What do you think?
Rate this book
Judgment in Moscow: Soviet Crimes and Western Complicity
"The movers and shakers of today have little interest in digging for the truth. Who knows what one may come up with? You may start out with the Communists and end up with yourself." --Vladimir Bukovsky
Bukovsky's Judgment in Moscow, called "stunning" by Richard Pipes and "a massive and major contribution" by Robert Conquest, has been published for the first time in English. Margaret Thatcher gave a grant to support the writing of the book, and the initial publication in Russia was paid for by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The book has an introduction by Edward Lucas and an afterword by David Satter.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, legendary Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky had the opportunity to steal thousands of classified documents from the Soviet archives. Judgment in Moscow is about the secrets exposed by those documents. It reveals the inner workings of the Soviet regime and the complicity of many in the West with that regime.
Judgment in Moscow was an international bestseller published in nine languages, but has only now been published in English for the first time. It was previously at Random House, but Bukovsky refused to rewrite parts of the book which accused prominent Westerners of behind-the-scenes dealings with the Soviets. In this edition, the author quotes correspondence with his editor, who says, "I don't disagree, but I simply can't publish a book that accuses Americans like Cyrus Vance and Francis Ford Coppola of unpatriotic -- or even treacherous -- behavior."
Judgment in Moscow is a unique book in every respect. From the source materials on which it is based, and the daring way in which the author obtained them, to his blunt posing as a long-term regime opponent of awkward questions not just about the USSR but also about various forms of Western collusion and complicity with its duplicitous and murderous system, there is nothing else like it. The book's availability today is all the more important because, as the last five years have shown, the issues it raises about a supposedly post-Soviet regime in Russia are still most certainly alive and kicking.
"Vladimir Bukovsky uses the Kremlin's own documents to show how the Soviet Union provided a false face to the world and how Soviet leaders used Western leaders as dupes or willing actors. Judgment in Moscow provides the written Nuremberg trial the Soviets never got when the USSR fell." --Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History (Pulitzer Prize)
"An essential warning of the dangers of collaborating with authoritarian regimes." -- Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and author of Winter is Coming
"The most important work to appear for decades on the Soviet empire and its aftermath." -- Edward Lucas, former senior editor of the Economist, from the introduction
Bukovsky's Judgment in Moscow, called "stunning" by Richard Pipes and "a massive and major contribution" by Robert Conquest, has been published for the first time in English. Margaret Thatcher gave a grant to support the writing of the book, and the initial publication in Russia was paid for by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The book has an introduction by Edward Lucas and an afterword by David Satter.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, legendary Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky had the opportunity to steal thousands of classified documents from the Soviet archives. Judgment in Moscow is about the secrets exposed by those documents. It reveals the inner workings of the Soviet regime and the complicity of many in the West with that regime.
Judgment in Moscow was an international bestseller published in nine languages, but has only now been published in English for the first time. It was previously at Random House, but Bukovsky refused to rewrite parts of the book which accused prominent Westerners of behind-the-scenes dealings with the Soviets. In this edition, the author quotes correspondence with his editor, who says, "I don't disagree, but I simply can't publish a book that accuses Americans like Cyrus Vance and Francis Ford Coppola of unpatriotic -- or even treacherous -- behavior."
Judgment in Moscow is a unique book in every respect. From the source materials on which it is based, and the daring way in which the author obtained them, to his blunt posing as a long-term regime opponent of awkward questions not just about the USSR but also about various forms of Western collusion and complicity with its duplicitous and murderous system, there is nothing else like it. The book's availability today is all the more important because, as the last five years have shown, the issues it raises about a supposedly post-Soviet regime in Russia are still most certainly alive and kicking.
"Vladimir Bukovsky uses the Kremlin's own documents to show how the Soviet Union provided a false face to the world and how Soviet leaders used Western leaders as dupes or willing actors. Judgment in Moscow provides the written Nuremberg trial the Soviets never got when the USSR fell." --Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History (Pulitzer Prize)
"An essential warning of the dangers of collaborating with authoritarian regimes." -- Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion and author of Winter is Coming
"The most important work to appear for decades on the Soviet empire and its aftermath." -- Edward Lucas, former senior editor of the Economist, from the introduction
726 pages, Hardcover
Published May 14, 2019
About the author
Vladimir Bukovsky
41 books29 followersVladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky was a Soviet and Russian human rights activist and writer. From the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, he was a prominent figure in the Soviet dissident movement, well known at home and abroad.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
December 17, 2019
Suppose that at the conclusion of World War II the Nuremberg trials had never taken place. Suppose prominent Nazi leaders such as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering were not arrested or committed suicide, but instead allowed to retire quietly and comfortably in Germany or abroad in countries sympathetic to the Nazi regime. Suppose lesser known Nazi satraps such as Martin Bormann, Adolph Eichmann and Albert Speer assumed positions of leadership in post-war Germany and were the object of unrestrained Western media praise as "moderate reformers of National Socialism", peace loving doves fighting valiantly against the "hardliners" in Berlin. Suppose the Holocaust was labeled by Western academics as not really the result of Nazi ideology but instead the regrettable actions by some overzealous individuals that unfairly tarnished an otherwise noble cause.
Such a situation thankfully did not happen, at least with respect to Nazi Germany. But, as Vladimir Bukovsky has point out in "Judgement in Moscow", the same cannot be said for the Soviet Union. Bukovsky, a famous Soviet dissident, was falsely declared insane by Soviet psychiatrists and locked up in a psychiatric hospital (a tactic that some quacks in the United States are attempting to revive). Unbroken by the experience, he has written extensively about his experiences. "Judgement in Moscow" uses actual Communist Party documents Bukovsky obtained to put the Soviet leadership on trial - a trial that should have happened when the Soviet Union fell, but never did.
The book shown the massive efforts the Soviet leadership made to manipulate public opinion in the West - and the horrifying degree of success they had. Bukovsky provides extensive documentary proof of Soviet manipulation of Western politicians, academics and "peace" movements, evidence sure to raise the tempers of those who were manipulated (and those who know it was manipulation and went along anyway).
The information in Bukovsky's book is relevant today not only for correcting the historical record of the Cold War era. At the time of this review (December 2019) the US House of Representatives is engaged in impeaching the President for ... well, the reasons are murky, but alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections seems to be one of them. Aside from the complete lack of evidence in the charges, the accusation of foreign interference is not a little hypocritical. During most of the Cold War era media corporations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many others were little more than docile stenographers for the Kremlin, eagerly passing on Soviet propaganda blasts as gospel truth.
One especially important conclusion in "Judgement in Moscow" is the demolition of the notion - beloved by Western politicians, journalists and academics - that during the Cold War there was an ongoing existential conflict between "hardliners" and "reformers" in the Kremlin, and that it was the duty of the United States and Europe to side with whomever the "experts" deemed were the reformers. In reality no such division in the Soviet leadership existed: it existed in the imagination of Western leaders who uncritically accepted Soviet propaganda.
This book, along with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago", Dalia Grinkevičiūtė's "Shadows on the Tundra", Loung Ung's "First They Killed My Father", and Chanrithy Him's "When Broken Glass Floats" should be required reading for anyone who believes that socialism can have a humane side.
Such a situation thankfully did not happen, at least with respect to Nazi Germany. But, as Vladimir Bukovsky has point out in "Judgement in Moscow", the same cannot be said for the Soviet Union. Bukovsky, a famous Soviet dissident, was falsely declared insane by Soviet psychiatrists and locked up in a psychiatric hospital (a tactic that some quacks in the United States are attempting to revive). Unbroken by the experience, he has written extensively about his experiences. "Judgement in Moscow" uses actual Communist Party documents Bukovsky obtained to put the Soviet leadership on trial - a trial that should have happened when the Soviet Union fell, but never did.
