Soviets/Germans Planned Breakup of Ukraine/Eastern in Advance (!!!)

The following is the translated text of the November 14-20, 1991 issue of Tydenik Politika, which appeared in Prague newsstands during that same period. Notice that the Soviets and the Germans reached an agreement to carve up Eastern Europe (to include the Ukraine) before the events themselves occured. If anyone has a scanner and a copy of the book “European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States” by Christopher Story, I would appreciate a scan of page 205, which contains a facsimile of the original Tydenik Politka document in question. Please notice that these Geneva agreements were made BEFORE the breakup of the Soviet Union and therefore anticipated the same (in other words, the breakup of the Soviet Union was a top-down affair). Notes are in brackets.

Tydenik Politika: Private Journal, for Politics and Economics November 14-20,1991 Issue

· The German Federal Republic demands (sic) from the USSR compensation for annexed eastern Prussia and for the area east of the Oder-Niesse. [Note: In the event, Chancellor Helmut Kohl announced in 1990 the final German renunciation of any revision of the Oder-Niesse border with Poland. This is one of the peculiar anomalies of this document; but it does not undermine its significance, given that the division of Czechoslovakia and the destabilization and carve-up of Yugoslavia were accurately anticipated therein].

· The German Federal Republic demand [sic] withdrawal of Soviet influence in the Bohemian-Moravian region. The Soviet Union is unwilling to tolerate in the vicinity of their borders a Czechoslovak Federal Republic regime which does not accept the Soviet gesture that allowed Husak’s regime to fall in Czechoslovakia. The Government of Czechoslovak Socialist Federal Republic is unceasing in its agitation against the USSR and is making the position of the Soviet Government and the President more and more difficult. This is a position that is different from that of the Polish and Hungarian Governments.

· The USSR will [therefore] not object to the splitting of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, due to an insufficient guarantee of political equilibrium in Central Europe and the lack of statesmanship of the Bohemian and Moravian regions within the sphere of economic interests of the German Federal Republic and the political incorporation of these regions into Germany within 12-15 years [clock started ticking somewhere between September-October 1990].

· The Federal Republic of Germany will compensate the USSR for the economic losses thus inflicted on the Soviet Union.

· The Federal German Republic will prepare for a possible decline in popularity of the present Czechoslovak Socialist Federal Republic leadership by preparing groups, having a positive attitude towards Germany and which are acceptable even to the Soviet Union, drawn as an alternative even from left-wing parties [sic], without evident interference in the process of proliferation of political parties. [Note: This represents confirmation that the Czech and Slovak ‘democracies’ are false, controlled exercises in Soviet ‘democratism’: see Part I for ‘democratism’ details].

· With regard to the willingness of Hungary to maintain political and economic stability in the Danube region, the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany will not object to the re-establishment of Hungary with the original boarders, as stipulated by the Trianon Treaty. The Federal Republic of Germany will increase its economic aid to Hungary in order to lift the standard of living in Hungary above that [prevailing] in Slovakia, so that joining Hungary becomes attractive to Slovakia.

· The USSR has no objections to the establishment of a German university and high schools in the regions of Bohemia and Moravia, and to the financing of these schools by Germany.

· The USSR does not object to the breaking-up of Yugoslavia, and supports the transfer of Croatia and Slovenia into the economic sphere of Germany.

· The USSR has no objections to the deployment of [the means of procuring] political destabilization [as subsequently materialized in Yugoslavia].

· The Federal Republic of Germany will not become engaged in issues concerning Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and will not consider them to be an area of [Germany’s] economic interest, above and beyond an acceptable level.

· With USSR will not object to the separation of Ciscarpathian Ukraine in the event of destabilizing activity undertaken by [controlled] Ukrainian nationalists, and its incorporation into a Hungarian Republic.

· The USSR does not object to the gradual colonization of the Czech border areas by Soviets and Germans [sic: probably a reference to Russian ethnic Germans].

I think all of the above needs to be understood in light of Putin's Leninist "logic" layed out by the following excerpt taken from the book "Perestroika Deception", written by KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn (pp 17-19):

‘PERESTROIKA’, THE FINAL PHASE: ITS MAIN OBJECTIVES

‘The new method sees ‘perestroika’, not as a surprising and spontaneous change, but as the logical result of thirty years of preparation and as the next and final phase of the strategy: it sees it in a broader context than Soviet ‘openness’ has revealed.’

