Cold War Mentality: a new Definition?

To get straight to the point, this topic has been thoroughly discussed here on ATS, looked at from many angles and been exposed as one of the greatest deceptions in recent history, and yet the meme is still persistent.

The persistence of the belief in the illusion of the two great enemys is understandable, almost a century has been spend to create it.
But this is ATS, where ignorance is to be denied, especially in regards to a historical period that is profoundly shaping our perception of the world we live in today.

The paradigm, the Cold War was the result of the Grand Struggle between the US versus the SU, creating "a sustained state of political and military tension between the powers of the Western and the Eastern world", has not only been challenged, but proven to be entirely untrue.
How come it can still be uphold, with the information available and the knowledge we have.

We do know this, however. A clique of American financiers not only helped establish Communism in Russia, but has striven mightily ever since to keep it alive.
Ever since 1918 this clique has been engaged in transferring money and, probably more important, technical information, to the Soviet Union. This is made abundantly clear in the three volume history Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development by scholar Antony Sutton of Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.
Using, for the most part, official State Department documents, Sutton shows conclusively that virtually everything the Soviets possess has been acquired from the West. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the U.S.S.R. was made in the U.S.A. The landscape painters, unable to refute Sutton's monumental scholarship, simply paint him out of the picture.
NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY by Gary Allen
Cold War Hoax

Antony C. Sutton, a British-born economist and historian, was one of the few people extensivly investigating the role the West had played in the development of the Sovjet Union. He summarized his research in a testimony in 1972 before Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party.

In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.

Naturally, his research has been marginalized or dismissed out of hand as 'extreme', during a time when most of the world was deeply entangled in the illusion.

(Personal Disclaimer: As always with figures like Sutton, his role is somewhat controversial, the term: controlled opposition comes to mind. I dont know how much that might be true for his work, but it is nonetheless invaluable for the exposure of the 'power elites'.)

Exerpts from his testimony before Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party.

The information that I am going to present to you this afternoon is known to the Administration. The information is probably not known to the Senator from South Dakota or his advisers. And in this instance ignorance may be a blessing in disguise.

I have spent ten years in research on Soviet technology. What it is ?what it can do ? and particularly where it came from.

In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment, and technical assistance.

The United States is spending $80 billion a year on defense against an enemy built by the United States and West Europe. Even stranger, the U.S. apparently wants to make sure this enemy remains in the business of being an enemy.

Now the ability of the Soviet Union to create any kind of military machine, to ship missiles to Cuba, to supply arms to North Vietnam, to supply arms for use against Israel, all this depends on its domestic industry. In the Soviet Union about three-quarters of the military budget goes on purchases from Soviet factories.

In other words the Soviet military gets its parts and materials from Soviet industry. There is a Soviet military-industrial complex just a there is an American military-industrial complex. This kind of reasoning makes sense to the man in the street. But the policy makes in Washington do not accept this kind of common sense reasoning, and never have done so.

So let's take a look at the Soviet industry that provides the parts and the materials for Soviet armaments: the guns, tanks, aircraft.

The Soviets have the largest iron and steel plant in the world. It was built by McKee Corporation. It is a copy of the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana. All Soviet iron and steel technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. The Soviets use open hearth, American electric furnaces, American wide strip mills, Sendzimir mills and so on, all developed in the West and shipped in as peaceful trade.

The Soviets have the largest tube and pipe mill in Europe, one million tons a year. The equipment is Fretz-Moon, Salem, Aetna Standard, Mannesman, etc. Those are not Russian names. All Soviet tube and pipe making technology come from the U.S. and its allies. If you know anyone in the peace business ask them how many miles of tubes and pipes go into a missile.

All shipbuilding technology in the USSR comes directly or indirectly from the U.S. or its NATO allies.

All Soviet automobile, truck, and engine technology comes from the West: chiefly the United States. In my books I have listed each Soviet plant, its equipment and who supplied the equipment. The Soviet military has over 300,000 trucks - all from these U.S. built plants.

So in the middle of a war that has killed 46,000 Americans (so far) and countless Vietnamese with Soviet weapons and supplies, the Johnson Administration doubled Soviet auto output. And supplied false information to Congress and the American public.

The plain fact, if you want it, is that irresponsible policies have built us an enemy and maintain that enemy in the business of totalitarian rule and world conquest. And the tragedy is that intelligent people have bought the political double talk about world peace, a new world order and mellowing Soviets.

curezone.com

Most of what was presented here has been posted before or is available on the web.
The premise of the this thread is to show that, with the information at hand, it should be virtually impossible to still buy in to the paradigm and fall for the deception of the "cold war charade".

That's why i'm suggesting a new definition for the term ' Cold War Mentality ' : the state of someone, stuck in, still believing the illusion created by a global power elite, to usher in a New World Order.

What do you suggest?

cui bono

.

What you posted proves nothing.

The United States is responsible for the rise of China. Not because the US is Chinas friend but because a small amount of Americans were able to make a pile of money.

Just because technology was sold/acquired means nothing.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Anthony C Sutton...

While I disagree with a lot of what he says and think he ignores many figures, treaties, and numbers among other things, he does have so interesting points.

My favorite book by the man is Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler

It raises many interesting questions, but can be easily refuted on many fronts.

reply to post by freemarketsocialist

What you posted proves nothing.

It proves that almost all Adminstrations during the cold war era, must have suffered from major congnitive dissonance. How do explain this?

"It is paradoxical that an Administration that was noisy in its public anti-communist stance, and quick to point out the human cost of the Soviet system, was also an Administration that gave a gigantic boost to Soviet military truck capacity.” Saul Alinsky

Just because technology was sold/acquired means nothing.

It meant alot to Congress. Aiding the enemy with military equipment or secrets, essentially compromising National Security, is charged with treason.
Let me remind you what the result of this " technology transfer" was.

“In Korea we have direct killing of Americans with Soviet weapons. The American casualty roll in the Korean War was 33,730 killed and 103,284 wounded… The 130,000-man North Korean Army, which crossed the South Korean border in June 1950, was trained, supported, and equipped by the Soviet Union, and included a brigade of Soviet T-34 medium tanks (with U.S. Christie suspensions). The artillery tractors were direct metric copies of Caterpillar tractors. The trucks came from the Henry Ford-Gorki plant or the ZIL plant. The North Korean Air Force has 180 Yak planes built in plants with U.S. Lend-Lease equipment. These Yaks were later replaced by MiG-15s powered by Russian copies of Rolls-Royce jet engines sold to the Soviet Union in 1947.”

Imagine how the american public back then would have reacted, when presented to the information available today. Back then, there was no internet.

reply to post by thesungod


That's why i wrote, i believe him to be a controversial figure. I can see where you could disagree with the conclusions he drew form his research, but not with the facts he gathered.

Most of his research is based on information directly from the State Department. The thread was not so much about Sutton, but more about his findings and the picture that emerges, of a complete different version of history.
I would be curious to know, what part of it can be so easily refuted.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Agreed, but looking at 10% of the picture doesn't give you a 100% answer, I guess is my point.

reply to post by thesungod


I dont think his goal was to provied all the answers.

His work led him to more questions than answers. "Why had the US built-up it's enemy? Why did the US build-up the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts?"

But i think he was absolutely right with some of his observations.

Throughout the period of 50 years from 1917 to 1970 there was a persistent, powerful, and not clearly identifiable force in the West making for continuance of the transfers. Surely the political power and influence of the Soviets was not sufficient alone to bring about such favorable Western policies. Indeed, in view of the aggressive nature of declared Soviet world objectives, such policies seem incomprehensible if the West's objective is to survive as an alliance of independent, non-communist nations. What, then, are the wellsprings of this phenomenon?

When you look at the picture: building up the military infrastructure of the "alleged" arch-enemy, providing technology for missile system etc. with taxpayer money while circumventing and lying to Congress and manipulating the american public to fear and fight this enemy for over 5 decades, what do you see?

reply to post by talklikeapirat


A huge thing, he didn't address...

-President Roosevelt had banned all exports of scrap iron, steel and oil to Japan. The reason for the embargo was the Japanese invasion of China. Japan had lost more than 90% of its oil supply. The economic isolation crippled their economy and military.

I think that is a pretty huge thing to gloss over.

reply to post by thesungod


I dont know if i quite understand where you're coming from.
Is your point, because Sutton has not adressed the decision of the Roosevelt Adminstration to put an embargo on Japan, his research, about how US firms supplied essential (military) technology to the Soviet Union during the cold war, is therefor in question?

If that's case, it would indirectly further prove his observations.
When Roosevelt could make the decision to put in a full trade embargo to cripple the economy of Japan, that had become an enemy of the British Empire by invading its colonies and being an ally of Germany, than how come all the following Adminstrations neglected common sense and literally build up the economy of the Soviet Union?

Satan's kingdom is rising, what we euphemistically call the nwo. All players are in on it.

Eastwood recently gave his speech at the RNC. I though that I'd highlight a few of the points that he made. If one looks at a transcript, I'm not taking these out of context. 

I know what you are thinking 
all left wingers out there, left of Lenin. 
conservatives play closer to the vest 
but they are there, believe me, they are there 
These people are all like-minded
Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. 
now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem 
OK 
terrorists in downtown New York City. 
overrule  
we are moving onwards 
the Russians 
a target date for bringing everybody home
it is my turn 
 absolutely crazy 
Kind of a grin with a body behind it 
weigh both sides. 
devil’s advocating this
A stellar businessman 
maybe still use a plane 
Though maybe a smaller one
big gas  
an ecological man 
we own this country.
It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go 
masochists 
Make my day 

Just like the seemingly disjointed Olympic ceremonies, he is giving you the same message in a seemingly disjointed message. It is their time, devil advocating masochists even more left than Lenin who are willing to use contrived events like Oklahoma and New York to MAKE HIS DAY POSSIBLE. They may still use a plane, but a smaller one. And they are serious and THEY (democrat and republican) ARE LIKE MINDED. 

Everything that we think is "truth" here on Earth is a lie. It's fabricated to keep humanity as slaves. I know that people have had it drummed into their heads that God isn't real and Satan isn't real, but you got to understand, everything that we've been taught was taught by those who worship Satan. They are masochists more left than Lenin. That should scare you.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

That should scare you.

That, or we could learn from the mistakes we have made in the past and realize, we have the power to create the world we want to live in.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


My point is, we helped build up Russia to combat Nazi Germany then after we pushed the building of the curtain...

He also glosses over this little fact. That too many well-educated people moved from East Germany, and some worked in West Berlin and lived in East Berlin (it was cheaper), so the DDR lost money on this. Known as the "Brain Drain".

I don't think you've actual read his books... A synopsis about on the interweb about a book isn't the same as actually reading the whole thing.

reply to post by thesungod


There was no "pushing of the curtain" what ever that means. I dont think he glossed over the fact that eastern scientist moved to-and worked for the west and i dont see how that explains, why US firms have helped to build up most of the Soviet Unions infrastructure, when these countrys were declared enemys.

For the most part of the last century a group of very powerful people, influenced world politics, that was the whole premise of his work. The people involed, the companies, the organisation, the secret societies, the banks are all house-hold names and the patters are always same.
As i said, this thread was not about Sutton and he was not the only one trying to expose this lesser-known part of history.

I've read National Suicide and i grew up in East Berlin, i was 13 when the wall came down.
If you dont want to respond to the questions i was asking, you dont have to.

p.s.: I've read your first sentence again, a more accurate description would be, US firms and banks, namely Ford, General Motors, Union Banking Corporation, Brown Brother, Harriman & Company, Wells Fargo & Company etc., have helped to build up Russia and Nazi-Germany.