The book shown the massive efforts the Soviet leadership made to manipulate public opinion in the West - and the horrifying degree of success they had. Bukovsky provides extensive documentary proof of Soviet manipulation of Western politicians, academics and "peace" movements, evidence sure to raise the tempers of those who were manipulated (and those who know it was manipulation and went along anyway).
The information in Bukovsky's book is relevant today not only for correcting the historical record of the Cold War era. At the time of this review (December 2019) the US House of Representatives is engaged in impeaching the President for ... well, the reasons are murky, but alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections seems to be one of them. Aside from the complete lack of evidence in the charges, the accusation of foreign interference is not a little hypocritical. During most of the Cold War era media corporations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and many others were little more than docile stenographers for the Kremlin, eagerly passing on Soviet propaganda blasts as gospel truth.
One especially important conclusion in "Judgement in Moscow" is the demolition of the notion - beloved by Western politicians, journalists and academics - that during the Cold War there was an ongoing existential conflict between "hardliners" and "reformers" in the Kremlin, and that it was the duty of the United States and Europe to side with whomever the "experts" deemed were the reformers. In reality no such division in the Soviet leadership existed: it existed in the imagination of Western leaders who uncritically accepted Soviet propaganda.
This book, along with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago", Dalia Grinkevičiūtė's "Shadows on the Tundra", Loung Ung's "First They Killed My Father", and Chanrithy Him's "When Broken Glass Floats" should be required reading for anyone who believes that socialism can have a humane side.
July 14, 2019
This is a powerful book from a famous Soviet dissident who spent time in prison and psychiatric hospitals, from the age of 20 (beginning in 1963), in the old Soviet Union. It was first published in France and Germany in 1996, and the cowards at Random House in the USA refused to publish it. Finally, Ninth of November Press published the book after 23 years of its first publication abroad. Using actual Communist Party archives, the author documents the duplicity and criminality of the Soviet leaders. It’s quite astonishing and overwhelming at times. What struck me was how complicit—either out of ignorance or naiveté—the intelligentsia in the West were. Bukovsky is highly critical of the USA’s foreign policy, especially détente (a brainchild of German socialists, and the period where détente ruled was the most idiotic period in postwar history according to Bukovsky), “containment,” and the so-called “convergence” theory of the two systems. Nixon, Reagan, and Thatcher come in for some sharp criticism, which is completely understandable given the price Bukovsky paid. He also is highly critical of America’s culture, finding it conformist and not liking it “from the very first moment I found myself there.” We had the Nuremberg trials to hold the Nazi government to account, but no such thing has happened to the Soviet rulers, which is Bukovsky’s most important point: Without a proper reckoning with its past, Russia will never have a decent future. As Bukovsky writes, “for us it meant confrontation with our not-yet-demolished Reich, our own SS—with whom, alas, the entire Western world strove for “peaceful coexistence.” Imagine if the Allies at the end of the Second World War had not demanded the unconditional capitulation of Nazi Germany, but contented themselves with its perestroika. Had that been so, what would Europe be like today? We continue to hunt down senile eighty-year-olds in the jungles of Latin America for the evils they perpetrated half a century ago, but members of the CCP—nothing. It’s astonishing when you think about it like that.
Some of the more interesting points made by Bukovsky:
Explaining how revolutions never happen among the poor and hungry—circumstances in which people are more likely inclined to theft, individual rebellion, or to dull submission—Bukovsky writes: “Expecting justice or freedom from a revolution is incredibly naïve. Every social upheaval brings the worst dregs of society to the fore, and those who were nothing, will become everything.”
You have to love how Andropov admits that the facts contained in The Gulag Archipelago did actually take place. Certain documents speak of “slanderous facts.” LOL!
Bukovsky believes that Andropov was behind the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II, though he found no documents on the subject.
His contrast with how the West dealt with apartheid vs. communism is instructive. After all, apartheid was a local abomination, posing no threat to anyone outside South Africa, aiming no nuclear weapons or tanks in the heart of Western Europe, nor did it attempt to export its immoral ideology. Imagine Nelson Mandela being asked, “How do you feel about apartheid with a human face?” Would he be criticized, like Bukovsky was, by people who say, “You suffered too much from apartheid, of course you can’t be objective.”
Some of the physicists of the Manhattan Project—J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard—willingly shared atomic secrets with Stalin. They worried about the bomb falling into Hitler’s hands, but not Stalin’s?
A historian forced to judge the last century will not understand anything, since Hollywood hasn’t really made a film about the tragedy of hundreds of millions who really suffered under the communist yoke. This is far more serious than being asked, “Are you a member of any communist group?” Bukovsky’s criticisms of the media, Hollywood, and academics is brilliant, and quite scathing (and humorous at times).
The Marshall Plan, the USA’s presence and nuclear umbrella is what saved Europe from communism.
There’s no moral equivalence between the USSR and the West, a typical doctrine of academics. If in the 1920 and 1930s you can speak of their naive faith in socialism/communism, after the 1970-80s, it’s deliberate lies and falsifications. The difference is just as substantial as that between a murder in a fit of temporary insanity and a cold-blooded murder for gain. The French were the first group of intelligentsia that began to give thought to their responsibility for the crimes of communism, under the influence of The Gulag Archipelago.
Bukovsky does predict that socialism is dead and that it will also disappear in China. Keep in mind he wrote this book originally in 1996, and so far, he’s been wrong about this.
Reagan’s defense buildup, SDI, and policies are what brought down the USSR, though intellectuals in the West will never admit it.
Even Chernobyl wasn’t used against Gorby (not until the HBO special in 2019).
Gorbachev was incompetent and was trying to save socialism, not bring it down (his favorite slogan: “give socialism a second wind”). Yet Time makes him Man of the Year?
The “putsch” of August 19th could not have happened without Gorbachev’s knowledge, and it was a ruse to get billions of dollars from the West (some $45 billion) to save Gorby from the “conservatives.” Both perestroika and glasnost were propaganda, Potemkin villages yielding no harvests, and the whole world bought it.
For those who think the Enlightenment was all good for mankind, never forget that Marxism emanated from those same ideals.
The so-called false dichotomy, conceived by the Communist International in the 1930s: If you are for Stalin, then you are against Hitler; and if you are for Hitler, then you are against Stalin. No third option is given, of course.
His idea to stop the Soviet war in Afghanistan: let the soldiers defect to the West. Brilliant.
How the Helsinki Accords were an acknowledgement of the inviolability of the post-war borders of Europe, legitimizing Soviet occupation of East and Central Europe, which is why Brezhnev considered the Accords to be the major achievement of his rule.
What is communism’s legacy? “Millions of victims died in vain; humanity did not become better, wiser, more mature…What can we say in justification to future generations? That we had to survive? But the Germans needed to survive, too, after the First World War, so they followed Hitler. Why, then, were they judged at Nuremberg?”
“Our misfortune lies in that we did not win: communism fell by itself, despite universal efforts to rescue it. And this, if you like, is the greatest secret of the Central Committee documents lying on my desk. So is it really surprising that nobody wants to publish them?”
I can’t believe more people aren’t aware of this book. After reading it, I felt completely justified in my belief that FBI agent Stan should have shot the family of spies at the end of the TV series, The Americans.
Some of the more interesting points made by Bukovsky:
Explaining how revolutions never happen among the poor and hungry—circumstances in which people are more likely inclined to theft, individual rebellion, or to dull submission—Bukovsky writes: “Expecting justice or freedom from a revolution is incredibly naïve. Every social upheaval brings the worst dregs of society to the fore, and those who were nothing, will become everything.”
