Replies

Thought you might find the following piece by Brig. Gen. Partin of interest.

DEADLY FAILURES IN INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS AND DEFENSE UNPREPAREDNESS
Benton K. Partin
Brig/Gen U.S.A.F. (Ret)
(9-15-96)

The Sino-Soviet Conflict Hoax
In 1957, as the Special Assistant for Advance Weapons Concepts in the Air Force Systems Command Headquarters, I started the Focused Energy Weapons Program. In 1958, I participated in a series of budget briefings in the Pentagon, in which I was defending the Focused Energy Weapons Program budget. In that series of briefings, I was shocked to see certain force structure assumptions based on the high risk hypothesis that there was a genuine and irreversible Sino-Soviet conflict.

What shocked me was the long term national risk. Two hypothesis could readily be made. One, the Sino-Soviet split was genuine and irreversible, or two, the Sino-Soviet split was either a hoax or was reversible. Force requirements would vary greatly between these two hypothesis, depending on the threat. At that time, I considered three levels of threat :

Case I: Dual Threat - - Communist China and Russia would team up if either were directly involved with the U.S. and its allies in a major conflict

Case II: Either Threat - - Either China or the Soviet Union would remain neutral if the other was involved in a major conflict with the U.S. and its allies.

Case III: Either Allied Threat - - Either Soviet or Chinese forces would join the U.S. and its allies in a major conflict with the other.

Our Risk
The risks involved here can easily be seen. If the assumption is made that the Sino-Soviet split is real and irreversible, and years ahead there is a confrontation by a Dual Threat, then the U. S. would be placed at extreme - - if not fatal - - risk. It would be like passing at the crest of a hill on a busy single lane highway. Much would be placed at risk for little possible gain. Neither the legitimacy of the Sino-Soviet split nor its irreversibility could be assured with sufficient confidence to not consider it a potential hoax. We are now those years ahead and we are confronted by a Case I Dual Threat plus an expanded communist controlled world. The naive liberal and leftist solution is to surrender by "convergence" into their global scheme.

Their Gain
I continued collecting information on the Sino-Soviet split for another decade. While attending the Air War College in 1967, I had the opportunity to review the 1928 Program of the Communist International. I concluded that the Sino-Soviet conflict, as a hoax, was one of the highest payoff strategies of the entire communist world movement in its then 200 plus year history. I then wrote a thoroughly documented 155 page report on the Sino-Soviet split hoax entitled: Sino-Soviet Conflict, Competition and Cooperation: Risks in Force Structure Planning. The proposed wide distribution of the report was turned down by the approving group because one member was a propagandist for the legitimacy of the split Several hundred copies were unofficially distributed to key senior leaders.

In that report, written 29 years ago, I listed 50 advantages to the implementation of the 1928 program if the West could be convinced of the legitimacy and irreversibility of the Sino-Soviet split. The first ten of those advantages to implementing the World Communist Program were as follows:

"1. It justified a major reduction in Free World forces and, at the same time, justifies a high level of defense preparedness for both Russia and China." [It resulted in an inversion of the balance of power in the world.]
"2. It induced a complacent, do nothing, if not indifferent attitude toward the critical military balance of power." [It became politically incorrect to even question the Sino-Soviet conflict's legitimacy.]
"3. It Justified a more aggressive Soviet program in 'competition' with China in Asia, Africa and South America." [They were both involved in the generation and support of communist "Wars of National Liberation".]
"4. The 'peaceful coexistence' role of the U.S.S.R. and the supposedly more aggressive role of China complement each other in reducing the Free World For example: one approach worked better in Syria and the other approach worked better in Tibet." [That performance has been repeated many times.]
"5. The Sino-Soviet split helped get the U.S. committed in a big way, but not too big for Russia and China, in a land war in Southeast Asia - - supported by both Russia and China." [While we were dissipating Forces in Vietnam they were consolidating power in the Middle East and North Africa.]
"6. The alleged breakup of the world communist monolith into supposedly 'loose and pluralistic grouping(s) of communist states,' justifies for many the disintegration of the Free World Alliances buildup over many years, for containing communism. 'Polycentrism in the East breeds polycentrism in the West.'" [29 years later, we have a new rendition in Perestroika and a communist world push for a "comprehensive" UN controlled security system under a communist dominated UN. Effort to move NATO into East Europe is part of the dialectic.]
"7. The split justifies a repolarization of the world struggle along specious and phoney lines, i.e , 'The basic conflict is not between the U.S. and Russia, nor ever between the U.S. and China. It is between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism." [Disinformation.]
"8. The Sino-Soviet split has been used to justify a weakening of NATO, i e., "it may have outlived its usefulness." [The central push is now for former Soviet Union countries to come into new groupings in the move toward a "comprehensive" security system.]
"9. The Sino-Soviet split hoax, along with the war in Vietnam, has been used to force the isolation of America on the international scene." [Today, the U.S.A. almost stands alone in opposing a second five-year term for Boutros-Ghali as Secretary General of the United Nations.]
" 10. The Sino-Soviet split and the resulting reapproachment between East and West European countries has contributed to the rise of nationalism in East Europe and a weakening of the West European coalition." [Orchestrated for convergence.]

