easier for local gentiles to justify their own participation in such campaigns. As I have written in Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010), where all of the major Nazi and Soviet atrocities are discussed, we see, even during the German-Soviet war, episodes of belligerent complicity in which one side killed more because provoked or in some sense aided by the other. Germans took so many Soviet prisoners of war in part because Stalin ordered his generals not to retreat. The Germans shot so many civilians in part because Soviet partisans deliberately provoked reprisals. The Germans shot more than a hundred thousand civilians in Warsaw in 1944 after the Soviets urged the locals to rise up and then declined to help them. In Stalin’s Gulag some 516,543 people died between 1941 and 1943, sentenced by the Soviets to labor, but deprived of food by the German invasion.
Were these people victims of Stalin or of Hitler? Or both?
Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was it genocide?
When it comes to use of the word "genocide," public opinion has been kinder to Stalin than Hitler. But one historian looks at Stalin's mass killings and urges that the definition of genocide be widened.
By Cynthia Haven
Stanford Report, September 23, 2010
Mass killing is still the way a lot of governments do business.
The past few decades have seen terrifying examples in Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur, Bosnia.
Murder on a national scale, yes – but is it genocide? "The word carries a
powerful punch," said Stanford history Professor Norman Naimark. "In international courts, it's considered the crime of crimes."
Nations have tugs of war over the official definition of the word "genocide" itself – which mentions only national, ethnic, racial and religious groups. The definition can determine, after all, international relations, foreign aid and national morale. Look at the annual international tussle over whether the 1915 Turkish massacre and deportation of the Armenians "counts" as genocide.
Naimark, author of the controversial new book Stalin's Genocides, argues that we need a much broader definition of genocide, one that includes nations killing social classes and political groups. His case in point: Stalin.
The book's title is plural for a reason: He argues that the Soviet elimination of a social class, the kulaks (who were higher-income farmers), and the subsequent killer famine among all Ukrainian peasants – as well as the notorious 1937 order No. 00447 that called for the mass execution and exile of "socially harmful elements" as "enemies of the people" – were, in fact, genocide.
"I make the argument that these matters shouldn't be seen as discrete episodes, but seen together," said Naimark, the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of Eastern European Studies and a respected authority on the Soviet regime. "It's a horrific case of genocide – the purposeful elimination of all or part of a social group, a political group."
Stalin had nearly a million of his own citizens executed, beginning in the 1930s. Millions more fell victim to forced labor, deportation, famine, massacres, and detention and interrogation by Stalin's henchmen.
"In some cases, a quota was established for the number to be executed, the number to be arrested," said Naimark. "Some officials overfulfilled as a way of showing their exuberance."
The term "genocide" was defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention's work was shaped by the Holocaust – "that was considered the genocide," said Naimark.
"A catastrophe had just happened, and everyone was still thinking about the war that had just ended. This always occurs with international law – they outlaw what happened in the immediate past, not what's going to happen in the future."
In his book, he concludes that there was more similarity between Hitler and Stalin than usually acknowledged: "Both chewed up the lives of human beings in the name of a transformative vision of Utopia. Both destroyed their countries and societies, as well as vast numbers of people inside and outside their own states. Both, in the end, were genocidaires."
All early drafts of the U.N. genocide convention included social and political groups in its definition. But one hand that wasn't in the room guided the pen. The Soviet delegation vetoed any definition of genocide that might include the actions of its leader, Joseph Stalin. The Allies, exhausted by war, were loyal to their Soviet allies – to the detriment of subsequent generations.
Naimark argues that that the narrow definition of genocide is the dictator's unacknowledged legacy to us today.
Accounts "gloss over the genocidal character of the Soviet regime in the 1930s, which killed systematically rather than episodically," said Naimark. In the process of collectivization, for example, 30,000 kulaks were killed directly, mostly shot on the spot. About 2 million were forcibly deported to the Far North and Siberia.
They were called "enemies of the people," as well as swine, dogs, cockroaches, scum, vermin, filth, garbage, half animals, apes. Activists promoted murderous slogans: "We will exile the kulak by the thousand when necessary – shoot the kulak breed." "We will make soap of kulaks." "Our class enemies must be wiped off the face of the earth."
