"

) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

In the early 1930s there was a famine in the Soviet Ukraine that killed 13 million people. Kremlin officials long denied that any such famine took place. In those days, the Soviet Embassy in Washington reported that the Ukraine had the lowest death rate of any Republic in the USSR, that its population was growing at 2 percent a year. How could there be a famine?

Many Western journalists and intellectuals supported Moscow's claim. The British writer, George Bernard Shaw, traveled extensively in Russia and the Ukraine. Feeling certain that the famine was sheer anti-Soviet invention, he mercilessly ridiculed those who said that millions were starving. He wrote, "I did not see a single under-nourished person in Russia, young or old. Were they padded? Were their hollow cheeks distended by pieces of India rubber inside?"

Sadly, Shaw was mistaken. The terror-famine of the early 1930s was all too real. The Kremlin created this famine in order to exterminate a politically unreliable section of the population. Like Shaw, the West accepted Moscow's lies. Evidence was ignored and testimony was suppressed. Only a generation later did the truth finally emerge in all its gory detail.

Of course, Soviet Russia has changed and now we have the Russian Federation. It is only a matter of inheritance that both these states are governed by liars, though the liars have curiously reversed themselves. Under Soviet Russia the pattern of disinformation was to hide weaknesses, atrocities, and ethnic problems. On the other hand, under the Russian Federation the pattern of disinformation serves to expose weaknesses, atrocities, and ethnic problems. This is what KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn calls the "weakness and evolution pattern" in Russian strategic disinformation. According to Golitsyn, with this approach "real and artificial weaknesses in the system are emphasized; readjustments and solutions are presented as failures. ..."

Why present yourself as weak when you are strong?

According to the Chinese general, Sun Tzu, "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."

In the 1930s Soviet Russia was at war with the West. Since all warfare is based on deception, the Kremlin regularly used deception to fool the West. The same logic applies to the Kremlin today. It remains at war with the West. Therefore, its pronouncements are deceptive. In this respect, nothing has changed in Russia.

What we have seen in the 1990s as opposed to the 1930s, is a parade of stories about Russia's weakness. We are shown pictures of Russia's rotting navy. We see the dilapidation of the army. We read of Russia's defeat in Chechnya. We are shown the economic despair of the people, the profound failures on every front. Russia is depicted as a mess, chaos -- on the verge of civil war.

In this context, Russia announced last autumn that it was suffering its worst famine in 40 years. As it happened, the harvest shortfall was only one dimension of the problem. Russia's concurrent financial crunch meant that food imports were in serious decline. In other words, the Russian people were facing starvation. The Western reaction was immediate. "It is in our interest," said Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, "to make sure that Russians are fed through the winter."

As news of the alleged famine unfolded, a few of us in the West noted serious inconsistencies in Moscow's agricultural statistics. Some of us concluded last October that the famine was probably a hoax, that the Kremlin's objective was to obtain excess grain and food for stockpiling in nuclear war bunkers. Such stockpiling conforms to an observed pattern of Russian military preparations.

Naturally, those of us who distrusted Moscow's famine reports were ignored. Our arguments were said to be overly paranoid. The U.S. Congress believed the famine was real. The CIA raised no objections to the famine relief package. Consequently, the Clinton Administration sent Russia more than a billion dollars worth of food. Western Europe sent Russia an additional $400 million in food.

Was the famine real or not?

On Monday The Washington Post reported that Western famine relief to Russia had been unnecessary. The 5 million metric ton shortfall that Moscow had predicted turned out to be a 2 million metric ton surplus. According to the Post article, out of 89 regions in Russia only the Magadan region (in the Siberian Far East) reported food shortages over the winter.

U.S. officials dare not admit they were duped. Like officials of the 1930s who could not admit they were wrong about the Ukraine terror-famine, today's officials are incapable of seeing reality. Even now, new lies are being created to replace the old. This year, Moscow is again claiming an agricultural disaster. This time it is drought and locusts.

What is alarming about Moscow's famine swindle is the West's gullibility and the apparent bankruptcy of our intelligence community. If Russia's worst famine in 40 years did not happen, then what of Russia's supposed nuclear disarmament? What about the state of Russia's navy and army?