‘It sees it, not only as a renewal of Soviet society, but as a global strategic design for ‘restructuring’ the entire capitalist world.’

‘The following strategic objectives of ‘perestroika’ may be distinguished:

For the USSR

(a) ‘Restructuring’ and revitalization of the Soviet socialist economy through the incorporation of some elements of the market economy.
(b) ‘Restructuring’ of the Stalinist regime into a form of ‘Communist democracy’ with an appearance of political pluralism [= ‘democratism’, or false democracy].
(c) ‘Reconsructing’ a repressive regime with a brutal face into an attractive socialist model with a human façade and seeming similarity to the Swedish social democratic system.’

For Eastern Europe

‘Economic and political ‘restructuring’ of the existing regimes into pseudo-social democratic models while preserving specific national historical features such as the strong Catholic Socialist tradition in Poland and the pre-war democratic tradition in Czechoslovakia.’

For Western Europe

(a) ‘Bringing about a new political alliance between the pseudo-social democratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the Euro-Communist parties and genuine social democratic parties in Western Europe.
(b) ‘Restructuring’ political and military blocs—NATO and the Warsaw Pact—and the creation of a singe ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ incorporating a reunited, neutral Germany.’

For the main US alliances

(a) ‘Splitting the United States, Western Europe and Japan.
(b) Dissolution of NATO and the US-Japan security pact, and the withdrawal of US troops from Western Europe and Japan.’

For Third World countries

‘The introduction and promotion of a new Soviet model with a mixed economy and a human face in Latin America, Africa and Asia through a joint campaign by the pseudo-social democratic regimes of the USSR and Eastern Europe and the genuine social democrats of Western Europe led by the Socialist International.’

For the United States

(a) ‘To neutralize the influence of the anti-Communist political right in the American political parties and to create favourable conditions for a victory of the radical left in the 1992 US presidential elections (In this context, Clinton’s stay with top Communists in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union during the latter part of the Vietnam war has profound and disturbing implications—TTS).
(b) To ‘restructure’ the American military, political, economic and social status quo to accommodate greater convergence between the Soviet and American systems and the eventual creation of a single World Government.’

The paramount global objective

‘The paramount global objective of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ is to weaken and neutralize anti-Communist ideology and the influence of anti-Communists in political life in the United States, Western Europe and elsewhere—presenting them as anachronistic survivors of the Cold War, reactionaries and obstacles to ‘restructuring’ and peace. Anyone who warns about Moscow’s true objectives is automatically branded a ‘Cold Warrior’, even by people who have doubts about Moscow’s motives.’

THE ESSENCE OF ‘PERESTROIKA’: AN APPLICATION OF 1920s’ LENINISM

‘The new method penetrates the façade, tears the verbal mask off ‘perestroika’ and reveals its true meaning—which Gorbachev and ‘glasnost’ have failed to do. Lenin’s teaching and the experience of the New Economic Policy [NEP] are keys to understanding the essence of ‘persestroika’ and the reasons for Gorbachev’s downgrading and renunciation of elements of ideological orthodoxy like the class struggle and his emphasis on common interests and the benefits of close cooperation.’

‘Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to ‘resort to all sorts of stratagems, manoeuvres, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge’ to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia in his work ‘Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder’.

‘The new method sees ‘perestroika’ as an application of Lenin’s advice in new conditions. Another speech of Lenin’s in the NEP period at the Comintern Congress in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding ‘perestroika’. ‘Our only strategy at present’, wrote Lenin, ‘is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses around you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.’

THE WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST FEDERATION (should they succeed…taken from Golitsyn’s book New Lies For Old, 1984)

‘Integration of the Communist Bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other Communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic Communist zones, together with new Communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political Communist federation (this is precisely what the Soviets have in mind for the impending EU collective—TTS). Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and ‘differences’ would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation (Golitsyn goes to great lengths in previous chapters to show how the split between the Soviets and the Chinese was completely healed immediately after Stalin’s death…however, they continued the illusion of a split to dupe the West into backing alternating sides, depending on circumstances—TTS). The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the Communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. There might even be public acknowledgment that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the “imperialist” powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined’ (the Soviets have employed this tactic on numerous occasions—TTS).

‘In the new worldwide Communist federation the present different brands of Communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concessions made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine oppositions would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of détente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the Allies during the Second World War. In new Communist states—for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World—the “alienated classes” would be reeducated. Show trials of “imperialist agents” would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for Communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true Communist monolith would dominate the world.’

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.