Posted on 08/17/2006 6:07:20 PM PDT by brain bleeds red
Even if one rejects Golitsyn's overall thesis -- viz., that Gorbachev's changes comprised a long-term strategic deception -- one must still acknowledge that Golitsyn was the only analyst whose crystal ball was functioning during the key period of the late 20th century.
When the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989, the CIA was chastised for failing to foresee the change. "For a generation, the Central Intelligence Agency told successive presidents everything they needed to know about the Soviet Union," said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "except that it was about to fall apart."
Sovietologists both inside and outside CIA were indeed baffled, for their traditional method of analysis had yielded virtually no clues as to what Gorbachev would do. When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in February 1985, after the death of Konstantin Chernenko, analysts like Roy Medvedev preoccupied themselves with trivial details in the Soviet press, and gained no larger view. "The black mourning frame printed around the second page where the deceased leader's picture was run] looked rather narrow," Medvedev observed. "It was still, however, a millimeter broader than the frames used for the second-page announcements of the death of senior Politburo members like Marshal Ustinov, who had died a few months previously." There was nothing in the measurement of picture frames to suggest liberalization in the USSR; therefore, no one suggested it.
CIA's leadership acknowledged that fell short in predicting Gorbachev's reforms, but could provide no real excuse. "Who would have thought that just five years ago we would stand where we are today?" Acting Director Robert Gates told Congress in late 1991. "Talk about humbling experiences." Gates could have said: Our reporting was poor because our Moscow network was rolled up, coincidentally or not, precisely as Gorbachev was coming into power. Gates did not say this, however. Instead, he suggested that "We're here to help you think through the problem rather than give you some kind of crystal ball prediction." This anti-prediction line was echoed by the Agency's deputy director, Robert Kerr, who told Congress: "Our business is to provide enough understanding of the issue ... to say here are some possible outcomes.... And I think that's the role of intelligence, not to predict outcomes in clear, neat ways. Because that's not doable."
Yet someone had predicted glasnost and perestroika, in detail, even before Gorbachev came to power. This person's analysis of events in the communist world had even been provided to the Agency on a regular basis.
In 1982, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had submitted a top-secret manuscript to CIA. In it, he foresaw that leadership of the USSR would by 1986 "or earlier" fall to "a younger man with a more liberal image," who would initiate "changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin."
The coming liberalization, Golitsyn said, "would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed.... The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government; Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government. Political dubs would be opened to nonmembers of the Communist Party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political Censorship would be relaxed; controversial plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited."
Golitsyn provided an entire chapter of such predictions, containing 194 distinct auguries. Of these, 46 were not soon falsifiable (it was too early to tell, e.g., whether Russian economic ministries would be dissolved); another 9 predictions (e.g., of a prominent Yugoslavian role in East-Bloc liberalization) seemed clearly wrong. Yet of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent. Among events correctly foreseen: "the return to power of Dubcek and his associates" in Czechoslovakia; the reemergence of Solidarity" and the formation of a "coalition government" in Poland; a newly "independent" regime in Romania; "economic reforms" in the USSR; and a Soviet repudiation of the Afghanistan invasion. -Golitsyn even envisioned that, with the "easing of immigration controls" by East Germany, "pressure could well grow for the solution of the German problem [by] some form of confederation between East and West," with the result that "demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
Golitsyn received CIA's permission to publish his manuscript in book form, and did so in 1984. But at time his predictions were made, Sovietologists had little use for Golitsyn or his "new methodology for the study of the communist world." John C. Campbell, reviewing Golitsyn's book in Foreign Affairs, politely recommended that it "be taken with several grains of salt." Other critics complained that Golitsyn's analysis "strained credulity" and was "totally inaccurate," or became so exercised as to accuse him of being the "demented" proponent of "cosmic theories." The University of North Carolina's James R. Kuhlman declared that Golitsyn's new methodology would "not withstand rigorous examination. Oxford historian R.W. Johnson dismissed Golitsyn's views as "nonsense." British journalist Tom Mangold even went so far as to say, in 1990 -- well after Golitsyn's prescience had become clear -- that "As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive." Mangold reached this conclusion by listing six of Golitsyn's apparently incorrect predictions and ignoring the 139 correct ones.