The evidence of widespread and continuing Russian deception is overwhelming. The evidence of Western incompetence is also overwhelming."

J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins of the Fourth World War.'

Polly got a 400 million dallar cracker?

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 15, 1999

Answers

And the advantage to Russian attacking the West would be _____________ ??????

They deliberately allowed the demolition of the Berlin Wall as a secret ploy to ________________ ??????

There using nuclear weapons would benefit them by _________________ ?????

Their allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union was a secret plot designed to ________________ ??????

Tell me, is your paranoia a deliberate calculated thingy or is it something that you have no control over?

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 15, 1999.

My friend in Indiana married a Russian woman who is still there, in the Ukraine, working as a translator for a relief organization. She was in tears after a visit to the poor section where they were giving relief--and she and her family don't have very much there although she is working on her Ph.D. and is among "the elite."

Is she lying to her new husband to serve the government disinformation machine? No.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 15, 1999.

Deception is a tool of all governments. Our friends use it as often as our enemies. Much of the reports out of Russia have been viewed firsthand and confirmed. Although some weaknesses have been exaggerated most appear accurate. The Mafia has a stranglehold over the country, the economy is in tatters, many are hungry and unpaid, Yeltsin is viewed more and more as Breshnev by their own people. And yes, Chernobyl did really happen! There is not much to fake with all of Mir's problems. In fact it is the best analogy of all for the current state of the Russian Federation (formerly high flying , but about to come crashing down)!

Snowleopard6 From the Russian Border

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), July 15, 1999.

And the advantage to Russian attacking the West would be _____________ ??????

They deliberately allowed the demolition of the Berlin Wall as a secret ploy to ________________ ??????

There using nuclear weapons would benefit them by _________________ ?????

"Their allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union was a secret plot designed to ________________ ??????

Tell me, is your paranoia a deliberate calculated thingy or is it something that you have no control over?"

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 15, 1999.

Craig, where did you come up with all these moronic questions? None of which were refered to in any way in this article. You might as well of asked how I make my eggs for breakfast.

Chillout and debunk the aritcle and my one statement on it, not any old bunch of crap that comes to mind.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 15, 1999.

Craig: "And the advantage to Russian attacking the West would be _____________ ??????

The Russian use of nuclear weapons would likely eliminate a potential enemy that they greatly fear and believe they will have to fight eventually. The Russians have always believed that nuclear war is winnable. Since they are about to be devastated by Y2K (most sources confirm this), why not ensure that your enemy is not around to take advantage of your weakened state. After all, the US and NATO have recently proved that they are willing to use military force offensively to enforce their political will.

Colonel General Makhmut Al. Gareev: "The assertion that nuclear war will not be a continuation of politics is completely fallacious."

M. I. Cherednichenko: "The Armed Forces of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries must be prepared above all to wage war under conditions of the mass use of nuclear weapons by both belligerent parties."

Colonel A. A. Sidorenko: "If the attack succeeds in destroying the defender with the very first nuclear volley, he will no longer be able to offer resistance to the attacker with either nuclear or conventional weapons."

Colonel A. A. Sidorenko: "Preemption in launching a nuclear strike is considered the decisive condition for the attainment of superiority over him and the seizure and retention of the initiative."

Craig: "They deliberately allowed the demolition of the Berlin Wall as a secret ploy to ________________ ??????

J.R. Nyquist: In 1984 a defector went public. In the book "New Lies for Old," KGB Maj. Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed to have direct knowledge of a secret Kremlin plan to fake the collapse of the Eastern bloc. He said the plan was officially adopted in 1960, that its target date for completion was the year 2000. Golitsyn's book anticipated the coming down of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and the Communist Party giving up its monopoly of power in Russia.

J.R. Nyquist: Golitsyn made over 130 predictions in his 1984 book. These were based on his knowledge of Soviet strategy and the psychological warfare technique on which it is based. A researcher made a list of Golitsyn's predictions several years ago and found him to have more than 90 percent accuracy. Golitsyn's predictive success begs further commentary, because as every social scientist or intelligence analyst knows, no methodology has that kind of success unless its underlying assumptions are generally correct.

Craig: "There using nuclear weapons would benefit them by _________________ ?????

It's "their," Craig. Please refer above to the answer to your first question.

Craig: "Their allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union was a secret plot designed to ________________ ??????

J.R. Nyquist: The Communists in Russia changed the name of their party, breaking it into several parties with several names. They broke the Communist machine into sub-machines, relying on their agent networks within various agencies, private organizations, and the press. They forfeited their long-held monopoly of power, transforming it into a kind of managed competition. According to KGB Maj. Golitsyn, this new political formation has been fielded with two objects in mind: to perfect a new system of control which is better able to contain dissent at home and to gain financial assistance from abroad.

They certainly seem to have achieved their second objective, and polls now show the Communists with a large amount of support among the general population.

Craig: "Tell me, is your paranoia a deliberate calculated thingy or is it something that you have no control over?

Tell me Craig, are you naturally a jackass, or is it a deliberately calculated persona designed to curry favor with the pollys on this forum?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

Nabi-

I believe in the "nuclear winter" scenerio as described by Carl Sagan. I also believe most reputable scientists agree with Carl Sagan.

You appear very knowledgeable on the subject and would like to ask if nuclear winter as a deterent has been mentioned in any of your studies? Thanks

-- CD (not@here.com), July 15, 1999.

Regarding the possibility of "nuclear winter," I'll post a recent article by Russian expert J.R. Nyquist.

*******

Is Nuclear War Survivable?

1999 WorldNetDaily.com

As I write about Russia's nuclear war preparations, I get some interesting mail in response. Some correspondents imagine I am totally ignorant. They point out that nuclear war would cause "nuclear winter," and everyone would die. Since nobody wants to die, nobody would ever start a nuclear war (and nobody would ever seriously prepare for one). Other correspondents suggest I am ignorant of the world-destroying effects of nuclear radiation.

I patiently reply to these correspondents that nuclear war would not be the end of the world. I then point to studies showing that "nuclear winter" has no scientific basis, that fallout from a nuclear war would not kill all life on earth. Surprisingly, few of my correspondents are convinced. They prefer apocalyptic myths created by pop scientists, movie producers and journalists. If Dr. Carl Sagan once said "nuclear winter" would follow a nuclear war, then it must be true. If radiation wipes out mankind in a movie, then that's what we can expect in real life.

But Carl Sagan was wrong about nuclear winter. And the movie "On the Beach" misled American filmgoers about the effects of fallout. It is time, once and for all, to lay these myths to rest. Nuclear war would not bring about the end of the world, though it would be horribly destructive.

The truth is, many prominent physicists have condemned the nuclear winter hypothesis. Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson once said of nuclear winter research, "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight."

Professor Michael McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis. McElroy said that nuclear winter researchers "stacked the deck" in their study, which was titled "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions" (Science, December 1983).

Nuclear winter is the theory that the mass use of nuclear weapons would create enough smoke and dust to blot out the sun, causing a catastrophic drop in global temperatures. According to Carl Sagan, in this situation the earth would freeze. No crops could be grown. Humanity would die of cold and starvation.

In truth, natural disasters have frequently produced smoke and dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war. In 1883 Krakatoa exploded with a blast equivalent to 10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than the combined nuclear arsenals of planet earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible weather effects. Even more disastrous, going back many thousands of years, a meteor struck Quebec with the force of 17.5 million one-megaton bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world did not freeze. Life on earth was not extinguished.

Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who said, "Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory." Also consider Professor Russell Seitz, at Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited.

Two researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider stated: "the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability."

OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn't the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone?

The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout.

According to researcher Peter V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world." Of course, delayed fallout would increase the number of people dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says Pry, "these deaths would probably be far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile accidents."

The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of fallout created when a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the attacking country. But short-term fallout rapidly subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will be fine. Those in affected areas can survive if they have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may even suffice.

Contrary to popular misconception, there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout effects. Today's thermonuclear weapons are even "cleaner." If used in airburst mode, these weapons would produce few (if any) fallout casualties.

On their side, Russian military experts believe that the next world war will be a nuclear missile war. They know that nuclear weapons cannot cause the end of the world. According to the Russian military writer, A. S. Milovidov, "There is profound error and harm in the disoriented claims of bourgeois ideologues that there will be no victor in a thermonuclear world war." Milovidov explains that Western objections to the mass use of nuclear weapons are based on "a subjective judgment. It expresses mere protest against nuclear war."

Another Russian theorist, Captain First Rank V. Kulakov, believes that a mass nuclear strike may not be enough to defeat "a strong enemy, with extensive territory enabling him to use space and time for the organizations of active and passive defense...."

Russian military theory regards nuclear war as highly destructive, but nonetheless winnable. Russian generals do not exaggerate the effects of mass destruction weapons. Although nuclear war would be unprecedented in its death-dealing potential, Russian strategists believe that a well-prepared system of tunnels and underground bunkers could save many millions of lives. That is why Russia has built a comprehensive shelter system for its urban populace.

On the American side as well, there have been studies which suggest that nuclear war is survivable. The famous 1960 Rand Corporation study, "On Thermonuclear War," says, "Even if 100 metropolitan areas [in the USA] are destroyed, there would be more wealth in this country than there is in all of Russia today and more skills than were available to that country in the forties. The United States is a very wealthy and well-educated country."

The Rand study states that even if half the U.S. population were killed, "the survivors would not just lie down and die. Nor would they necessarily suffer a disastrous social disorganization."

Despite so many scholarly works and scientific studies, myths about nuclear war persist. These myths serve to confuse and misinform the American public. Because of these myths the United States government did not bother to build fallout shelters for its people. Because of these myths we do not take seriously the nuclear war preparations of Russia and China. Last February I was with the Russian military defector, Col. Stanislav Lunev. We were about to go into a meeting with a group of retired military and CIA officials. I told Col. Lunev that the people we were about to meet did not believe nuclear weapons were usable.

"Why not?" he asked, surprised.

"Because they believe the little fishies and whales would all be killed if there were a nuclear exchange," I replied, sarcastically.

"So what?" replied Lunev. "The Russian general staff doesn't care."

The objective in war is victory. As every good general knows, there are many paths to victory. One of these paths might be a thermonuclear path. If this determination has been arrived at in Moscow and Beijing, it could explain a great deal of what we're seeing today. Hopefully, the situation is not so serious. Nonetheless, we must be vigilant and we must be better informed.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

Very interesting Nabi. Thanks. Hmmm... Interesting dilema I have now. If there truly could be no "nuclear winter", should I feel better or worse? LOL. As with most every subject of this magnitude, I'm sure there are people who would dispute this article's findings. I try to keep an open mind and look at various opinions. I think you've sparked an interest in me for researching this further sometime. Once again, thanks.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 15, 1999.

You are quite welcome, CD.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

CD and friends,

Carl Sagan was wrong about many, many things. God would say "he played the fool".

There will be nuclear war, fairly soon, in the United States. There will be no "nuclear winter" and many will survive. Those who are making substantial y2k preps (food and water-wise) have the best chance of survival. Do not mistake the huge warheads of the 60's and 70's with the smaller devices in the 80's and 90's so that greater accuracy is attained.

Russia and China have many reasons to want us out of their way. I believe the Russia and China will be operating as a "team" against the U.S. as they have been getting very chummy lately. However, China will be the nation that will attack America. The dragon will sail up close to the coast of California and launch missiles. How do I know? God, the Lord of lords, revealed this to me in prophetic dreams. I was shown China's ship near the coast, where it didn't belong, decked for war. As it came in close it frightened me. I watched the firing of the missiles. I saw the mushroom cloud going up and up and up. Don't worry, millions will survive. Just make sure you know Jesus. Trust me, you don't want to hear these words from Jesus at the White Throne Judgement: "...depart from Me, I never knew you".