One Soviet report noted that gangs "drove the dekulakized naked in the streets, beat them, organized drinking bouts in their houses, shot over their heads, forced them to dig their own graves, undressed women and searched them, stole valuables, money, etc."
A dispossessed kulak and his family in front of their home in Udachne village in Donets'ka oblast', 1930s
The destruction of the kulak class triggered the Ukrainian famine, during which 3 million to 5 million peasants died of starvation.
"There is a great deal of evidence of government connivance in the circumstances that brought on the shortage of grain and bad harvests in the first place and made it impossible for Ukrainians to find food for their survival," Naimark writes.
Shipment of grain from the Chervonyi Step collective farm to a procurement center, Kyivs'ka oblast', 1932. The sign reads 'Socialists' bread instead of kulak's bread.'
We will never know how many millions Stalin killed. "And yet somehow Stalin gets a pass," Ian Frazier wrote in a recent New Yorker article about the gulags. "People know he was horrible, but he has not yet been declared horrible officially."
Time magazine put Stalin on its cover 11 times. Russian public opinion polls still rank him near the top of the greatest leaders of Russian history, as if he were just another one of the powerful but bloodthirsty czars.
There's a reason for Russian obliviousness. Every family had not only victims but perpetrators. "A vast network of state organizations had to be mobilized to seize and kill that many people," Naimark wrote, estimating that tens of thousands were accomplices.
"How much can you move on? Can you put it in your past? How is a national identity formed when a central part of it is a crime?" Naimark asked. "The Germans have gone about it the right way," he said, pointing out that the Germany has pioneered research about the Holocaust and the crimes of the Nazi regime. "Through denial and obfuscation, the Turks have gone about it the wrong way."
Without a full examination of the past, Naimark observed, it's too easy for it to happen again.
Toward the end of his life, Stalin may have had another genocide in his crosshairs. We'll never know whether the concocted conspiracy of Jewish Kremlin doctors in 1952 would have resulted in the internal exile of the entire Jewish population. Whatever plans existed ended abruptly with Stalin's death in March 1953, as rumors of Jewish deportations were swirling.
One of Stalin's colleagues recalled the dictator reviewing an arrest list (really, a death list) and muttering to himself: "Who's going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years' time? No one. … Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one. … The people had to know he was getting rid of all his enemies. In the end, they all got what they deserved."
Who remembers? If Naimark has his way, perhaps we all will: "Every family had people who died. I'm convinced that they need to learn about their own past. There'll never be closure, but there will be a reckoning with the past."
Daily Mail: In 1953, Stalin wanted to murder at least 20 millions of Jews in the Soviet Union!
Where did they all come from, after SIX MILLION were killed?
National Journal, for the sake of truth and knowledge
History 2003
According to "World Religions and Cultures" (, on the eve of World War I, the Jewish population in the U.S.S.R was estimated at 5.2 million. The 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union was particularly horrific for Soviet Jewry. About 2.5 million Jews were, according to official holocaust teachings, annihilated. Between 1959 and 1989, the Jewish population in the Soviet Union declined by about 900,000. In 1989 a majority of the 1.4 million Jews in the Soviet Union lived in the three Slavic republics. So, where did the 20 millions of Jews (tens of millions) come from, Stalin wanted to murder? However, Stalin's Jewish commissars murdered about 50 million non-Jews in the Soviet Union.
He planned to slaughter TENS OF MILLIONS of Jews ... Now, a compelling new book suggests he was killed by his own henchmen ... to stop this genocidal plot
It was the summer of 1952 and the heart was that of Andrei Zhdanov, a senior Politburo member who had died four years earlier. Zhdanov had supposedly died of natural causes, but Stalin was determined to suggest that he had been killed by the deliberate negligence of his physicians. It was part of the dictator' sinister attempt to convince the Soviet people and world opinion that a vast network of Jewish doctors, secretly backed by America, was conspiring to topple the U.S.S.R. by systematically killing its leaders. ...
Stalin was planning his own version of the Holocaust to rid the U.S.S.R. of its Jewish citizens. ...
For some time, Stalin had been looking for ways to attack the Soviet Jewish community. He feared they had greater loyalty to America because of family ties or because of U.S. support for Israel. And America's political and military power concerned Stalin greatly following World War II. ...
