Stalin in the web of a liberal conspiracy
The consistent revision of the most important outcomes of World War II is a very alarming signal. Never have the attempts to present Hitler and Stalin equally responsible for unleashing this war were not so persistent, purposeful, frankly hostile towards the people of Russia and the Russian state ...
There is no doubt that Stalin's propaganda "identification" as a totalitarian type of policy is used to justify backstage maneuvers of the West in the second half of the 30-ies, aimed at provoking the German-Soviet conflict. It was the policy of appeasement, the constant concessions of London and Paris to Berlin that prompted the Nazi monster to aggressive actions. After a series of victorious campaigns in Europe, the Wehrmacht 22 June 1941 of the year invaded Soviet territory: the implementation of the Barbarossa plan to crush and dismember the Soviet Union began. Another top-secret plan codenamed “OST” provided for “depopulation of a barbaric country”, transformation of the surviving “subhumans” into weak-willed mankurts, and the labor force of German “effective managers” in the East.
It seems that militant liberal historians and political scientists specializing in Stalinist issues are preparing a rationale for a new "blitzkrieg" - without bombing and tank wedges. In the new historical conditions, the Fuhrer’s strategic plans are embodied with the help of advanced information and propaganda technologies, manipulation of facts and meanings, and demonization of those major figures of the Soviet period Russian storiesfirst of all Stalin, who in the West today are trying to be portrayed by criminals who “have avoided their Nuremberg”
Brainwashing goes systemically, comprehensively, offensively. The main operational centers for the implementation of the modern version of the Ost Plan are located in the USA and England ... There are many of them, they are generously funded, they have no problems with personnel. The thesis that the USSR is a totalitarian state and bears equal responsibility with the Third Reich for the outbreak of war, is methodically driven in, hammered, introduced into the heads of North Americans, Europeans, Latin Americans, and inhabitants of other continents. With special sophistication, this "educational work" is conducted in the post-Soviet space.
Achieving recognition by Russia, the successor of the USSR, of “equal guilt” with Hitler’s Germany for unleashing World War II, is precisely such a final scheduled for a tough, multi-way project. It is obvious that the Russian elite agreed with the "de-Stalinization" of national history and national identity, to pay falsified accounts after the announcement of the verdict to the people of Russia will have to be paid in full. Take the same Germany, pressing the trigger of the Second World War: it’s hard to count how many billions of stamps from the state treasury it took for 50 years to recover the damage caused to the victims of Hitler’s aggression. Now the Western community intends to “fork out” Russia for its “totalitarian past” and the ineradicable sympathies of the people towards Stalin. In the West, it is believed that the surrender of positions in this matter and surrender - the usual stereotype of the ruling elite since the times of Gorbachev - are inevitable even now. Western "partners" are convinced that they will not be difficult to insist on their own. The technique has been worked out, in its basis - the conviction that personal financial interest is much more important than the state.
And then the countries “offended” by Stalin and the “repressed” foreigners and their heirs will gain a lot. And will there be enough petrodollars to cover the stated and expected claims from all the victims? Problems with the "evidence" will not. In Russia, there are enough “pragmatic” historians, political scientists, and publicists nurtured on generous grants from Western European and North American research centers. Their voices, their “anti-Stalinist” arguments dominate on television, radio, and the Internet. They insist on "Stalin's fault to be redeemed", on his "criminal conspiracy with Hitler", on the "occupation" of Eastern Europe, on the 40 number of millions of repressed (liquidated) in the USSR.
I remember how in the 90-ies in Santiago de Chile two female scientists from Moscow developed a stormy activity to expose the "crimes of the Stalinist regime": they published articles, gave interviews, quoted secret documents from the archives, access to which was at that time open (and now all the more) only for ideologically stable historians of the “new wave”. A familiar Chilean journalist said, not without surprise: “If you believe everything they say, then Pinochet is righteous and humanist in comparison with your Stalin.” Whatever it was, but the violent anti-Stalinism of the ladies' scientists helped them to make a career and achieve material well-being. Hundreds of liberal historians are now making money on Stalin’s “revelations”, ignoring his growing popularity in modern Russia. The phenomenon of honoring Stalin in 2008 was particularly vivid during the year of the television project “The Name of Russia”. The leader took the third position in the list of the most respected historical figures. Throughout the television project, Stalin was confidently in the lead, and only at the very last moment was Alexander Nevsky in the first place in the ranking.
In the process of collecting materials for a book about the Soviet resident Joseph Grigulevich (Arthur), who worked in the countries of South America in 1940 - 1946, I spent a lot of time in the libraries of Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Santiago de Chile and Caracas, reading the press period of the second world war. Newspaper sources of those years testify irrefutably: for Latin Americans, Stalin was the personification of the heroic struggle of the Soviet people against the Nazi invaders, was perceived by public opinion abroad as a symbol of resistance, historical optimism and social progress. Even the most zealous haters of the “red leader” did not dare to equate him with Hitler.
The communists were considered the most consistent fighters with brown plague. For this reason, US intelligence staff in Latin America established contacts with the leadership of the Communist Parties, and engaged Communists in the fight against the Nazi underground on the continent. To strengthen relations with the allies of the anti-Hitler coalition, Stalin gave the go-ahead to the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943. He advocated constructive relations with the West, took the initiative to consolidate the international dialogue in the postwar period, creating a climate of trust on the world stage. The policies of the West turned into Churchill's Fulton speech in 1946, which gave the signal to unleash the Cold War and declare Stalin the “totalitarian enemy” of Western civilization. The process continues to this day ...
Involvement in power is always fraught with traps. The ideologists of the neoliberal offensive in Russia must be prepared for the fact that the very methods of indiscriminate vilification of the Soviet past and its iconic figures that are used today can return along a boomerang trajectory. Is that why the entire “fifth column” in the Russian Federation has now been raised in a hurry-up and thrown on Stalin’s extradition to the “world community” for indicative and final reprisals against him?
Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter