Eric Zuesse
OpEds

Of humble beginnings, and a devout anticommunist, Missourian Harry Truman left his mark in history, for the worse, but, as usual, larger forces determined the nation's course.

Dr. Marco Soddu’s excellent 13 December 2012 study of “Truman Administration’s Containment Policy in Light of the French Return to Indochina” makes clear that (unlike FDR) President Truman’s historical understanding was poor and vulnerable to shaping by advisors who themselves had poor understanding, or perhaps ulterior motives.

President Roosevelt was far more of a strategic thinker than Truman was, and therefore was far less manipulable. In his 1 January 1945 Memorandum for the Secretary of State (Stenttinius, whom Truman viewed as being soft on communism and therefore Truman replaced him on 28 June 1945, even before deciding irrevocably to start a Cold War), FDR made clear that, “I still do not want to get mixed up in any Indochina decision. It is a matter for post-war.” And, “I made this very clear to Mr. Churchill. From both the military and civil point of view, action at this time is premature.” The aristocracies of both Britain and France were obsessed to continue their empires post-war. FDR held them off, but Truman was strongly inclined to yield to them whenever doing so would be “anti-communist.” He was simply manipulable. He never really understood what FDR’s vision was of the post-war world, nor cared. In fact, on 29 August 1945, in a conversation between Madam Chiang Kai-shek and Truman, “Madame Chiang recalled that President Roosevelt had spoken of a trusteeship for Indo China, whereupon the President stated that there had been no discussion of a trusteeship for Indo China as far as he was concerned.” This far, just a month, into the Cold War (supposedly against communism instead of for forming an all-inclusive global U.S. empire) that he now was committed to, he still had never even thought about what FDR’s vision for the post-WW2 world had been. To Truman, communists personified evil: to him, they were psychopaths and demons — end of story.

By contrast, here was the reason why FDR strongly favored for existing colonies to become taken over, after the War, by the U.N. (which FDR had, since August 1941, been planning to be quite different from what Truman made it), as trusteeships of the U.N., on the road quickly to independence (and Chiang knew at least something about this but Truman either didn’t, or else lied to say he didn’t):

history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1944v03/d708
Memorandum, President Roosevelt to the Secretary of State

FDR—Though a plutocrat by birth and acculturation, he was as decent and visionary as a bourgeois statesman can be.

January 24, 1944

I saw Halifax last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country — thirty million inhabitants — for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning. As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of Indo-China. Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indo-China are entitled to something better than that.
F[ranklin] D. R[oosevelt]]

Another sign of bad faith on the part of the United States against the Soviet Union — besides the Marshall Plan and Operation Gladio (both instituted by Truman) — seems to have been America’s public refusal to accept as being anything other than ‘communist tricks’ the repeated efforts by the Soviets to restore the U.S.-U.S.S.R. joint national-security cooperation that had existed prior to 25 July 1945. America’s responses to each of those Soviet initiatives were insults, instead of welcoming the Soviet proposals and working behind the scenes with them to obtain progress toward the type of world order that FDR had intended — a world order policed by the United Nations, not by the united imperialistic fascists. For example, on 19 September 1959 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Soviet Representative headlined “Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament” and presented a series of proposals including:

https://undocs.org/A/4219
“Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament”

September 19, 1959
P. 14:
The Soviet Government proposes that the programme of general and complete disarmament should be carried out within as short a time-limit as possible — within a period of four years.
The following measures are proposed for the first stage:
The reduction, under appropriate control, of the strength of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China to the level of 1.7 million men, and of the United Kingdom and France to the level of 650,000 men;
The reduction of the armed forces of other states to levels to be agreed upon at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly or at a world conference on general and complete disarmament;
The reduction of the armaments and military equipment at the disposal of the armed forces of States to the extent necessary to ensure that the remaining quantity of armaments corresponds to the level fixed for the armed forces.
The following is proposed for the second stage:
The completion of the disbandment of the armed forces retained by States;
The elimination of all military bases in the territories of foreign States; troops and military personnel shall be withdrawn from the territories of foreign States to within their own national frontiers and shall be disbanded.
The following is for the third stage:
The destruction of all types of nuclear weapons and missiles;
The destruction of air force equipment;
The entry into force of the prohibition on the production, possession and storage of means of chemical and biological weapons in the possession of States shall be removed and destroyed under international supervision;
Scientific research for military purposes and the development of weapons and military equipment shall be prohibited;
War ministries, general staffs and all military and paramilitary establishments and organizations shall be abolished;
All military courses and training shall be terminated. States shall prohibit by law the military education of young people.
In accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, States shall enact legislation abolishing military service in all of its forms — compulsory, voluntary, by recruitment, and so forth. …
(4) Conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the member States of NATO and the member States of the Warsaw Treaty

The U.S. response came a few months later at the “Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”:
s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/TNCD-PV6.pdf
“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”

22 March 1960
Final Verbatim Record of the Sixth Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
P. 36:
Mr. Eaton (United States of America): I have no intention of entering into this discussion on foreign bases. I think the discussions that we have had here this morning have indicated that we shall run into political problems at the very earliest stage, problems on which earlier conferences have foundered. I would only say that the forces of my Government are only employed outside my own country and within my own country for the purpose of defending both ourselves and those of our allies who wish to be associated with us, who welcome our troops as a part of theirs and as a part of the allied defences, and for no other reason. Whenever the time comes when these troops need not be employed, for defensive purposes only, there need be no doubt in the mind of anyone here that those forces will be withdrawn.
s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/TNCD-PV46.pdf
“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”
24 June 1960

Final Verbatim Record of the Forty-Sixth Meeting, Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, p. 4:
Mr. Nosek (Czechoslovakia): What did Mr. Eaton propose? He proposed the introduction of control measures. … exclusively with measures of control, that is with the old and well-known requirement of the United States — the introduction of control over armaments. Apparently with a view to misleading world public opinion, which requires a concrete discussion of general and complete disarmament, the United States representatives are beginning to prefer — for tactical reasons — to call those measures not “partial measures” but “initial steps” on the road to general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

b-ok.cc/book/5398150/073f73
“The United Nations and Space Security: Conflicting Mandates” p. 17:

This [obfuscation and evasion by the U.S. (which on p. 16 was referred to as merely “proposals directed towards the establishment of control without disarmament”)] ultimately led [on 28 June 1960] to the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania not attending the 48th meeting of the Ten-Nation Committee, which signalled the end of these discussions in the Committee.

The U.S. Government refused to discuss the Soviet Union’s proposal for all war-weaponry to be placed under U.N. command, and decision-making only by the U.N., to enforce only U.N. laws — no longer under the command of individual nations (such as by the U.S. regime’s “international-rules-based [i.e., not international-law-based] order.”

Who benefited from America’s refusal even to discuss what had been U.S. President FDR’s aim for the post-WW-II world? The beneficiaries are what Eisenhower when leaving office called the “military industrial complex,” and are basically America’s hundred largest military contractors, especially the owners of the largest weapons-manufacturing firms such as Lockheed. Ike had served them well, and then three days before leaving office warned the public about them so as not to be blamed (along with Truman) by historians, for having created it.

Meanwhile, the German industrialists (such as this) who were likeliest to have been the individuals who had funded Hitler’s rise to power, were let off scot-free at the Nuremberg Tribunals after the war was over. Furthermore, as Bishnu Pathak documented in his 21 September 2020 “Nuremberg Tribunal: A Precedent for Victor’s Justice”, those Tribunals were, even at the time, widely condemned even by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and by the chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Tribunals, as being a “sanctimonious fraud,” a “high-grade lynching party” and nothing more than victors’ ‘justice’, instead of any respectable precedent-setter for the U.N., but Truman and the other leaders of the victor-powers simply did not care — and the U.N. became built upon that acceptance of victors’ ‘justice’: no improvement. One cannot say whether FDR would have caved to that if he had not died first, but certainly the U.S. that followed after him has been the type of tyranny that he had always been scheming to prevent both for the U.S. and for the world.

Nuremberg defendants—The trials seemed to mete out some harsh justice but in reality the Anglo-Americans and the French did their best to save and incorporate Nazis into the global anti-communist crusade, the first "Cold War". This pattern of high-handed hypocrisy continues to this day, with consequences that have put the world on the brink of a nuclear Armageddon.

Furthermore, the OECD or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was set up in 1948 nominally in order ‘to stimulate economic progress and world trade,’ but actually to administer the Marshall Plan. The OECD was just another anti-Soviet U.S. organization, but, since the cash that it was distributing was going to Europe, its initial membership was those countries and it was headquartered in Paris, so as not to seem to be an extension from the U.S. Government. The organization changed its name to OECD in 1961 so as to hide from historians that it had previously been called the OEEC, which was clearly traceable to the Cold War. The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia says that “In 1948, the OECD originated as the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC),[7] led by Robert Marjolin of France, to help administer the Marshall Plan (which was rejected by the Soviet Union and its satellite states).[8]” However, it wasn’t “rejected by” them, but instead rejected them — just like the Marshall Plan itself rejected them.

The 1989 masterpiece by Christopher Simpson, Blowback: The First Full Account of America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Disastrous Effect on The cold war, Our Domestic and Foreign Policy, documented the U.S. regime’s comprehensive employment of ‘ex’-Nazis in order to assist its goal of conquering ‘communism’ but really Russia. Then, on 7April 2024, I headlined a supplementary account, “How & Why the UK, U.S., and Canada, Governments imported Nazis into Canada”, which I closed by saying: “And this is how it came to be that the pro-Nazi Ukrainians in Canada have been organized and effectively represented while the others (the non-Nazi Ukrainians) were suppressed; and, above all, how it came to be the case that America’s armaments-manufacturers and their NATO have thrived while coup-after-coup and invasion-after-invasion have continued to expand the U.S. empire up till the present moment.” All of this was an extension from Truman’s private decision on 25 July 1945, and its extension by Bush’s secret decision on 24 February 1990 to continue it even after communism in Russia would be ended in 1991. Furthermore, my 23 March 2024 “How Germany Is Still Controlled by Nazis” documented yet further, that as regards the anti-Russian aspect of Hitler’s nazism, there was no real change in Germany when the U.S. regime took it over from Hitler (and the rest of it from Gorbachev), other than the necessary cosmetic changes in the new unified Germany, which, of course, required outlawing any public displays of anti-Semitism (as-if Hitler had hated only Jews — Jews were instead his main hatred, but he also hated — and aimed to enslave — all Russians, and, indeed, all Slavs).

I especially recommend reading Christopher Simpson’s masterpiece, because it’s the best book yet done on the then and continuing fraudulence of the U.S. regime’s allegations that the comprehensive denazification of Germany’s Government, which FDR had been intending, and which was central to his planning for the post-WW2 world — and which all three of the Allies, FDR, Stalin, and Churchill, had supported — was carried out, instead of effectively aborted, by Truman and by Eisenhower (with Churchill’s support of aborting it), and by all successive U.S. Presidents and European stooges since then. The inside-the-book excerpts at the Amazon site for Simpson’s masterpiece, give a fair indication of the book, including its “Series Introduction,” by Mark Crispin Miller, which says that, “For over half a century, America’s vast literary culture has been disparately policed, and imperceptibly contained, by state and corporate entities well placed and perfectly equipped to wipe out wayward writings,” including the history that this book documents.

The U.S. Government’s National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) had very reluctantly commissioned it, with an obligation to publish it, but then refused to publish the work because NARA’s top official refused to allow it. The team of investigators, headed by the work’s author, Simpson, finally found a publisher for the work, which was then, and since, suppressed. On 13 November 2010, Eric Lichtblau, whose chaotic anecdotal narrative book The Nazi Next Door was to be published in 2015, was the New York Times reporter headlining “Nazis Were Given ‘Safe Haven’ in U.S., Report Says”, and the newspaper introduced it by saying that, “An internal history of the United States government’s Nazi-hunting operation provides gripping new evidence about some of the most notorious Nazi cases of the last three decades. The Justice Department kept the 600-page report secret for the last four years, releasing a heavily redacted version last month to a private research group that sued to force its release. A complete version was obtained by The New York Times.” The 600-page complete unredacted secret report, titled “The Office of Special Investigations: Striving for Accountability in the Aftermath of the Holocaust”, by Judy Feigin from the U.S. Department of Justice, and dated December 2006, was linked-to in the online version of the article, and it stated, flat-out, on its page 33, that “Congress’ overriding concern at the time was in helping refugees escape communist rule.” In other words: the U.S. Government’s ‘anti-communist’ (actually pro-U.S.-empire) obsession, ever since Truman took over, included assisting Nazis and their supporters to become “refugees” in America and in its (after WW2) colonies (‘allies’). And this has continued, likewise secretly, ever since U.S. President GHW Bush on 24 February 1990 started telling America’s European stooges to secretly continue the ‘Cold War’.

Neo-Nazi ideology has become one of the main protagonists of political and social life in Ukraine since the 2014 coup d'état. And that's a fact. 

No Comment

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

John Varoli
OpEds

The Holy Trinity Lavra in Sergiev Posad

---

My lead above is obviously a play on Winston Churchill’s famous quip in 1939 about Russia being "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

In their effort to support the liberal globalist war machine, major western media unabashedly fabricate their coverage of Russia, a country that they hate because of its defense of national sovereignty and traditional values.

This disinformation is so total and omnipresent that even the most educated and astute minds in the West can fall under its influence. The U.S. has few credible independent media and expert sources, and most Americans don’t have the time and skills to do their own research.

Even I had my doubts — just before departing New York last month, I almost cancelled my trip because I was bombarded with messages from people who tried to convince me that “Putin will abduct” me and use me as “a pawn to exchange” for Russians held in U.S. prisons. I began to wonder — “Maybe they’re right.”

With some apprehension, I boarded the plane and within a day I found myself on the Russian border. This was my first visit in five years. Instead of the lies and disinformation mentioned above, my trip revealed a country with a vibrant civil society where people enjoy far more freedom, economic opportunity and social protections than we do in the West.

---

The Winter Palace on Palace Square, St Petersburg

---

Developing in the right direction

I spent two weeks traveling to five regions — the Leningrad Region, Saint Petersburg, the Novgorod Region, the Moscow Region, and Moscow. I saw life in both provincial towns and big cities, and talked freely to a wide range of people. I traveled on my own schedule, living in local neighborhoods not in hotels.

Even though I visited in March, when the weather is gray and Russians still struggle with winter doldrums, I found the people to be of tremendous heart, goodwill, respect and kindness. I almost felt like I was back in the USA that we had 30 years ago.

The violence, arrogance, rapacity and anger that marked life in Russia when I lived there in 1992 to 2012 seemed to have dissipated significantly. What had happened in the past 12 years to make such a difference….especially when in this same period the U.S. has been on a downward spiral of violence, strife, hatred and collective insanity?

Visiting the tomb of St. Sergius in the Holy Trinity Lavra

Packed houses of worship

Orthodox churches are packed. Unlike the U.S. and Europe that are building ‘progressive’ societies based on secular totalitarian ideology, I saw Russians exhibit sincere devout religious sentiment, visiting houses of worship even during weekdays, and, in general, adhering to a moral code as they went about their daily lives.

Even in Moscow and St. Petersburg the churches were packed, which was very unexpected. Urban dwellers across the globe often have little room for religious faith in their lives. But that’s not the case in Russia. Moscow lives up to its moniker as the “Third Rome”, Christianity’s central city.

With some friends, I visited the tomb of St Sergius at the Holy Trinity Lavra in the Moscow Region. The line of the faithful stretched long to approach the saint’s tomb and leave a prayer request. In the fight with the West, Russia’s monasteries are the country’s ‘secret weapons’. No contraption designed by NATO’s military industries can overcome the spiritual power of Russia’s monasteries and its faithful.

Unlike Zelensky’s Ukraine where the native Orthodox Church has been banned, priests jailed, and churches and monasteries bombed, freedom of religion flourishes in Russia. Traditional faiths are protected from the scorn, derision and persecution that they often face in the West.

No anti-American feeling

Even though I’m a citizen of a country that now sponsors terrorism and fuels a brutal war against Donbass and Crimea, Russians didn’t harbor ill feelings towards me. I had encountered far more anti-American sentiment while living in Russia in the 1990s, a time when relations were rather friendly.

St. Petersburg — Nevsky Prospekt and Griboyedov Canal

---

Rising living standards

The Russian economy is booming and people now live far better than before the year 2000 when Vladimir Putin became president. Unemployment hovers just above 2.5%, and inflation is under control. Interest rates, however, are in the range of 17%, which is a drag on further economic growth.

Even if we put aside the technological and industrial advances of the past two decades that have improved life for most people across the globe, there are specific policy decisions by Putin’s government that have improved the quality of life.

These include his vigorous efforts to improve law-enforcement, restore public safety, as well as smash organized crime and the stranglehold that liberal oligarchs once had over Russia’s economy. Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, the oligarchs siphoned off hundreds of billions of dollars in national wealth, mostly from the sale of natural resources, and then stashed the cash abroad.