While I can accept that the US had a hand in propping-up the SU, I do not believe that they were given technology or assisted in it's development by the US.

Why do I believe that? The Space programs.

The SU was much more advanced than the US and spent more time in space, achieving almost all "firsts" in space exploration to date, and was only squashed by the American moon landing.

If they were being nurtured, why were they more advanced than we were? That seems odd to me.

Here in the US post WW2 we had presidents named Eisenhower then John F Kennedy then Johnson.
The Project Echo reflective balloon satellite was issuing in the Era of broadband satellite communication and there is a recording of Eisenhower making one of the first calls.
Russian and US scientists were in constant contact via projects like VLBI and the Arecibo dish in Puerto Rico.

Took a long time to wind down the defense industry in the US after WW2 and they regularly scared the school kids with civil defense drills. After "Ivy Mike" in 1952 you would think the desire to build nuclear weapons would have waned a little.

Didn't this theory originate from the marajua & '___' soured brain of Noam Chomsky?

Hardly believable... definitely fantastic. By all means head down that rabbit hole if you have that kind of time to waste.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

While I can accept that the US had a hand in propping-up the SU, I do not believe that they were given technology or assisted in it's development by the US.

That is exactly what Suttons research has revealed.

Using, for the most part, official State Department documents, Sutton shows conclusively that virtually everything the Soviets possess has been acquired from the West. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the U.S.S.R. was made in the U.S.A. The landscape painters, unable to refute Sutton's monumental scholarship, simply paint him out of the picture. Gary Allen

You would need to read the pdf i linked in the OP, to see how accurate this assessment is.
Again, Sutton was not the only, but his investigations were the most extensive. His conclusion might be refutable, but not the facts he gathered.

The Best Enemies Money Can Buy

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Because we were Allies before we were enemies? I don't know what so hard to understand about this. We invade Deutschland together. I spent a year in Idar-Oberstein at Strassburg Kaserne, I like Germany. The only part that gets me is the freakishly clean part.

The pulling of the curtain was largely brought on by my country, the USA. Anyway, he ignores whole parts of the reports he takes form the State Department is all.

It's like saying, "Hitler was awesome! He gave us VW and built roads for his country." And completely forget anything else the man did.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


I understand what you're saying, but the PDF does not address that specific question about the space race.

If the US was as intertwined with the SU as this posits, and the SU was much less advanced than the US, why were they allowed to be leap years ahead of the US in the space race?

That's my question.

reply to post by thesungod

The pulling of the curtain was largely brought on by my country, the USA. Anyway, he ignores whole parts of the reports he takes form the State Department is all.

I think you have it exactly backwards, he was one of the few who published information the State Department was trying to suppress.

Suppression of information critical of the Soviet Union and our military assistance to the Soviets may be traced in the State Department files from this 1917 House cable down to the present day, when export licenses issued for admittedly military equipment exports to the USSR are not available for public information.
In fact, Soviet sources must be used to trace the impact of some American technology on Soviet military development.
The Soviet Register of Shipping, for example, publishes the technical specifications of main engines in Russian vessels (including country of manufacture): this information is not available from U.S. official sources.
In November 1971, Krasnaya Zvezda published an article with specific reference to the contribution of the basic Soviet industrial structure to the Soviet military power — a contribution that representatives of the U.S. Executive Branch have explicitly denied to the public and to Congress.

Even today U.S. assistance to the Soviet military-industrial complex and its weapons systems cannot be documented from open U.S. sources alone because export license memoranda are classified data.
Unless the technical nature of our shipments to the USSR is known, it is impossible to determine their contribution to the Soviet military complex.
The national security argument is not acceptable as a defense for classification because the Soviets know what they are buying. So does the United States government. So do U.S. firms. So do the deaf mute blindmen. The group left out in the cold is the American taxpayer-voter.