I know that some do not like any mention of God or religion on this forum. I am not particularly religious myself. But I do have a relationship with the Lord of this universe, Jesus, and like it or not, one day everyone (including everyone on this forum) will bow the knee to Him, willing or not. Jesus appeared to me in a dream before showing me the mushroom cloud and instructed me to "Give (Him) the glory". In other words, "David, this isn't about you, you're just the messenger and America is not the master of its' own destiny. God has His own agenda and will not be mocked by any nation".

Yes, nuclear war is coming to the U.S. You can take it to the bank. Take it from someone who has been given many dozens of "prophetic dreams and visions" that have been accurate predictors of the future. Some have not happened yet as their fullfillment is still in the future. That is why I am urging people to prepare for y2k for the long-term ... because the nation is coming down. Y2K will be just a trip wire many other problems. Clinton and Craig may believe that China has no reason to attack the U.S. but if China has 500million plus slaves that it can't feed, who are getting difficult to control because of y2k and a worldwide business paralysis, what will they do?

What does Clinton do when he gets into trouble at home? He goes to war. So don't tell me that China has no reason to attack America. Besides, Y2K will cause so much chaos among the trading communities that all bets will be off. New geo-political alliances will be formed. Don't be a Neville Chamberlain (sp.?) waving a piece of paper, saying "Peace, peace in our time."

The dragon resents the U.S. in our world-policeman role especially where Taiwan and asia are concerned. Wake-up .... China is flexing its muscles at present. The dragon is on the ascendancy while America is on a down hill slide. We can't even get our missiles launched into the air without them blowing up. Probably the result of sabotage but we deserve it for being so stupid. Just about everything we wear is "made in China" not to mention tools, furniture, computers, etc., etc..

Forgive me for ranting. S. David Bays (sdb)

-- S. David Bays (sdbays@intplus.com), July 16, 1999.

S. David Bays.....I agree with your analysis for unpredictable potential. We have people starving in N Korea and Russia already, add Y2K to the disaster and anything could be possible. Clinton and the liberals have been disarming the US for years, while the Communists have been blowing sunshine up our skirts. I've been feeling that warm glow beneath my kilt since 1992, thanks MISTER PRESIDENT.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 16, 1999.

The whole nuclear winter thing was bad science and more speculative hand-waving than anything else, an attempt by Sagan to disarm Europe of those medium range nuclear missles--weapons that he and others saw as extremely dangerous b/c of their hair triggers. If these Pershings and SS20s were fired, generals only had a couple hundred seconds to decide if an attack was really underway or if it was just a failure in DEW systems.

Freeman Dyson says that he suspects flaws in Sagan's synthesis, himself speculating that dust from a nuclear exchange would more likely resemble a London Fog than the Cretacious/Triassic boundary event. But he also said that he wasn't sure if Sagan was WRONG, either. Read his book of brilliant essays, "Infinite in All Directions" to get Dyson's articulate and careful opinions on this.

I say that Sagan could still have been right, even if he hadn't enough information to back up his findings. The difference between Krakatoa's 10K megatons and a nuke attack is that nuclear weapons will hit over a huge area, not concentrated in one spot as per vulcanic eruption. More surface area in flames means more ash. More ash means a bigger drop in temperature. Even Krakatoa made the world, on average, a few degrees cooler. All it takes is a few more average degrees and serious glaciation could set in.

I don't don't if the Russians consider this. Perhaps. Maybe some do. Maybe some don't. From what I have seen in the Russians I met, most don't have any great yearning to obliterate the West from existence in spite of the hyperbole and genuine anger. Yep they may have paranoid and backward leadership, but these are still a bright and couragous people who'd rather not suffer than suffer, in spite of how tough they are. Russian women pamper their sons in every possible way, and would hate to see them all die in another stupid war.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), July 16, 1999.

Coprolith:

When the time comes for the Russian leadership to answer the call to war, the Russian mothers will have nothing to say about it, anymore than you have much to say about the confiscatory level of taxation occuring in this country. The same thing goes for the Chinese mothers.

Blessings S. David Bays

-- S. David Bays (sdbays@intplus.com), July 17, 1999.