You have to love how Andropov admits that the facts contained in The Gulag Archipelago did actually take place. Certain documents speak of “slanderous facts.” LOL!
Bukovsky believes that Andropov was behind the attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II, though he found no documents on the subject.
His contrast with how the West dealt with apartheid vs. communism is instructive. After all, apartheid was a local abomination, posing no threat to anyone outside South Africa, aiming no nuclear weapons or tanks in the heart of Western Europe, nor did it attempt to export its immoral ideology. Imagine Nelson Mandela being asked, “How do you feel about apartheid with a human face?” Would he be criticized, like Bukovsky was, by people who say, “You suffered too much from apartheid, of course you can’t be objective.”
Some of the physicists of the Manhattan Project—J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard—willingly shared atomic secrets with Stalin. They worried about the bomb falling into Hitler’s hands, but not Stalin’s?
A historian forced to judge the last century will not understand anything, since Hollywood hasn’t really made a film about the tragedy of hundreds of millions who really suffered under the communist yoke. This is far more serious than being asked, “Are you a member of any communist group?” Bukovsky’s criticisms of the media, Hollywood, and academics is brilliant, and quite scathing (and humorous at times).
The Marshall Plan, the USA’s presence and nuclear umbrella is what saved Europe from communism.
There’s no moral equivalence between the USSR and the West, a typical doctrine of academics. If in the 1920 and 1930s you can speak of their naive faith in socialism/communism, after the 1970-80s, it’s deliberate lies and falsifications. The difference is just as substantial as that between a murder in a fit of temporary insanity and a cold-blooded murder for gain. The French were the first group of intelligentsia that began to give thought to their responsibility for the crimes of communism, under the influence of The Gulag Archipelago.
Bukovsky does predict that socialism is dead and that it will also disappear in China. Keep in mind he wrote this book originally in 1996, and so far, he’s been wrong about this.
Reagan’s defense buildup, SDI, and policies are what brought down the USSR, though intellectuals in the West will never admit it.
Even Chernobyl wasn’t used against Gorby (not until the HBO special in 2019).
Gorbachev was incompetent and was trying to save socialism, not bring it down (his favorite slogan: “give socialism a second wind”). Yet Time makes him Man of the Year?
The “putsch” of August 19th could not have happened without Gorbachev’s knowledge, and it was a ruse to get billions of dollars from the West (some $45 billion) to save Gorby from the “conservatives.” Both perestroika and glasnost were propaganda, Potemkin villages yielding no harvests, and the whole world bought it.
For those who think the Enlightenment was all good for mankind, never forget that Marxism emanated from those same ideals.
The so-called false dichotomy, conceived by the Communist International in the 1930s: If you are for Stalin, then you are against Hitler; and if you are for Hitler, then you are against Stalin. No third option is given, of course.
His idea to stop the Soviet war in Afghanistan: let the soldiers defect to the West. Brilliant.
How the Helsinki Accords were an acknowledgement of the inviolability of the post-war borders of Europe, legitimizing Soviet occupation of East and Central Europe, which is why Brezhnev considered the Accords to be the major achievement of his rule.
What is communism’s legacy? “Millions of victims died in vain; humanity did not become better, wiser, more mature…What can we say in justification to future generations? That we had to survive? But the Germans needed to survive, too, after the First World War, so they followed Hitler. Why, then, were they judged at Nuremberg?”
“Our misfortune lies in that we did not win: communism fell by itself, despite universal efforts to rescue it. And this, if you like, is the greatest secret of the Central Committee documents lying on my desk. So is it really surprising that nobody wants to publish them?”
I can’t believe more people aren’t aware of this book. After reading it, I felt completely justified in my belief that FBI agent Stan should have shot the family of spies at the end of the TV series, The Americans.
July 7, 2019
Great to see this brilliant 1996 work available in English. Vladimir Bukovsky, a top dissident against the Soviet Union, has a clear understanding of the lies and crimes of the old Soviet government and also how these lies and crimes were extended not only into modern Russia, but also the modern 'institutional left' in the West. The book covers heroes such as Solzhenitsyn, Thatcher, and Reagan and villains such as Mitterrand and Gorbachev. Events in Afghanistan and Poland are analysed. Transcripts of Soviet meetings, Central Committee and Politburo, appear throughout giving examples of how Soviet leaders thought. Also discussed is the massive problem with Western people negotiating and making agreements with Soviet leaders, an effort that will always fail because of the Soviet mindset of constant lying and cheating. Also useful is analysis of Soviet disinformation techniques such as 'moral equivalence' and 'false dichotomy.' Bukovsky believes that nothing has changed in the mentality of the Russian government and nothing will change until there is a Nuremberg-style trial for the Communists.
September 20, 2019
Communism is one of the greatest evils perpetuated upon humanity, far worse than Hitler's National Socialism in its durability, far flung reach and its accumulative body count. Yet it remains with us, and it remains an object of favorable if not nostalgic reflection on the part of many on the left. The sins of Communism have never been adequately recognized or definitively condemned as was done with Nazi-ism. Bukovsky rails against that sad fact, and he provides abundant evidence as to the scope of those sins. It should be mandatory reading, along with "The Black Book of Communism" that tabulates the death and human misery over the history of Communism and across the globe.
It is remarkable how much leading voices in the West enabled and facilitated Communist goals, for a variety of reasons. Some, sympathetic to the allure of socialist propaganda, did so willingly and with the intent of furthering the Communist agenda while obstinately refusing to look behind the mirror. Some, looking upon perceived excesses of the West (rather real or not) refused to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the Communist world, accepting them at face value while refusing the same benefit of the doubt to their own capitalist systems. Some just liked the pretty words and the camouflage of high sounding ideals that the Communists used so pervasively to mask the truth, not only from their fans and followers but from themselves and from those they had subjugated. And some were simply intimidated - afraid to upset the Communist monolith or to advocate against the interest groups in their societies promoting the Communist agendas.
We were and are our own worst enemy… the Communists capitalized on it (still do in miniature - China, socialist politicians, etc.). The left/progressives/liberals - call them what they demand because they use the labels to hide behind and so change them as the need arises - and the influence they have gained in media, education and politics are going to end us.
It is remarkable how much leading voices in the West enabled and facilitated Communist goals, for a variety of reasons. Some, sympathetic to the allure of socialist propaganda, did so willingly and with the intent of furthering the Communist agenda while obstinately refusing to look behind the mirror. Some, looking upon perceived excesses of the West (rather real or not) refused to apply the same standards of scrutiny to the Communist world, accepting them at face value while refusing the same benefit of the doubt to their own capitalist systems. Some just liked the pretty words and the camouflage of high sounding ideals that the Communists used so pervasively to mask the truth, not only from their fans and followers but from themselves and from those they had subjugated. And some were simply intimidated - afraid to upset the Communist monolith or to advocate against the interest groups in their societies promoting the Communist agendas.
We were and are our own worst enemy… the Communists capitalized on it (still do in miniature - China, socialist politicians, etc.). The left/progressives/liberals - call them what they demand because they use the labels to hide behind and so change them as the need arises - and the influence they have gained in media, education and politics are going to end us.
July 15, 2021
The book, ‘Britain and European Resistance 1940-1945’, tipped me off to this work.
Everything you need to know about this book is out there already; no need for me to repeat it.
Vladimir Bukovsky, must be praised for his courage. The New York Times called Mr Bukovsky, “a hero of almost legendary proportions among the Soviet dissident movement”.
I would suggest he is a hero of legendary proportions among mankind.
There is much in here and I found the pace rather rapid and so not easy to keep all in mind as the next ‘little gem’ rocks you. I found the need to concentrate and take a multitude of notes: it was not an easy read for me.