Golitsyn's analysis was as little appreciated within CIA as it was in the outside world. "Unfortunate is the only term for this book," an Agency reader noted in an official 1985 review. A CIA analyst took Golitsyn to task for making "unsupported allegations without sufficient (or sometimes any) evidence," and for this reason would be "embarrassed to recommend the whole." Golitsyn's case, other words, was deductive: He had no "hard evidence," no transcript of a secret meeting in which Gorbachev said the would do all these things. Perhaps most fundamentally, as the philosopher William James once noted, "we tend to disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use." Who had any use, in the end, for Golitsyn's belief that the coming glasnost and perestroika would merely constitute the "final phase" of a long-term KGB strategy to "dominate the world"?
Yeah, that's the ticket... A Commie agent!!!
You ought to calm down, junior.
That is your opinion not theirs.
"First thing's first...
Reagan's legacy nearly uncovered the Russian plan, as Russia almost did genuinely collapse. The Soviets only held power through the control of the Russian, Belarussian, and Kazak militaries, and their police (FSB, SVR, Belarus KGB, ect). Some also held seats on the Duma with different party facades, and also owned various businesses. It was not until Putin took power that the Soviets returned to power in Russia and all hope to properly correct the Russian problem was lost."
First Things First - Wow - you really are living in a fanstasy world based on incorrect assumptions and inaccurate portrayals of history. Let's get you some help:
This statement:
"The Soviets only held power through the control of the Russian, Belarussian, and Kazak militaries, and their police (FSB, SVR, Belarus KGB, ect). "
Is incredibly WRONG. The SOVIETS (read carefully) held power through the control of the SOVIET (read carefully) KGB, SOVIET MVD, SOVIET CC CPSU, SOVIET Armed Forces. Full STOP. The FSB, SVR, Belarusian KGB, etc., came about AFTER the Fall of the Soviet Union. The KGB was broken up by Yeltsin and made into the FSB (domestic - like the FBI), SVR (Foreign Intel, like the CIA), and FAPSI. This move was resisted, of course, by KGB veterans who were fired and forced to retire. The current Russian MVD, FSB, Russian Military is a JOKE. Barely capable of dealing with internal conficts, let alone international. I base that on dealing with them directly, visiting their military bases, seeing their soldiers begging on the streets, seeing their rusted out equipment, seeing their overweight drunken officer corps and keeping abreast of all the failures and scandals of the aforementioned entities. Perhaps you'd like let us know your sources that contradict my firsthand information and observations backed up with Russian and American analytical sources from various reputable think-tanks and analytical centers?
Second thing's second:
"If Russia has totally abandoned Communism, why is Lenin still on display and a Russian Communist Party? Why did Putin have a giant Soviet throwback day last year during the anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War? Why have Soviet criminals been allowed to go free? And finally, why is a KGB agent in charge of Russia?"
Seattle, Washington has a Lenin statue - so, based on your "logic" the US is also Communist? The US has a Communist Party and various leftist parties - so based on your "logic" the US is Communist. Putin's "giant throwback" during the end of WWII celebrations has been explained ad infinitum ad naseum. Once again - done to honor the vets who fought in that Army's uniform. Nothing more nothing less.
Why is a KGB agent in charge of Russia? Well, because he was ELECTED. So, if you believe in your "logic" when a leftist asks you why a CIA agent (George Bush Sr.) was "allowed" to be President of the USA, what do you say?
Thunder, you don't even understand what "communism" is/was and why it is actually not even close to being returned in Russia. I suggest you do some research before you continue making such inaccurately wild claims. Or perhaps you would like to tell us exactly what, in your opinion, makes Russia a communist state today?
Puhleeze, and what's next? Are you Golytsinites going to say Nostradamus predicted 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina? Anyone can make another person's "prediction" fit to any situation. How about you guys post these "accurate" predictions? BTW, read this carefully - RONALD REAGAN PREDICTED THE FALL OF COMMUNISM IN A SPEECH TO THE RNC IN THE 1960S. IN THIS SPEECH HE LAID OUT EXACTLY HOW COMMUNISM COULD AND WOULD BE DEFEATED. When he was elected he and his administration followed this policy and WON THE COLD WAR.
Face it - If you believe in Golystin you've been DUPED by a very successful KGB disinformation campaign. Hell, they even have you discrediting and labeling men and women in the US Intel Community as incompetent and/or traitorous. Lemme think here real hard - who would actually benefit from convincing American lemmings Golytsin is 100% accurate and a "hero"?