Report Conclusions - - (written 29 years ago!)
"1. For military force structure planning purposes, the Sino-Soviet conflict must be considered a hoax so as to reduce, if not minimize, long-term national risk."
"2. There is sufficient documented evidence available to severely challenge the popularly held view that the Sino-Soviet split is genuine, deep and irreversible."
"3. From all the arguments and evidence supporting the hypothesis of a genuine split, there are at least as good arguments, and perhaps more consistently reliable information which supports the idea that the popular view of the Sino-Soviet split is specious, misleading and a masterful deception."
"4. The Sino-Soviet split payoff to the communist world, even as a highly advertised genuine conflict, is so great that both Russia and China would be foolish not to exacerbate it for the eyes and ears of the Free World."
"5. The Sino-Soviet split, as a hoax, is one the highest payoff operations of the entire world communist movement since its very beginning."
"6. The Sino-Soviet split payoff to the Communist World, as a hoax, is sufficiently great to make the deception a major foundation - - if not cornerstone of Sino-Soviet foreign policy. Almost no expense or inconvenience would be too great to assure the continued Western faith that the split is genuine."
"7. In the Free World, the Sino-Soviet split thesis offers something to everyone. Almost everyone wishes to believe it. Disbelief creates too many problems in required actions. Therefore, there is a natural propensity to reject any idea that the Sino-Soviet split is not genuine. Moreover, with all the affirming publicity, much stemming from within the Sino-Soviet Camp, we are well conditioned to believe it in much the same way Pavlov's dogs responded to the bells."
"8. The 1928 Program of The Communist International tempered by personality factors, historical necessity, and opportunism, provides a consistent, coherent, reasonably predictably model of understanding of the world socialist movement and Sino-Soviet relations. The popularly held model of Sino-Soviet conflict understanding is inconsistent, incoherent, and unreliable as a basis for prediction and expectation."
"9. Part of the foundation on which the Sino-Soviet split thesis is built, is in fact specified as part of the 1928 COMINTERN Program."
"10. The Future of a free and independent United States and Free World depends to a considerable extent on an accurate understanding of the alleged Sino-Soviet conflict and taking appropriate courses of action."
"11. Assuming as true the model of understanding of the Sino-Soviet split and the world revolutionary processes, hypothesized, developed, and tested in this paper, we should expect the following:"
Predictions - - (made in 1967 - - 29 years ago)
"a. Secret Sino-Soviet cooperation in the democratic penetration, subversion, economic warfare and - - in the more backward countries - - externally supported flagrant aggression and orchestration of wars of national liberation." [Proven by time.]
"b. Continued efforts of communist forces to expand the war in Southeast Asia to increase U.S. commitments." [Proven by time.]
"c. That India will either move peacefully and reliably into the Marxist camp or the liberation struggle will soon move into the violent phase." [Moved toward the Marxist camp.]
"d. The Marxist world will soon exercise hegemony over the Moslem Middle East." [Mostly done.]
"e. A gradual increase in the numbers of Wars of National Liberation in the more advanced 'semi-colonial' countries." [Done. In Canada the conflict thesis is French Separatist, in the U.S.A. it is racial, in Ireland it is Protestant vs. Catholic, in Rwanda it is tribal, Tutsi (mostly Christian) versus Hutu (mostly Animist).]
"f. A continued, but reduced, public exacerbation of the Sino-Soviet split thesis by both Russia and China until they are ready for a major showdown with the U.S. " [Proven by time.]
"g. An increased level of urban guerilla warfare and arson in the U S in concert with increased violence in South Vietnam and increase pressure against mobilization." [Watts, D.C., TET, Tricontinental Congress, etc.]
"h. A globally coordinated attempt by the Marxist world to over saturate U S. commitments, to force a U.S. back down in Southeast Asia, with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary." [Dunkirk type evacuation, Tricontinental Congress success.]
"i. The above sequence fulfillment would be regarded as the completion of another step - - in the struggle for world domination - - that was basically programmed in the 1920's."
Report Conclusions Continued
"12. The strategy of deterrence and massive retaliation tended to ignore the gradual revolutionary processes of wars of national liberation, as they were originally planned and are still being conducted - - with some refinements."
" 13. The strategy of flexible response reacts to wars of national liberation after they have reached the violent phase, and after they have undergone many years of previolent preparation. A more applicable strategy is needed."
" 14. Although there are many causes on which the pre-violent phase of wars of national liberation feed - - and if causes do not exist they are created - - however, under the 1928 Program hypothesis, it is orthodox, doctrinary and practical that the liberation forces require and are provided, external assistance from the Marxist world."
" 15. The World Socialist Movement has progressed to the point where the advantages accruing from the Sino-Soviet split thesis will start to diminish. Under the 1928 Program hypothesis, world socialist solidarity will then become more popularly acclaimed. [Proven by time - - the chiefs of state have already hugged and kissed in public in the treachery of the Leninist/Gramscian Perestroika deception.]
Sino-Soviet Split - - A Disinformation Program!
When KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn published his book New Lies For Old in 1984, I could ascribe considerable confidence to it because the chapter on the Sino-Soviet split was in total agreement with my research and analysis of the same subject at the Air War College 17 years before. Golitsyn called the Sino-Soviet split a DISINFORMATION PROGRAM -- I called it a HOAX.

We both identified it as a high payoff Sino-Soviet strategy. What is so amazing is - - that to my knowledge - - our own senior intelligence people have never deduced the Sino-Soviet split as a disinformation program or a hoax - - at least not for publication. With the new intelligence monopoly being set up under challengeable leadership, it will become even more politically incorrect to call it what it really is. He who controls the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) controls future capabilities.

In Golitsyn's 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception, he concludes that the Sino-Soviet split is the main Soviet disinformation program on which all other disinformation programs depend.

Complex as it may seem, the Sino-Soviet split dialectic is rather simple and straightforward when compared to the dialectics involved in the U.S. "winning the Cold War," the "disappearance of the Soviet threat," the "disintegration of the Soviet empire," and the "democratization of the former Soviet Union" (now ruled by former communists, ex-communists, non-communists and communists).

If at the end of World War II, all of the Chiefs of State in Eastern and Western Europe were former Nazis, ex-Nazis, and Nazis, would anyone believe that we had won World War II?