To this day, I can personally name Russian gangsters, fugitives from justice in Moscow, who have found a warm welcome in the U.S. This is why some oligarchs in exile can’t forgive Putin and continue to finance so-called ‘opposition figures’ such as the deceased U.S. asset Alexei Navalny.

By ‘rising living standards’ I don’t merely mean material well-being. There are also non-tangibles to consider, such as living in a country where the government protects and supports national cultures, traditional values and sovereignty. This is certainly a major factor contributing to the optimism that I sensed in the air.

Finally, the food — the food is fantastic. Natural. Delicious. Fresh. I surmise this is the result of strict state regulation over the food supply and the quality of ingredients and means of preparation — Something that’s nearly absent in the U.S.

---

With students in St. Petersburg

Vibrant and open discussions

Everyone I spoke to, from the average person in the street to those who I met at events, exhibited an exceptional intellectual curiosity and ability. People were open-minded, eager to discuss and debate. They exhibited a high level of knowledge about their country and the world.

For the most part, the vast majority of Russians sincerely support President Putin, as recent elections prove. There are two main reasons for his massive popularity — he stopped Russia’s disintegration in the 1990s, and his policies have made the country a much better place to live.

Also, I attended a few talk shows on state-run TV where we discussed geopolitics. I was surprised that the TV host always presented the U.S. version of events, even showing western media coverage so that the audience would clearly understand both sides of the issue, and not just the Russian point of view.

Then several of us would go on to discuss, debate and analyze the issue at hand. Never once did anyone try to prep me, control me, prod me or push me to say certain things. In fact, a few of the talk shows were live on air — which goes to show just how much freedom the Russian media allows.

---

 

“Do Not Travel” to Russia?

This could be the finest portrait of Joe Biden (left), capturing the essence of his soul — an evil man who has brought misery and suffering to so many. I suspect that such a portrait is hidden somewhere in a White House attic, something right out of Oscar Wilde’s novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray.

The White House is afraid of Americans traveling to Russia. Why? Because they don’t want us to know the truth about how Putin has succeeded in making Russia stronger and more prosperous, how he protects the national culture and its traditions — All things that most Americans would love to see their own government do.

That’s why the State Department has labeled Russia as “a level 4 risk — DO NOT TRAVEL.” John Kirby, the White House’s national security communications adviser, has said that “If you’re a U.S. citizen, including a dual national, residing in or traveling in Russia, you ought to leave right now. Depart immediately.”

For my part, I can’t wait to return to Russia. And many Americans agree with me. Russia has become a destination for American dissidents and refugees, with a private effort afoot to build two ‘American villages’ outside of Moscow.

---

Soviet heroes

---

Crocus and Russia’s historic mission

My trip to Russia was marred on my last day with news of the heinous terrorist attack in Moscow. Investigators have pretty much proven that Ukraine’s secret services were behind the Crocus City massacre and that the West most likely assisted. Earlier this year, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland had threatened Russia with “nasty surprises”, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Miley threatened “There should be no Russian who goes to sleep without wondering if they’re going to get their throat slit in the middle of the night.”

At the very least, the U.S. and all of NATO bear responsibility for the attacks because over the past two years they’ve incited hatred of Russians through disinformation, as well as by arming the regime in Kiev, and because the CIA actively trains the Ukrainian secret police in committing terrorist attacks and other crimes.

The Crocus City terror attack is a turning point. It’s the nail in the Kiev regime’s coffin, and possibly that of NATO. The attack has only strengthened Russian resolve. Just in the past week, the Russian Air Force has knocked out much of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, and a hunt is underway for agents of its secret services responsible for a multitude of terrorist attacks.

More than ever, Russians understand very well that they’re fighting for their survival, against a formidable coalition of some 50 hostile nations that’s come to their doorstep to continue where Napoleon and Hitler failed. In many ways, we could even classify the liberal globalist onslaught as the ‘spiritual heir’ to the Nazi death cult.

Recent events show clearly that we’ve left the realm of mere geopolitical rivalry between East and West. This is now another epic war against evil. And the past 210 years show conclusively that Russia always emerges triumphant.

---

ABOUT JOHN VAROLI 
Former foreign correspondent for New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters TV. Trained as a U.S. foreign policy expert with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.