Unbelievable what some are willing to believe when they live in a fantasy world. If you truly think he's right - take a trip to the Former Soviet Union and travel all over the place. Take good notes, make good observations, and tell us how any of those new countries that arose from the USSR's ashes would be capable of posing any sort of threat.
You guys are INCREDIBLE! Hilarious. Let's see your analysis:
You wrote:
"1) Russia had nothing to gain by sending Golitsyn."
First of all, it wasn't Russia it was the Soviet Union (this mistake is common amongst people pretending they actually know something about the USSR and Russia). But most importantly:
The Soviet Union KNEW they were having problems with defectors. They KNEW people would continue to defect from their criminal regime. They KNEW KGB agents defecting were extremely damaging. They also KNEW Angleton's weaknesses and paranoias (thanks to his buddy Philby). They naturally would send someone to get close to Angleton and discredit legitimate defectors and making the information the legitimate defectors provided unbelieved and unactionable. Plus, they had the added bonus of Golytsin convincing Angleton there was a "mole" in his ranks and knew the CIA would become disfunctional in the department Angleton ran. Guess what - THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
"2) For years, Russia was actively trying to KILL him. Even now, unlike most other "defectors", the exact whereabouts of Golitsyn are UNKNOWN."
RUBBISH. Golitsyn is the source of these "someone is trying to kill me" claims. Not what one would call an unimpeachable source. Perhaps he really believes these claims, but he's not even hardly mentioned in the Russian press or documentaries. Other defectors are - Gordievsky, etc. Now why would you think they don't mention Golitsyn or stir up the hatred for him??? Well?
"3) If Golitsyn was a fake, that would mean Russia was WEAK, and sent Golitsyn to create the impression that Russia was STRONGER than they really were by saying Russia was concealing the depth of it's intentions."
You're confused. Understandably so - Golitsyn was sent to cause strife in the CIA, discredit legitimate defectors, and lead analysts down false roads. The crap he wrote about in his books is solely to MAKE MONEY off of paranoics who cannot reason or think for themselves.
What amazes me is the willingness of some Americans to believe a KGB agent's propaganda and disinformation and then the same Americans attack their own intel community. Can you not see clearly who would benefit from this situation?
You forgot the crucial third, and in my opinion most plausible, option - You're a whack job who has lost touch with reality!
There's a Commie under your bed too!
You've got a point.
OK, let's analyze a few hypotheses:
Golitsyn makes extraordinary claims. He does not provide extraordinary proof. In the wake of his known deception, any claims of extraordinary accuracy in his predictions (which Mr. Riebling does not cite) must be considered suspect.
List these so called "accurate predictions" and I'll address each and every one of them. Golytsin is a FRAUD and those who worship him are lemmings.
"What you're forgetting to mention is practically nobody except Angleton believed Golitsyn - the other intelligence agencies couldn't stomach the concept that they had been infiltrated, so they automatically refuted him."
An incorrect assumption. Golitsyn was intially believed, but as his claims and his influence over Angleton grew the more people figured out his ruse. Angleton, under Golitsyn's influence, declared "war" on experienced and loyal intelligence officers. The agency became paralyzed. Golytsin was happy and so were his Soviet masters.
"The ultimate point of Golitsyn's message was that the Soviet Union was stronger than it appeared. The message was not to underestimate the Soviet Union.
Now you tell me why the Soviet Union would want Golitsyn to send that message, implicitly or explicitly?"
Good grief. You cannot figure out why the Soviets would want to appear stronger than they actually were? Come on - think about it again and reform the question.
You don't need Golitsyn to see that Russia is NOT our friend. All you need to do is look at Vladimir Putin and the recent actions of Russia.
bttt
Here's the claptrap Riebling's peddling with my analysis:
R: "In 1984, the KGB defector Anatoli Golytsin predicted a false liberalization in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union whose reforms would be so dazzling that the West would be incapable of retaining a consensus in favor of a strong defense. "
My Analysis" The so-called "False Liberalization" is real liberalization that has seen countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, etc., not only joining NATO and the EU but welcoming the opportunity to assist the US military, allow US military bases on their territory AND supporting the US military in the War on Terror and in Iraq (to varying degrees). Some of the aforementioned countries have outlawed former ranking Communist members from ANY posts in government. Their economies are being based on Western models, they are openly hostile to Russian movements in the area, and would resist any movements recending the fall of the Warsaw Pact, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the fall of communism. Have you even traveled to any of these countries to see this so-called "false" liberalization? It's real, it's happening, and it's irreversable. These developments place Eastern Europe solidly in our camp. Perhaps you'd like to tell the people in these countries, members of Solidarity for example, that they are/were all a part of some elaborate ruse.
R: "In stead of war the communists implemented another plan.(1) This other agenda was not of a military nature, but a flexible strategic retreat in the face of President Reagan's intention to outspend, face down and ultimately destroy the "Evil Empire." Reagan intended to achieve these goals by means of a massive military build-up, moving towards a defense against strategic ballistic missiles (SDI or Star Wars) and capitalizing on the achieved strategic advantages through diplomacy. Though Reagan is now credited with having made some of the decisive moves towards defeating communism by winning the Cold War, this common perception has to be challenged in the light of an alternative interpretation of events."
My analysis: More Rubbish. The remnants of the Soviet Union, in particular, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia (the Slavic countries) are in a dreadful state. Russia, the "big daddy" has a rapidly declining ethnic Russian population, rampant drug use, rampant corruption, a crumbling infrastructure, and most importantly - completely ill-led, ill-equipped, and ill-manned conscript Army and security forces. While they may be making some good $$$$ on oil and arms sales, their internal situation is pathetic and remains pathetic. The riches being taken in via the sale f energy and arms are only enriching a select elite. It's not being "trickle downed" to the people, and rarely goes toward making Russia stronger and more stable.
Until they get a good handle on the aforementioned problems they pose no threat but to themselves. They have proven powerless to completely defeat the Chechen Wahabist terrorists, prevent multiple home-grown terrorist acts, shut down multiple home-grown terrorist groups, control the mafia, control corrupt generals, feed their troops, keep their own soldiers from killing themselves, etc.
Furthermore, their recent forays into the domestic political systems of neighbors have been disasterous - Putin couldn't even swing votes for Yanukovich in Ukraine and actually handed the election to Yushenko (that Yushenko's ineptitude in the presidency and infighting amongst the so-called reformers led to Yanukovich's rebirth is a topic for another discussion and does not relate to False Prophet Golitsyn).
Golytsin's whole premise is based on b.s. . It's almost like a fantasy dreamed up by people who don't want to believe the Soviet Union collapsed - mainly commies. Commmies would LOVE for Golytsin to be correct, but unfortunately, facts and reality are not on their side. Or perhaps, one of the Golytsin lemmings would like to explain just how the "Soviet Union" is going to rise from the ashes when it's Humpty Dumpty Land?
Now a word about "Perestroika" and "Glasnost." I'm probably the only person on FR who was priviledge enough to meet and interact with the late Alexandr Yakovlev. Dr. Yakovlev is known for his book that was published in the West called, "History of Violence in Soviet Russia" this book details Soviet crimes in Russia. But what most people don't know is Dr. Yakovlev, former Amb. to Canada, and former head of the Propaganda Dept in the CC CPSU, was the author of "Perestroika" and "Glasnost." Both plans were implemented to stem the bleeding from the stagnating and rotten corpse that the Soviet Union was. Reagan was kicking their butts and they knew they needed to stimulate the economy. They also knew the economy wouldn't be stimulated unless people could speak out against their corrupt bosses, and present their own ideas. In short, all these programs did was open the lid on the genie bottle and set in motion the demise of the corrupt system. There was nothing they could do about it without killing thousands of their own people. Their last grasp on corking the bottle was the coup attempt 15 years ago - we all know how that ended...
To deny the legitimacy of the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is to discredit the men and women who gave their lives to end it, the men and women who risked everthing to resist it (Walesa, Havel, etc), and to spit in the face of the millions of Eastern Europeans, Ukrainians, and Russians who are working to ensure they do not repeat the failed policies and criminal activities the failed Soviet Union produced.
Reagan was absolutely correct in his planning, flawless in the execution of the planning, and won the Cold War. Only leftists deny this. End of Story.
If you are such an expert on Golitsyn, why haven't you answered the questions I put to you back in post #50?
I'll repeat my reply to post 50 once more. Provide the alleged list of correct predictions and I'll respond to each and every one of them. In the meantime, I've given you a taste of why Golitsyn is wrong in other posts.
