There are some stories from history, which clash so violently with our conventional knowledge that our first judgment is to keep them to ourselves. It doesn't matter that they come from good trustworthy sources. If they are true, why haven’t those good trustworthy sources revealed them to the world themselves, but have instead allowed a historical lie to be perpetuated?
The last question is of course disingenuous. We darn well know why: the proverbial sources and methods! The real question must be whether we ourselves, having come into the possession of this kind of knowledge, are allowed to share it?
Of course we are, as long as we do not start namedropping our sources, just because we have nothing else, as far as “hard evidence” is concerned, to back up our story with. However, it makes such perfect sense that this reason alone is worth telling our story, backing it up with nothing else but this reason why we think that it must be told.
Like this one, for instance. A decorated Soviet general, universally acknowledged as a great Russian patriot, much admired by Comrade Stalin himself, entrusted with some of the most daunting tasks in the early stages of Russia’s war with Nazi Germany (including the heroic defense of Moscow), and accomplishing them all with flying colors, suddenly, for seemingly no reason at all, defects to the vile enemy, bent on bringing his beloved Mother Russia down to her knees, and henceforth himself becomes the worst kind of traitor, whose fate--- repentance or no repentance--- is to burn in hell for all eternity.
Come to think of it, a man so bright and charismatic, yet so duplicitous that he could be so much loved and respected by everybody before showing his “true” colors, a man who was able to fool such a perspicacious and famously suspicious judge of character as Comrade Stalin, must be either the devil incarnate, in possession of truly supernatural powers… or an incredible hero, doing all this for the greater glory of Mother Russia!
So, here is the story, told without attribution, told not to be believed to be true, but only to be registered in the mind of the reader, as something worthy of being thought about.
One of the practical outcomes of targeting the United States as the main adversary of the Soviet Union in the world of the future was General Milstein’s (see my blogpost Father Frost) suggestion, eagerly approved by Stalin, to plant Soviet agents as Nazi collaborators, with the far-reaching goal of their prospective postwar recruitment by the United States into an anti-Soviet espionage and sabotage network. This bizarre twisted scheme suggested using them only as "sleepers" under Hitler (read bona fide traitors to their motherland), who would not trust them with anything, anyway. However, after the war they were supposed to “wake up” and using their by now well-established anti-Soviet credentials, infiltrate and disrupt the anticipated anti-Soviet activities of their new Western masters.
The most amazing fact about this scheme is that it was not a joke. In fact, it worked almost exactly along the predicted lines, and some of this has by now become public knowledge. I believe that it was fairly recently reported in the West that some of the leading Nazi collaborators from Eastern Europe and the USSR, later finding home in America and in Western Europe, and actively involved in the planning and execution of the invariably botched postwar anti-Soviet operations, were subsequently exposed as Soviet agents, planted all along in exactly that capacity.
Ironically, the best-ever such Soviet super-agent, carefully selected, psychologically evaluated, and prepared for his “triple cross” mission, had misfired. He was none other than the vastly talented, extremely capable, and fanatically patriotic General Andrei Vlasov. His cover was exposure-proof. He had been hand-picked by Stalin himself, in circumvention and total ignorance of the official channels. His mission was known only to a handful of people, plus one specially assigned psychiatrist who had done his evaluation.
General Vlasov’s name was to become a synonym for “treason.” At the very end of the war, he dutifully surrendered to the Allied troops, but instead of being taken in by the American side, as expected, he was handed over to the Soviet side, to face harsh judgment for treason and inevitable execution. The reader may now ask the obvious question: why did the American side refuse to take him in, when so many others, Nazis and collaborators, were given asylum? Some of the latter were later acknowledged as planted Soviet agents, so it wasn’t mere prudence. Once again, why was General Vlasov, the flagship of the lot, and a man who would be a treasure trove for any intelligence service, turned back? This can be explained, of course, by the fact that by then he had become such an odious figure that the Allies did not want to hurt the feelings of their Soviet counterparts, but considering the well-known role of American General Patton, and the "well-leaked" Churchill plan codeworded “Operation Unthinkable,” holding on to Vlasov would have been a relatively minor offense, compared to others. Incidentally, I never bought Khrushchev’s official charge against Beria that he was a British spy, and so I completely exclude the incredible scenario where Beria, who of course had been one of the very few who had known about Vlasov’s real mission, could have tipped the West about it. Besides, had the American side known or even suspected something about General Vlasov’s secret, they should never have given him back like this, earning into the bargain a condemnation of the whole anti-Soviet community (which the United States was otherwise so keen to cultivate), that the Americans had mercilessly delivered a lamb to the wolves… Well, one thing is certain, that for some unknown reason, the American side treated Vlasov as one treats a ticking bomb: get rid of it before it explodes!
And so General Vlasov was in Soviet hands now. What was Comrade Stalin supposed to do with him? Give him a Gold Star for collaborating with Hitler and showing heroism under Soviet torture? Sending this most hated man in Russia off into some quiet retirement pretending that he never existed was out of the question. There had to be a trial, and there had to be an execution. Both were widely reported, and both were closed to the public and to the press.
Was General Vlasov indeed executed, or maybe hidden away at the last moment, under a new identity? I don’t know. But even though after his death the circle of people who knew of his true function must have become slightly wider, no one has ever dared to tell the truth about the man whose tragic mission had been to become one of the worst traitors in the history of mankind.
Will the truth about General Vlasov, the traitor-hero, ever come out? I don’t think so. Certain missions are accomplished only by never (I mean never!) being disclosed…
The last question is of course disingenuous. We darn well know why: the proverbial sources and methods! The real question must be whether we ourselves, having come into the possession of this kind of knowledge, are allowed to share it?
Of course we are, as long as we do not start namedropping our sources, just because we have nothing else, as far as “hard evidence” is concerned, to back up our story with. However, it makes such perfect sense that this reason alone is worth telling our story, backing it up with nothing else but this reason why we think that it must be told.
Like this one, for instance. A decorated Soviet general, universally acknowledged as a great Russian patriot, much admired by Comrade Stalin himself, entrusted with some of the most daunting tasks in the early stages of Russia’s war with Nazi Germany (including the heroic defense of Moscow), and accomplishing them all with flying colors, suddenly, for seemingly no reason at all, defects to the vile enemy, bent on bringing his beloved Mother Russia down to her knees, and henceforth himself becomes the worst kind of traitor, whose fate--- repentance or no repentance--- is to burn in hell for all eternity.
Come to think of it, a man so bright and charismatic, yet so duplicitous that he could be so much loved and respected by everybody before showing his “true” colors, a man who was able to fool such a perspicacious and famously suspicious judge of character as Comrade Stalin, must be either the devil incarnate, in possession of truly supernatural powers… or an incredible hero, doing all this for the greater glory of Mother Russia!
So, here is the story, told without attribution, told not to be believed to be true, but only to be registered in the mind of the reader, as something worthy of being thought about.
One of the practical outcomes of targeting the United States as the main adversary of the Soviet Union in the world of the future was General Milstein’s (see my blogpost Father Frost) suggestion, eagerly approved by Stalin, to plant Soviet agents as Nazi collaborators, with the far-reaching goal of their prospective postwar recruitment by the United States into an anti-Soviet espionage and sabotage network. This bizarre twisted scheme suggested using them only as "sleepers" under Hitler (read bona fide traitors to their motherland), who would not trust them with anything, anyway. However, after the war they were supposed to “wake up” and using their by now well-established anti-Soviet credentials, infiltrate and disrupt the anticipated anti-Soviet activities of their new Western masters.
The most amazing fact about this scheme is that it was not a joke. In fact, it worked almost exactly along the predicted lines, and some of this has by now become public knowledge. I believe that it was fairly recently reported in the West that some of the leading Nazi collaborators from Eastern Europe and the USSR, later finding home in America and in Western Europe, and actively involved in the planning and execution of the invariably botched postwar anti-Soviet operations, were subsequently exposed as Soviet agents, planted all along in exactly that capacity.
Ironically, the best-ever such Soviet super-agent, carefully selected, psychologically evaluated, and prepared for his “triple cross” mission, had misfired. He was none other than the vastly talented, extremely capable, and fanatically patriotic General Andrei Vlasov. His cover was exposure-proof. He had been hand-picked by Stalin himself, in circumvention and total ignorance of the official channels. His mission was known only to a handful of people, plus one specially assigned psychiatrist who had done his evaluation.
General Vlasov’s name was to become a synonym for “treason.” At the very end of the war, he dutifully surrendered to the Allied troops, but instead of being taken in by the American side, as expected, he was handed over to the Soviet side, to face harsh judgment for treason and inevitable execution. The reader may now ask the obvious question: why did the American side refuse to take him in, when so many others, Nazis and collaborators, were given asylum? Some of the latter were later acknowledged as planted Soviet agents, so it wasn’t mere prudence. Once again, why was General Vlasov, the flagship of the lot, and a man who would be a treasure trove for any intelligence service, turned back? This can be explained, of course, by the fact that by then he had become such an odious figure that the Allies did not want to hurt the feelings of their Soviet counterparts, but considering the well-known role of American General Patton, and the "well-leaked" Churchill plan codeworded “Operation Unthinkable,” holding on to Vlasov would have been a relatively minor offense, compared to others. Incidentally, I never bought Khrushchev’s official charge against Beria that he was a British spy, and so I completely exclude the incredible scenario where Beria, who of course had been one of the very few who had known about Vlasov’s real mission, could have tipped the West about it. Besides, had the American side known or even suspected something about General Vlasov’s secret, they should never have given him back like this, earning into the bargain a condemnation of the whole anti-Soviet community (which the United States was otherwise so keen to cultivate), that the Americans had mercilessly delivered a lamb to the wolves… Well, one thing is certain, that for some unknown reason, the American side treated Vlasov as one treats a ticking bomb: get rid of it before it explodes!
And so General Vlasov was in Soviet hands now. What was Comrade Stalin supposed to do with him? Give him a Gold Star for collaborating with Hitler and showing heroism under Soviet torture? Sending this most hated man in Russia off into some quiet retirement pretending that he never existed was out of the question. There had to be a trial, and there had to be an execution. Both were widely reported, and both were closed to the public and to the press.
Was General Vlasov indeed executed, or maybe hidden away at the last moment, under a new identity? I don’t know. But even though after his death the circle of people who knew of his true function must have become slightly wider, no one has ever dared to tell the truth about the man whose tragic mission had been to become one of the worst traitors in the history of mankind.
Will the truth about General Vlasov, the traitor-hero, ever come out? I don’t think so. Certain missions are accomplished only by never (I mean never!) being disclosed…
No comments:
Post a Comment