A man who ruled by the cult of the personality, Stalin could not countenance what he perceived as disloyalty and he had a tried and trusted way of dealing with opposition - he simply eliminated it.
He had already overseen the deaths of at least 43 million people from mass starvation, purges, executions and deaths in the labour camps.  Now, with characteristic ruthlessness, he planned to purge the Soviet Union of Jews.
In 1947, he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign. Thousands of Jewish intellectuals, scientists, political leaders and private individuals were interrogated, dismissed from their posts, publicly ridiculed, threatened and imprisoned.
Self-appointed citizen's committees would tour towns and villages to find out who were 'true' Russians and who were not.
All Jewish theatres were closed, and the statue of the Jewish composer Felix Mendelssohn was removed from the Grand Hall of the Moscow Conservatory. On Stalin's direct orders, Solomon Mikhoels, an internationally respected Jewish actor and director, was deliberately crushed beneath the wheels of a lorry and his body abandoned in a side street in a clumsy attempt to make it look like a road accident.
US-Präsident Harry S. Truman praised Stalin in 1948:
"I like old Joe Stalin. He is a nice guy."
DER SPIEGEL (Germany), 30/1999,p.120
By 1950, many other leading Jewish figures had been executed. Stalin was turning public opinion against the Jewish intelligentsia, but if he was to act against the entire Jewish population he would need 'evidence' of a major Jewish conspiracy against the U.S.S.R.
It was then that he remembered the death of Zhdanov and the letter from Dr. Timashuk with her concerns about his treatment. ...
His opportunity came in November 1950 when an eminent Jewish physician, Dr. Yakov Etinger, was arrested for uttering anti-Soviet thoughts to his friends and family. ...
Three months later, Etinger's interrogator wrote to Stalin claiming that Etinger had - conveniently - confessed to 'the villainous murder' of Alesandr Shcherbakov, a relatively minor figure in Stalin's government who had died in 1945. ...
Etinger's dubious confession was never recorded but it was enough for Stalin to sow the seeds of a conspiracy. In the summer of 1951, his underlings set about knitting together the murders of Zhdanov and Shcherbakov to create a plausible picture of a sinister network of Jewish saboteur-doctors. ...
The Soviet public was scandalised by the doctors' alleged crimes. Fantastic rumours circulated that Jewish doctors were poisoning Russian children, injecting them with diphtheria and killing infants in maternity hospitals. ... Public opinion was moving exactly where Stalin wanted it to and he pressed ahead with his plans to purge the Jews. Newly discovered documents show that in February 1953, Stalin authorised the construction of four large prison camps in Kazakhstan, Siberia and the Arctic north. Officially they were for all classes of dangerous criminals, but it is far more likely that Stalin was preparing for a second Great Terror - aimed at the millions of Soviet citizens of Jewish descent.
On March 1, 1953, just two weeks before the accused doctors were due to go on trial, Stalin collapsed at Blizhnaya, a country house near the Kremlin. He had earlier finished a dinner with four members of the Politburo, including his eventual successor, Nikita Khrushchev, and Lavrenti Beria, head of his muchfeared secret police. The party went on until the early hours of the morning and some time after that Stalin fell ill. He died on March 5, 1953, after four days of agony. His death was put down to a brain haemorrhage but has always been surrounded by controversy.
His son Vasily was said to have gone running into the dying man's room shouting: 'They've killed my father, the b*****ds'. Beria supposedly boasted to another Politburo member that he was responsible for Stalin's death, saying: 'I did him in! I saved all of you!' ...
A secret report by the ten doctors who attended Stalin in his last days which has lain unread and unpublished for 50 years reveals that Stalin suffered severe haemorrhaging from his stomach - a fact expunged from the official record at the time, perhaps because it suggested that he had been poisoned by someone slipping rat poison into his drink at that final dinner. Or perhaps Beria simply meant that he and the other Politburo members deliberately delayed calling for a doctor.
Daily Mail, London, May 23, 2003, page 36
"The claim that 5,7 million Jews were murdered, is not true. The number of Jewish victims can only range between 1 and 1,5 million, because there were not more Jews within Hitler's reach." --Ferdinand Otto Miksche, The End of The Present, (Das Ende der Gegenwart) Herbig, Munich 1990, page 107