==Romanov writes: Provide the alleged list of correct predictions and I'll respond to each and every one of them.
I have provided every single Golitsyn prediction below. Remember, you promised to answer each and every one of them. So have at it--GGG
Below appears direct quotes out of Anitoliy Golitsyns book NEW LIES FOR OLD, which was published by Dodd, Meade & Company © 1984. The below excerpts appear verbatim on pages 327 through 346, chapter 25, "The Final Phase".
“…to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.”
“…introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe, and probably, in the Soviet Union.”
“…and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.”
“A coalition government in Poland would in fact be totalitarianism under a new, deceptive, and more dangerous guise.”
“Accepted as the spontaneous emergence of a new form of multiparty, semi democratic regime, it would serve to undermine resistance to communism inside and outside the communist block.”
“The need for massive defense expenditure would increasingly be questioned in the West.”
“New possibilities would arise for splitting Western Europe away from the United States, of neutralizing Germany, and destroying NATO.”
“With North American influence in Latin America also undermined…”
“…the stage would be set for achieving actual revolutionary changes in the Western world through spurious changes in the communist system.”
“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned.”
“The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world.”
“”Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds.”
“In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism”, “racism”, and “military industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kid of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings.”
“…well be followed by the apparent withdrawal of one or more communist countries from the Warsaw Pact to serve as the model of a “neutral” socialist state for the whole of Europe to follow.”
“Yugoslavia may be expected to play a conspicuous role in the new scenario.”
“A display of Sino-Soviet rivalry for influence in Europe may be expected on the lines of the “struggle for hegemony” already being witnessed in South-East Asia.”
“…to assist in the creation of new, false alignments between communist and noncommunist powers, and…”
“…to break up the existing NATO structure and replace it with a system of European collective security entailing the ultimate withdrawal of the American military presence from Western Europe…”
“…and the growth of communist influence there.”
“…with the single overall objective of brining Iran into an anti-Western alliance with them.”
“The object of the alliance would be to gain control over a strategically vital area of the Middle East.”
“It [the next five years] will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past twenty years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.”
“The overall aim will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favor of the bloc as a preliminary to the final ideological objective of establishing a worldwide federation of communist states.”
“A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.”
“A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.”
“In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.”
“In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.”
“The creation of a world federation of communist states.”
“The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear.”
“The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant.”
“Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a world communist federation.”
“The suggested European option would be promoted by a revival of controlled “democratization” on the Czechoslovak pattern in Eastern Europe, including probably Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.”
“The justification of hard line policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to “democratization” following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene.”
“Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek.”
“Conceivably an announcement will be made to the effect that the economic and political foundations of communism in the Soviet Union have been laid and that democratization is therefore possible.”
“The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinistic actions against “dissidents”….”
“…and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime was condemned in 1968.”
“In the economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslav, or even, seemingly, with Western socialist models.”
“Some economic ministries might be dissolved;….”
“…control would be more decentralized;…”
“…individual self-managing firms might be created from existing plants and factories;…”
“…material incentives would be increased;…”
“…the independent role of technocrats, workers’ councils, and trade unions would be enhanced;…”
“…the party’s control over the economy would be apparently diminished.”
“Such reforms would be based on Soviet experience in the 1920’s and 1960’s, as well as on Yugoslav experience.”
“The party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before.”
“Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968.”
“The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive.”
“Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role;…”
“…it’s monopoly would be apparently curtailed.”
“An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced.”
“The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power…”
“…and the president and deputies greater apparent independence.”
“The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated.”
“The KGB would be “reformed”.”
“Dissidents at home would be amnestied…”
“…those in exile abroad would be allowed to return,…”
“…and some would take up positions of leadership in government.”
“Sakharov [Sakharov was the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, and earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 for his campaigns for nuclear disarmament. He was exiled in 1980 and returned to a hero’s welcome in 1986. He died in 1989.] might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad.”
“The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions.”
“Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party.”
“Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties.”
“Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited.”
“Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers.”
“Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained.”
“There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel.”
“Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.”
“…the dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet “liberalization” when it comes.”
“Further high-level defectors, or “official émigrés,” may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.”
“Since the Soviets signed the CSCE agreements, they may be expected at some stage, at least, to go through the motions with complying with them.”
“ “Liberalization” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates.”
“If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.”