I thank him for the work and the opportunity to take a glance at the evidence: the West has many questions to answer. Questions they will evade. Reading this, should be mandatory before leaving school, before being offered the right to vote. Know who you are voting for.
This work will do nothing to change the game and I think Mr Bukovsky must be a most wise individual and know only too well that his efforts will change nothing. Why, I wonder, did he risk his neck? Is he simply a brave man; and wants all to know who they are voting for.
In a fictional book I recently read, somebody in SIS, said, “... all we do is perpetuate the game. We don’t like the thought of losing, but we sure as hell don’t want to win.” I chuckled over that.
In reading this, the thought, 'It seems many in the West didn't want to win', came to mind.
Worth every penny. I will read it again.
Everything you need to know about this book is out there already; no need for me to repeat it.
Vladimir Bukovsky, must be praised for his courage. The New York Times called Mr Bukovsky, “a hero of almost legendary proportions among the Soviet dissident movement”.
I would suggest he is a hero of legendary proportions among mankind.
There is much in here and I found the pace rather rapid and so not easy to keep all in mind as the next ‘little gem’ rocks you. I found the need to concentrate and take a multitude of notes: it was not an easy read for me.
I thank him for the work and the opportunity to take a glance at the evidence: the West has many questions to answer. Questions they will evade. Reading this, should be mandatory before leaving school, before being offered the right to vote. Know who you are voting for.
This work will do nothing to change the game and I think Mr Bukovsky must be a most wise individual and know only too well that his efforts will change nothing. Why, I wonder, did he risk his neck? Is he simply a brave man; and wants all to know who they are voting for.
In a fictional book I recently read, somebody in SIS, said, “... all we do is perpetuate the game. We don’t like the thought of losing, but we sure as hell don’t want to win.” I chuckled over that.
In reading this, the thought, 'It seems many in the West didn't want to win', came to mind.
Worth every penny. I will read it again.
September 4, 2021
Bukovsky’s book was first published in 1996 in Russian. He was banned from Russia after the book came out. There was no English language publication for a while as no one was willing to do so for 20 years. Translations did appear in French and German. He laments that there was no Nuremberg style trial after the collapse of the USSR and argues that the outside world never fully understood the Soviet system. For example, Germany stopped short of putting Erich Honecker on trial because it was feared he would reveal a host of embarrassing stories about West German collaboration and Ostpolitik. He asserts that sections of the KGB and the Communist Party elite rebuilt their power after the end of the Cold War in alliance with crooks and con men. He notes that the internet greatly supports Russian disinformation efforts, to stoke polarization and mistrust within and between countries. The documents he secretly brought out of the Soviet archives are posted on bukovsky-archive.com. He makes some unfair characterizations of Western policies such as referring to Yalta as a betrayal. It seems unlikely FDR had any other option than to accept Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and a promise of free elections given the facts on the ground.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) tightly controlled access to its archives. He learned from them that during the 1980s, Moscow inspired peace demonstrations against NATO’s plans to site medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Moscow also created the 1969 “International Fund to Aid Left-Wing Workers’ Organizations” giving $3.7M to the Italian CP, $2M to the French CP, and $1M to the US CP. Japanese socialists also received illegal funding from the USSR. The Soviets also funded communist party bookstores in Western countries. In 1970, a Central Committee (CC) CPSU memo discussed support of the Black Panthers with the KGB to inspire African countries to defend the rights of blacks and condemn the U.S. government genocide of blacks (to distract the attention of the world away from Nixon’s foreign policy). A headline in the USSR screamed “Free Angela Davis” for accessory to murder, while Soviets sentenced dissidents like Bukovsky to 10 years for reading a book. He describes Soviet foreign policy as criminal activity against humanity with Soviet sponsorship of international terrorism, narcotics, bribery and blackmailing of key figures, and disinformation.
The story of how Bukovsky obtained access to the CC CPSU archives in interesting. Right after the failed putsch against Gorbachev, Yeltsin ordered the CC CPSU archives sealed and guarded. Although Bukovsky was told he would be able to lead an international commission to study the archives, the agreement was not honored as former communist party officials gained positions under Yeltsin. Also, some wanted to make money from the archives and not give them up for free. In the end, Bukovsky got access in order to help Yeltsin fight a court case brought by former communist party members that wanted to reverse the ban on the CPSU. Yeltsin needed evidence of CPSU crimes to keep the CP illegal. Bukovsky, even though he was not allowed to copy any documents, brought a computer scanner and scanned in 1000s of documents. The officials at the archives did not know what the scanner could do.
Bukovsky is highly critical of American culture as superficial, self-righteous, always trying to find themselves, full of narcissistic intellectuals, conformist, and believing in the innate good nature of man ruined by bad institutions (which was from the ideas at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, unaffected by anything over the next 200 years of history). He can be quite crude, derogatory, opinionated, and condescending. He argues that Leftist ideas triumphed after the 1960s in the US. He states that McCarthyism, even with its extremes, was ultimately fully justified. He sees liberal criticism of the blacklisting as a myth of unfair suffering of American leftists. He notes there was seemingly no concern for the 100s of millions who really suffered under the communist yoke. He also mocks the movie “The Killing Fields” which glorifies a leftist-liberal correspondent. The film ignores how the left’s antiwar campaign facilitated victory of communism in SE Asia. Also, Moscow both fanned and supported the war in SE Asia and antiwar hysteria. He concluded that Americans became pro-Soviet at the end of the 1960s because it had become anti-American. He points out that the Vietnam War did not substantially differ from the Korean War two decades earlier. [While that is true from a purely policy perspective, it does not take into account the decision not to mobilize the guard and reserves for Vietnam and instead rely on an unfair draft system in the midst of a media revolution with television.]
He points out that in Communist Newspeak, “peace” means victory of communism in the world. What saved Europe from communism after WWII was the U.S. nuclear umbrella and the Marshall Plan. He is critical of Nixon and Kissinger’s efforts at détente. [However, he does not consider how détente helped turn China against the Soviet Union.] He viewed the late 1970s as the world on the edge of the precipice where the Soviets tried to distract the U.S. in Latin America; place oil of the Persian Gulf and minerals in South Africa under pro-Soviet regimes; and rule a divided socialist and neutral Europe under control of Soviet Quislings. What Lenin failed to achieve in his global revolution or Stalin by his war of liberation, Brezhnev almost accomplished with détente. But, then came Afghanistan and the Polish events of 1980-1. [He should mention the 1979 Iranian Revolution as well.]
He goes through Soviet CC discussion leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet leaders knew it would undermine détente and be costly to them. In response, Carter organized the grain embargo and the Olympic boycott, while the Soviets arrested and internally exiled Sakharov. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan also led to Western political moves to the right with Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and Thatcher.
The Soviets tightly controlled access to Moscow during the Olympics to ensure only reliable attendees were present. The Soviets also started a struggle for a peace campaign across Europe supported by social democrats and socialists (i.e., useful idiots). Huge crowds protested the deployment of new U.S. missiles to Europe, which were a valid response to the Soviet SS-20 medium-range missiles that had undermined deterrence. The protests culminated in Dec 1983. Strategic arms, the neutron bomb, and the SDI gave the West an edge over Soviet numerical superiority. The SS-20s were designed to force Europe to choose between suicide and capitulation. The UN designated the 1980s as “the decade of disarmament.” Clearly, the UN was heavily influenced by the USSR. However, the threat to peace in Europe emanated from the Soviet bloc; it was necessary to fight not for peace but against the Soviet regime.
The introduction of martial law and the persecution of Solidarity began in the Spring of 1982. Poland was a weak link in the socialist chain. The Catholic Church remained unbroken; there were still individual peasant owners, the Poles possesses a rebellious spirit; and one third of Polish workers were in the private sector with either a small trade or service. The Polish debt to Western banks forced the government to raise food prices. Workers in response occupied plants instead of just demonstrating. They had a nationalistic attitude. Moscow had no plan to invade Poland. It was really just a bluff; they feared the Polish military would fight against the Soviets along with the population. The people of Poland accepted martial law as a lesser evil than a Soviet invasion. Polish opposition was driven underground and continued to resist as it undermined the Soviet image in Western nations. The rise of Solidarity showed the economic collapse of socialism; its inability to supply the country with necessary goods. The Soviet decision to help out Poland with food meant reducing food in other East European countries, which sparked resentment. Ironically, the Poles revolted over meat shortages, while Soviet workers didn’t even dream of meat; they barely had enough bread.
The socialist model was dysfunctional. Entire sectors of the economy were riddled with corruption. Either the party manages the economy, or the market does. There is no third way. When the party runs things, welfare depends on loyalty to the party and connections with management. Corruption is the only way the party can participate in the economy; it is the market manifestation of its power. The basic idea of socialism is the idea of a fair distribution of products, not its creation. Thus, any socialist model leads to a state of attrition, which ends in bankruptcy. Half of the economy also wastefully engaged in military needs.
The tipping point was 1983 when Moscow was only able to achieve success with manipulation, machinations, and hysterical propaganda. But when questions such as unilateral disarmament were brought to the judgement of the electorate, they were doomed. The threat of a new world war and a nuclear holocaust ultimately disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet regime. [Bukovsky sees an interesting parallel between the current hysteria over ecological catastrophe and the former hysteria about the horrors of nuclear war.] The conservative revolution in the West with Reagan and Thatcher expanded democracy by giving people wider choices in info, products, and power. Left utopianism lost influence. The threat of Reagan’s rearmament program forced the USSR to try reform. Also, the Reagan Doctrine campaign against Western financing of the Soviet gas pipeline to Europe, the tightening of controls over the flow of science and technology to the East, and aid to Afghan rebels, Solidarity, and the Contras created even more pressure. SDI, in particular, was beyond Soviet capability. The manipulation of the oil market, performed by the US via Saudi Arabia, hurt the USSR. There had been a sharp decline in oil extraction in the USSR due to insufficient investment in infrastructure maintenance, which coincided with equally drastic fall of oil prices in international markets. Oil and natural gas were the USSR’s main source of foreign exchange.
Concerning the Gorbachev era, Bukovsky notes that the Gorbachev documents were especially well protected, and he did not get to see them. Key documents of the August 1991 putsch were destroyed. Bukovsky alleges that the putsch was planned by Gorbachev to reinforce the disinformation narrative of a struggle between reformers and conservatives in the CPSU; but the reaction of the people was not anticipated, and Yeltsin ended up in charge. The plan had possibly been to allow Gorbachev to institute martial law in the USSR to retain power. Proscribing the CPSU was not really a revolution but a disintegration where party mafias consolidated power without ideology and effectively made the resulting new states into kleptocracies. Bukovsky criticized Bush and Baker for wanting an orderly, peaceful transition and painted them as pro-USSR. [In fact, they feared an outbreak of civil war and chaos.] In the aftermath of the Cold War, Bukovsky points out how Putin and the FSB killed 300+ innocents to blame Chechens and spur Russian nationalism as a way to be seen as the defender of Russia and get elected as President. Putin gradually replaced gangsters and corrupt businessmen with government officials who pillage their own country and make plans to live in luxury in the West. These new leaders are not patriotic or nationalistic at all.
While this book makes some far-fetched arguments, many of Bukovsky’s points are interesting based upon what he uncovered in the Soviet archives. Unfortunately, it will be a while, if ever, before the full story of the Soviet Union is known to the world. Nonetheless, Bukovsky provides some convincing arguments to view the current Russian regime with distrust.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) tightly controlled access to its archives. He learned from them that during the 1980s, Moscow inspired peace demonstrations against NATO’s plans to site medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Moscow also created the 1969 “International Fund to Aid Left-Wing Workers’ Organizations” giving $3.7M to the Italian CP, $2M to the French CP, and $1M to the US CP. Japanese socialists also received illegal funding from the USSR. The Soviets also funded communist party bookstores in Western countries. In 1970, a Central Committee (CC) CPSU memo discussed support of the Black Panthers with the KGB to inspire African countries to defend the rights of blacks and condemn the U.S. government genocide of blacks (to distract the attention of the world away from Nixon’s foreign policy). A headline in the USSR screamed “Free Angela Davis” for accessory to murder, while Soviets sentenced dissidents like Bukovsky to 10 years for reading a book. He describes Soviet foreign policy as criminal activity against humanity with Soviet sponsorship of international terrorism, narcotics, bribery and blackmailing of key figures, and disinformation.
The story of how Bukovsky obtained access to the CC CPSU archives in interesting. Right after the failed putsch against Gorbachev, Yeltsin ordered the CC CPSU archives sealed and guarded. Although Bukovsky was told he would be able to lead an international commission to study the archives, the agreement was not honored as former communist party officials gained positions under Yeltsin. Also, some wanted to make money from the archives and not give them up for free. In the end, Bukovsky got access in order to help Yeltsin fight a court case brought by former communist party members that wanted to reverse the ban on the CPSU. Yeltsin needed evidence of CPSU crimes to keep the CP illegal. Bukovsky, even though he was not allowed to copy any documents, brought a computer scanner and scanned in 1000s of documents. The officials at the archives did not know what the scanner could do.
Bukovsky is highly critical of American culture as superficial, self-righteous, always trying to find themselves, full of narcissistic intellectuals, conformist, and believing in the innate good nature of man ruined by bad institutions (which was from the ideas at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, unaffected by anything over the next 200 years of history). He can be quite crude, derogatory, opinionated, and condescending. He argues that Leftist ideas triumphed after the 1960s in the US. He states that McCarthyism, even with its extremes, was ultimately fully justified. He sees liberal criticism of the blacklisting as a myth of unfair suffering of American leftists. He notes there was seemingly no concern for the 100s of millions who really suffered under the communist yoke. He also mocks the movie “The Killing Fields” which glorifies a leftist-liberal correspondent. The film ignores how the left’s antiwar campaign facilitated victory of communism in SE Asia. Also, Moscow both fanned and supported the war in SE Asia and antiwar hysteria. He concluded that Americans became pro-Soviet at the end of the 1960s because it had become anti-American. He points out that the Vietnam War did not substantially differ from the Korean War two decades earlier. [While that is true from a purely policy perspective, it does not take into account the decision not to mobilize the guard and reserves for Vietnam and instead rely on an unfair draft system in the midst of a media revolution with television.]
He points out that in Communist Newspeak, “peace” means victory of communism in the world. What saved Europe from communism after WWII was the U.S. nuclear umbrella and the Marshall Plan. He is critical of Nixon and Kissinger’s efforts at détente. [However, he does not consider how détente helped turn China against the Soviet Union.] He viewed the late 1970s as the world on the edge of the precipice where the Soviets tried to distract the U.S. in Latin America; place oil of the Persian Gulf and minerals in South Africa under pro-Soviet regimes; and rule a divided socialist and neutral Europe under control of Soviet Quislings. What Lenin failed to achieve in his global revolution or Stalin by his war of liberation, Brezhnev almost accomplished with détente. But, then came Afghanistan and the Polish events of 1980-1. [He should mention the 1979 Iranian Revolution as well.]
He goes through Soviet CC discussion leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet leaders knew it would undermine détente and be costly to them. In response, Carter organized the grain embargo and the Olympic boycott, while the Soviets arrested and internally exiled Sakharov. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan also led to Western political moves to the right with Reagan, Helmut Kohl, and Thatcher.
The Soviets tightly controlled access to Moscow during the Olympics to ensure only reliable attendees were present. The Soviets also started a struggle for a peace campaign across Europe supported by social democrats and socialists (i.e., useful idiots). Huge crowds protested the deployment of new U.S. missiles to Europe, which were a valid response to the Soviet SS-20 medium-range missiles that had undermined deterrence. The protests culminated in Dec 1983. Strategic arms, the neutron bomb, and the SDI gave the West an edge over Soviet numerical superiority. The SS-20s were designed to force Europe to choose between suicide and capitulation. The UN designated the 1980s as “the decade of disarmament.” Clearly, the UN was heavily influenced by the USSR. However, the threat to peace in Europe emanated from the Soviet bloc; it was necessary to fight not for peace but against the Soviet regime.
The introduction of martial law and the persecution of Solidarity began in the Spring of 1982. Poland was a weak link in the socialist chain. The Catholic Church remained unbroken; there were still individual peasant owners, the Poles possesses a rebellious spirit; and one third of Polish workers were in the private sector with either a small trade or service. The Polish debt to Western banks forced the government to raise food prices. Workers in response occupied plants instead of just demonstrating. They had a nationalistic attitude. Moscow had no plan to invade Poland. It was really just a bluff; they feared the Polish military would fight against the Soviets along with the population. The people of Poland accepted martial law as a lesser evil than a Soviet invasion. Polish opposition was driven underground and continued to resist as it undermined the Soviet image in Western nations. The rise of Solidarity showed the economic collapse of socialism; its inability to supply the country with necessary goods. The Soviet decision to help out Poland with food meant reducing food in other East European countries, which sparked resentment. Ironically, the Poles revolted over meat shortages, while Soviet workers didn’t even dream of meat; they barely had enough bread.
The socialist model was dysfunctional. Entire sectors of the economy were riddled with corruption. Either the party manages the economy, or the market does. There is no third way. When the party runs things, welfare depends on loyalty to the party and connections with management. Corruption is the only way the party can participate in the economy; it is the market manifestation of its power. The basic idea of socialism is the idea of a fair distribution of products, not its creation. Thus, any socialist model leads to a state of attrition, which ends in bankruptcy. Half of the economy also wastefully engaged in military needs.
The tipping point was 1983 when Moscow was only able to achieve success with manipulation, machinations, and hysterical propaganda. But when questions such as unilateral disarmament were brought to the judgement of the electorate, they were doomed. The threat of a new world war and a nuclear holocaust ultimately disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet regime. [Bukovsky sees an interesting parallel between the current hysteria over ecological catastrophe and the former hysteria about the horrors of nuclear war.] The conservative revolution in the West with Reagan and Thatcher expanded democracy by giving people wider choices in info, products, and power. Left utopianism lost influence. The threat of Reagan’s rearmament program forced the USSR to try reform. Also, the Reagan Doctrine campaign against Western financing of the Soviet gas pipeline to Europe, the tightening of controls over the flow of science and technology to the East, and aid to Afghan rebels, Solidarity, and the Contras created even more pressure. SDI, in particular, was beyond Soviet capability. The manipulation of the oil market, performed by the US via Saudi Arabia, hurt the USSR. There had been a sharp decline in oil extraction in the USSR due to insufficient investment in infrastructure maintenance, which coincided with equally drastic fall of oil prices in international markets. Oil and natural gas were the USSR’s main source of foreign exchange.
Concerning the Gorbachev era, Bukovsky notes that the Gorbachev documents were especially well protected, and he did not get to see them. Key documents of the August 1991 putsch were destroyed. Bukovsky alleges that the putsch was planned by Gorbachev to reinforce the disinformation narrative of a struggle between reformers and conservatives in the CPSU; but the reaction of the people was not anticipated, and Yeltsin ended up in charge. The plan had possibly been to allow Gorbachev to institute martial law in the USSR to retain power. Proscribing the CPSU was not really a revolution but a disintegration where party mafias consolidated power without ideology and effectively made the resulting new states into kleptocracies. Bukovsky criticized Bush and Baker for wanting an orderly, peaceful transition and painted them as pro-USSR. [In fact, they feared an outbreak of civil war and chaos.] In the aftermath of the Cold War, Bukovsky points out how Putin and the FSB killed 300+ innocents to blame Chechens and spur Russian nationalism as a way to be seen as the defender of Russia and get elected as President. Putin gradually replaced gangsters and corrupt businessmen with government officials who pillage their own country and make plans to live in luxury in the West. These new leaders are not patriotic or nationalistic at all.
While this book makes some far-fetched arguments, many of Bukovsky’s points are interesting based upon what he uncovered in the Soviet archives. Unfortunately, it will be a while, if ever, before the full story of the Soviet Union is known to the world. Nonetheless, Bukovsky provides some convincing arguments to view the current Russian regime with distrust.
January 7, 2021
A whole lot of rehtoric is basically all that's holding this together but Bukovsky was to much of an egomaniac to allow editing to just present any facts.
lol libcucks
If the rightist French government of Giscard d’Estaing threw itself into Brezhnev’s arms, the French leftist intelligentsia proved to be our closest ally. France was probably the first Western country in which the intelligentsia began to give thought to its responsibility for the crimes of communism because of a group of the “new philosophers” under the influence of The Gulag Archipelago. In the summer of 1977, during Brezhnev’s visit to Paris, this movement reached its culmination, marked symbolically by the “handshake of the century”: at a reception organized by the intelligentsia in the Theatre Recamier, Jean-Paul Sartre and Raymond Aron shook hands for the first time in many decades.
lol libcucks
February 16, 2020
This book took me months to read, which is rare, but it's not the kind of book you can curl up with and read for an hour or two straight. Bukovsky has a lot of very important things to say; what he needed was an editor to cull the key points into a 150-page book and use the rest of this as reference notes. It's a book that will cause embarrassment to Western politicians, pundits, and public figures (on both the left and right) who were duped by the Russians over and over again. For instance, Russians were behind all the "anti-nuke" movements of the 80s (which only benefitted them), and Gorbachev pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with the phoniness of "glasnost." The key point is that, although the Soviet system collapsed, the guilty parties were never called to account and the system was never trampled out (as the world did with the Nazis). So the poison remained and gained strength again under Putin. This book is based on first-hand original documents from Soviet archives, and written by a man who suffered under the Soviet system.
May 27, 2022
This book walks the walk but doesn't talk the talk. I didn't find anything sensational about this or "groundbreaking". It was pumped up to be like some 1984 bible of truth, when it just fell flat. The argumentative points needed to be clearer, it was just "omg look at this telegram, damnnn!" and the telegram was like "gorbachev talked to so and so". Big whoop.
May 2, 2021
Of author Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky, Wikipedia says: "From the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, he was a prominent figure in the Soviet dissident movement, well known at home and abroad. He spent a total of twelve years in the psychiatric prison-hospitals, labour camps, and prisons of the Soviet Union.
After being expelled from the Soviet Union in late 1976, Bukovsky remained in vocal opposition to the Soviet system and the shortcomings of its successor regimes in Russia. An activist, a writer, and a neurophysiologist, he is celebrated for his part in the campaign to expose and halt the political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union."
A lot of that is only hinted at in this book. Bukovsky does fairly frequently mention the role he and his fellow dissidents played in the eventual unmasking to the West of the true nature of Soviet communism, almost to the point of seeming self-serving if not for the fact that he is correct.