“Western acceptance of the new “liberalization” as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of the communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan.”
“The pressure for united fronts between communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified.”
“United front governments under strong communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries.”
“Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of communist parties would be much revived.”
“The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.”
“The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the CSCE context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO.”
“The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the communist bloc,…”
“…but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a “liberalized” Soviet bloc.”
“Perhaps in the longer run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.”
“The EEC on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops.”
“The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.”
“ “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.”
“The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America, or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seen an alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power.”
“ “Liberalization” in Eastern Europe on the scale suggested could have a social and political impact on the United States itself, especially if it coincided with a severe economic depression.”
“The communist bloc will not repeat its error in failing to exploit a slump as it did in 1929-32.”
“The bloc would certainly have an interest in secretly building up reserves of oil and grain that could be used for political purposes in a time of crisis to support newly established procommunist governments in Europe or else-where.”
“ “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union could well be accompanied by a deepening of the Sino-Soviet split.”
“This might include a rupture in trade and diplomatic relations, an increase in spectacular frontier incidents, and perhaps deeper incursions into one another’s territory on the lines of the Chinese “invasion” of Vietnam in 1979…”
“It would encourage an even closer alignment with China of the United States and any other surviving conservative nations against a Soviet-socialist European coalition.”
“Military cooperation would be included in the alignment and China might go so far as to offer bases in return for help in building up her military potential.”
“A breach in diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and China might complicate but would not interrupt the process of policy coordination between them.”
“…Romaina and Yugoslavia at least might be expected to maintain their representation in Peking if the Soviets were to withdraw or the be “thrown out.” “
“To some extent, Sino-Soviet coordination could be carried on through Romanian and Yugoslav intermediaries.”
“Another possibility is that direct, secret communications links exist between the Soviet Union and China that are not accessible to the West.”
“In addition, there is the possible existence of a secret bloc headquarters staffed by senior representatives of the major communist states…”
“Some of the remaining conservative Third World countries would be strongly drawn toward a socialist orientation.”
“Resistance to communism from the Socialist International would be replaced by a combined communist-socialist drive for Third World influence, backed by economic aid.”
“It would have far-reaching consequences, especially if US aid should be curtailed in response to a severe depression.”
“Cuba, which might follow the Soviet example of “liberalization” (the 1980 Cuban emigration might be part of the preparation for such a move) would play an active role in the liberalization struggle.”
“Those leaders of the nonaligned movement who had close relations with communist countries would try to involve the rest of the nonaligned movement in concerted actions with communists and social democrats to promote the joint aims of procuring the disarmament of the United States and the reduction of its role as a world power; of isolating Israel, South Africa, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East, especially the PLO.”
“A variety of forums-the UN, the OAU, and the Brandt commission on the North-South problem-would be used for exerting political and economic pressure, including, if possible, the denial of oil.”
“In apparent competition with the Soviet Union, China would step up its Third World activity.”
“The United States could be tempted to encourage the growth in influence of China and her associates, such as Egypt, Somalia, and the Sudan, as a barrier to Soviet expansion.”
“American support for China would greatly improve her openings for maneuver and for making false alliances with Thailand and Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other conservative Arab states.”
“It would also open doors for Chinese penetration of Latin America.”
“…more Soviet and Chinese interference could be expected in the affairs of neighbor states.”
“…it [Sino-Soviet rivalry] would not impede their Third World penetration.”
“If the Third World were to be divided into pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese camps, it would be at the expense of the interests of the United States and any other surviving conservative Western nations.”
“The final outcome of support for Chinese influence in the Third World would be the emergence of additional regimes there that would be hostile to the West.”
“A Soviet-socialist European coalition, acting in concert with the nonaligned movement in the United Nations, would create favorable conditions for communist strategy on disarmament.”
“The American military-industrial complex would come under heavy fire.”
“ “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe would provide additional stimulus to disarmament.”
“A massive U.S. defense might be found no longer justified.”
“The argument for accommodation would be strengthened.”
“Even China might throw in its weight in favor of a Soviet-socialist line on arms control and disarmament.”
“After successful use of the scissor strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected.”
“European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace.”
“Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor.”
“The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist”.
“At that point, the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.”
“Convergence would not between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc.”
“The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable.”
“Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise.”
“Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism.”
“The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence.”
“Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking thier idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.”
See post #59
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.