In this irrefutably constructed book Bukovsky details--using great swaths of quotations from actual documents of the Soviet Politburo and Central Committee of the Communist Party, obtanined in the brief period of openness after the fall of communism in 1991--how active a hand the USSR had in most of the horrific events of the late 20th Century, and how complicit a number of prominent Western organizations were (wittingly or unwittingly) in helping the communist agenda.
Principal among these, at least to my mind as I read, was the American Democrat party and prominent cultural leftists like Jimmy Carter, Francis Ford Coppola, and the Ford Foundation. Many European parties and politicians are called out by name as well; to the point where I marvel that the West avoided utter cultural and political capitulation to the communists long enough for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher to finally bring about the downfall of that heinous evil empire.
Anyone interested in learning how it is possible that the ideas of socialism could be so popular among ignorant Western societies today, despite the utter evil recklessness of the Soviet communists having been refuted a generation ago, would do well to read this book and heed Bukovsky's warnings.
After being expelled from the Soviet Union in late 1976, Bukovsky remained in vocal opposition to the Soviet system and the shortcomings of its successor regimes in Russia. An activist, a writer, and a neurophysiologist, he is celebrated for his part in the campaign to expose and halt the political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union."
A lot of that is only hinted at in this book. Bukovsky does fairly frequently mention the role he and his fellow dissidents played in the eventual unmasking to the West of the true nature of Soviet communism, almost to the point of seeming self-serving if not for the fact that he is correct.
In this irrefutably constructed book Bukovsky details--using great swaths of quotations from actual documents of the Soviet Politburo and Central Committee of the Communist Party, obtanined in the brief period of openness after the fall of communism in 1991--how active a hand the USSR had in most of the horrific events of the late 20th Century, and how complicit a number of prominent Western organizations were (wittingly or unwittingly) in helping the communist agenda.
Principal among these, at least to my mind as I read, was the American Democrat party and prominent cultural leftists like Jimmy Carter, Francis Ford Coppola, and the Ford Foundation. Many European parties and politicians are called out by name as well; to the point where I marvel that the West avoided utter cultural and political capitulation to the communists long enough for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher to finally bring about the downfall of that heinous evil empire.
Anyone interested in learning how it is possible that the ideas of socialism could be so popular among ignorant Western societies today, despite the utter evil recklessness of the Soviet communists having been refuted a generation ago, would do well to read this book and heed Bukovsky's warnings.
January 29, 2020
The West's willingness to be deceived by the Communist Russians is a major topic of this incredible study of the latter years of the Soviet Union. Bukovsky, a scientist, a dissident, and a defender of human rights smuggled out of Russia piles of records of politburo and central committee proceedings. He quotes extensively the words of Gorbachev, Brezhnev, Koysigan, and other Soviet leaders. He lets their words do the talking with occasional interjections by Bokovsky. Along the way he exposes the pro-Soviet interventions by French and German political leaders. They wanted the oppressive Soviet regime to survive. Gorbachev who ordered violence against the Baltic states became the darling of the usually clear headed Margaret Thatcher. Bukovsky's commentary is very informative. His welcoming ability to relate facts makes this a book worth any readers while. I found his ideas on why Western academics made excuses for the Communists is the best I have come across. Bukovsky ends the book with a critical assessment of Russia under Putin. He shows how the failure to eradicate the communist players and to expose the crimes of the Soviet Union has led to the kleptocracy that exists today.
March 23, 2022
Reading this book didn't feel like reading novel. It was mentioning that opposition in politics in russia happened to end up in mental hospitals and released from word too early becouse of lack of beds. Ending up with people who didn't yet recover from nervous breakdown and did crimes apparently.
Also about Politics Détente which was invented by German socialists, initiated by the Soviet side.
Détente (French word for release from tension) is the name given to a period of improvement in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union that began tentatively in 1971 and took a decisive form when President Richard M. Nixon visited Soviet Communist Party Secretary General Leonid I
And also about Perestroika - reconstruction like changing clothes, old fabric turned with the clean side out. The same socialism with a new facade, they "rebuilt" socialist camps into Potemkin village.
Also about Politics Détente which was invented by German socialists, initiated by the Soviet side.
Détente (French word for release from tension) is the name given to a period of improvement in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union that began tentatively in 1971 and took a decisive form when President Richard M. Nixon visited Soviet Communist Party Secretary General Leonid I
And also about Perestroika - reconstruction like changing clothes, old fabric turned with the clean side out. The same socialism with a new facade, they "rebuilt" socialist camps into Potemkin village.
June 26, 2021
There is something strange about socialists. Dogmatically insistent upon their own righteousness to rule others, and venomous against any fellow human being who wishes to think independently, they gather in conclaves to perfect their collective power.
The author Bukovsky was among the millions of their victims in the Soviet version, and he was among its rare survivors to tell the story. The documents he reveals, along with his report of his personal experiences, are chilling. And are true. And yet the ideology lives on. It is a shameful—and frightening—failing in the human psyche.
In this book he explains how the the “ideal of socialism” functioned in Russia. Following the murderous years of Lenin and then Stalin, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union passed governing control to what came to be called the Politburo, a select group of apparatchiks who ruled over every activity and everyone. With assignments to the Cheka (secret police), the KGB (Committee of State Security), Gosplan (State Planning Committee), Pravda (official newspaper), the Procuracy (Soviet watchdog organization), Spetsnaz (“special purpose forces”), et al., orders were carried out to maintain total societal control. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder were the forces of power protection. Social dissidents were killed or imprisoned and tortured, or forcibly institutionalized in psychiatric “hospitals.” He describes the evil via its own documents. Yet even as public disclosure should prompt overwhelming condemnation of the practices of such systems the world over, a pervasive propaganda obfuscates reality and persuades millions of minds to embrace its fraud. [Oh, don’t worry, peasants, our socialism will be nice. We will just give you free stuff.]
Mr. Bukovsky also answers some questions that most (all?) of us were too dumb to ever ask. By citing archival documents, he proves that the chief apparatchik of the 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev—contrary to general Western judgment—had no intention to ever “open” any prospect of freedom to the people of either Soviet Russia or any of the satellite countries under its dominating control. On the contrary, the unchanging plan was to encompass more and more countries in both Europe and throughout the world into socialist systems, all ultimately headed by the Communist USSR.
It is generally believed that the Soviet Politburo suffered a “collapse” when the Germans broke down the Berlin Wall. But this author is not so sure. As Time Magazine promoted Gorbachev as “man of the decade,” the “man” continued to direct Communist propaganda of pretentious lies as he accepted Western loans and direct “investment” into Russian “businesses” (read: politically designated oligarchies), to save his country from true economic collapse. And the KGB was saved by changing its initials.
Mr. Bukovsky, along with fellow dissidents, spent years in psychiatric hospitals and cold Soviet prisons. His hope was that the rulers who held them there would eventually be tried in honest courtrooms on the model of the Nuremberg Trials for surviving Nazis, not just for his own unjustified imprisonment, but for all the egregious state crimes committed since the time of Josef Stalin. That such never happened left him to question which “side”actually won.
Alas, we must ask if they are still winning. Certainly they have never given up. Albeit, as the author points out, most of the Soviet satellite nations that had suffered capture since the Second World War knew first hand what Communism meant, and they successfully took the opportunity to divorce their Russian overlords during the window of USSR “collapse.” But since the first publication of this book twenty-five years ago, the Russian Politburo appears to live on by other names, its latest leader being a guy named Vladimir Putin, who kills his enemies with drive-by “anonymous” shootings or by poisons slipped into a drink. The brave Alexei Navalny is his newest dissident victim. First poisoned, then unexpectedly saved by German medical care, Navalny is now mistreated in a Russian prison. And the German nation pays for a pipeline to transport gas from Russia to Germany.
Is “socialism” a form of mental illness? What drives so many to the determination to exercise power over their fellow humans? Vladimir Bukovsky asked these questions. He wrote: “The Western leftist intellectual ‘elite’ did not want to accept that the crisis of the Soviet system in the 1980s was first of all a crisis of socialism. . . . now [they claimed] the time was ripe for the ‘good’ model. But there are no ‘models’ of socialism, there are only various scenarios for the failure of the economy. . . .”
Other examples are abundant, among them Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, at least half a dozen other South and Central American nations, Viet Nam and other experiments in Asia and Africa, Belarus, Communist and Socialist Parties throughout Europe, and the great elephant of Communist China.
Vladimir Bukovsky lived to see his fine volume finally published in the English language in 2019, but he died later that year. He gave us a gift of truth. But his message still awaits a listening world. He was a courageous man who worked tirelessly to expose unspeakable evil. The title of the last chapter, and the final sentence of his book, is: I did all I could. . . .
The author Bukovsky was among the millions of their victims in the Soviet version, and he was among its rare survivors to tell the story. The documents he reveals, along with his report of his personal experiences, are chilling. And are true. And yet the ideology lives on. It is a shameful—and frightening—failing in the human psyche.
In this book he explains how the the “ideal of socialism” functioned in Russia. Following the murderous years of Lenin and then Stalin, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union passed governing control to what came to be called the Politburo, a select group of apparatchiks who ruled over every activity and everyone. With assignments to the Cheka (secret police), the KGB (Committee of State Security), Gosplan (State Planning Committee), Pravda (official newspaper), the Procuracy (Soviet watchdog organization), Spetsnaz (“special purpose forces”), et al., orders were carried out to maintain total societal control. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder were the forces of power protection. Social dissidents were killed or imprisoned and tortured, or forcibly institutionalized in psychiatric “hospitals.” He describes the evil via its own documents. Yet even as public disclosure should prompt overwhelming condemnation of the practices of such systems the world over, a pervasive propaganda obfuscates reality and persuades millions of minds to embrace its fraud. [Oh, don’t worry, peasants, our socialism will be nice. We will just give you free stuff.]
Mr. Bukovsky also answers some questions that most (all?) of us were too dumb to ever ask. By citing archival documents, he proves that the chief apparatchik of the 1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev—contrary to general Western judgment—had no intention to ever “open” any prospect of freedom to the people of either Soviet Russia or any of the satellite countries under its dominating control. On the contrary, the unchanging plan was to encompass more and more countries in both Europe and throughout the world into socialist systems, all ultimately headed by the Communist USSR.
It is generally believed that the Soviet Politburo suffered a “collapse” when the Germans broke down the Berlin Wall. But this author is not so sure. As Time Magazine promoted Gorbachev as “man of the decade,” the “man” continued to direct Communist propaganda of pretentious lies as he accepted Western loans and direct “investment” into Russian “businesses” (read: politically designated oligarchies), to save his country from true economic collapse. And the KGB was saved by changing its initials.
Mr. Bukovsky, along with fellow dissidents, spent years in psychiatric hospitals and cold Soviet prisons. His hope was that the rulers who held them there would eventually be tried in honest courtrooms on the model of the Nuremberg Trials for surviving Nazis, not just for his own unjustified imprisonment, but for all the egregious state crimes committed since the time of Josef Stalin. That such never happened left him to question which “side”actually won.
Alas, we must ask if they are still winning. Certainly they have never given up. Albeit, as the author points out, most of the Soviet satellite nations that had suffered capture since the Second World War knew first hand what Communism meant, and they successfully took the opportunity to divorce their Russian overlords during the window of USSR “collapse.” But since the first publication of this book twenty-five years ago, the Russian Politburo appears to live on by other names, its latest leader being a guy named Vladimir Putin, who kills his enemies with drive-by “anonymous” shootings or by poisons slipped into a drink. The brave Alexei Navalny is his newest dissident victim. First poisoned, then unexpectedly saved by German medical care, Navalny is now mistreated in a Russian prison. And the German nation pays for a pipeline to transport gas from Russia to Germany.
Is “socialism” a form of mental illness? What drives so many to the determination to exercise power over their fellow humans? Vladimir Bukovsky asked these questions. He wrote: “The Western leftist intellectual ‘elite’ did not want to accept that the crisis of the Soviet system in the 1980s was first of all a crisis of socialism. . . . now [they claimed] the time was ripe for the ‘good’ model. But there are no ‘models’ of socialism, there are only various scenarios for the failure of the economy. . . .”
Other examples are abundant, among them Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, at least half a dozen other South and Central American nations, Viet Nam and other experiments in Asia and Africa, Belarus, Communist and Socialist Parties throughout Europe, and the great elephant of Communist China.
Vladimir Bukovsky lived to see his fine volume finally published in the English language in 2019, but he died later that year. He gave us a gift of truth. But his message still awaits a listening world. He was a courageous man who worked tirelessly to expose unspeakable evil. The title of the last chapter, and the final sentence of his book, is: I did all I could. . . .
January 4, 2023
There is so much in this book that it can sometimes be easy to get lost in the details. The crazy thing is that the author doesn't even come close to exhausting the history of western complicity in Soviet crimes. It's well worth a read
June 9, 2020
The sub-title says it all, 'Soviet crimes and western complicity'. Unfortunately it has not stopped but broadened.
wish-to-read
August 8, 2019"Off he went to Russia, armed with a laptop, a scanner, and other equipment. By day he combed through the archives, finding eye-popping material, and by night he copied this material, surreptitiously. He knew he had to work fast. He figured the archives would not be open for long, to him or anybody else. “I had a very limited window,” he says today.
The trial turned out to be a dud, not a Nuremberg-like reckoning, which Bukovsky and many others had hoped for. But Bukovsky had the documents in the West — the documents that he had copied, then smuggled out. He put them in a book, along with his comments on them. He called the book “Judgment in Moscow.” (In 1961, there had been an American movie, Judgment at Nuremberg.) It was published in nine languages, including Russian. The Russian translation was “thanks to Solzhenitsyn, by the way,” says Bukovsky. (He is referring, of course, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great dissident who wrote The Gulag Archipelago, among other pivotal books.) “He gave money for it.”
But the book was not published in English, the preeminent language in the world. Why? Thereby hangs a tale. Random House, the American publisher, had the rights to the book. But, in the end, the house refused to publish it. Bukovsky’s book was judged too hot to handle, in short. Random House demanded extensive revisions, which the author refused to undertake. In his characteristic fashion, he said, “Owing to peculiarities in my biography, I am allergic to political censorship.”"
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazi...
The trial turned out to be a dud, not a Nuremberg-like reckoning, which Bukovsky and many others had hoped for. But Bukovsky had the documents in the West — the documents that he had copied, then smuggled out. He put them in a book, along with his comments on them. He called the book “Judgment in Moscow.” (In 1961, there had been an American movie, Judgment at Nuremberg.) It was published in nine languages, including Russian. The Russian translation was “thanks to Solzhenitsyn, by the way,” says Bukovsky. (He is referring, of course, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great dissident who wrote The Gulag Archipelago, among other pivotal books.) “He gave money for it.”
But the book was not published in English, the preeminent language in the world. Why? Thereby hangs a tale. Random House, the American publisher, had the rights to the book. But, in the end, the house refused to publish it. Bukovsky’s book was judged too hot to handle, in short. Random House demanded extensive revisions, which the author refused to undertake. In his characteristic fashion, he said, “Owing to peculiarities in my biography, I am allergic to political censorship.”"
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazi...
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews