Throughout the Cold War (and the time thereafter), Western (including American) policymakers bought into the idea that the communist bloc was subjected to being fractured and played off against one another. While tensions existed, they were either exaggerated (in the case of China), real (the Yugoslav-Soviet split from 1948-1954), and fake (in the case of Romania and Yugoslavia after 1954). However, it was comforting for policy makers to believe that the communist bloc and Islamic countries were divided against each other. Nicolo Machiavelli captured the essence of the Western mentality generations before the Thirteen Colonies were formed: “For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities…and are often more influenced by the things that seem, than by those that are.”[1]
It is less threatening and intimidating for Westerners to believe that the old Soviet bloc was split up or the Islamic countries were internally divided into “moderates” versus “radicals.” The latter point was nothing new in world history. American and British policymakers were similarly snookered into believing that the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were divided into “moderate” and “radical” factions. Even more significant was the Japanese, Italian, and Nazi (National Socialist) tack for disguising themselves as “conservatives,” “capitalists,” and governments uninterested in exporting their ideology to the United States, Britain, and other countries outside their ideological orbit. This paper will be a combination of historical narrative and opinion piece. As I had demonstrated in my Sino-Soviet Split: A Reappraisal essay, splits can be easily healed especially when faced with a common enemy (the US). Furthermore, it is imperative to comprehend how anti-Americanism unites all communist parties and governments irrespective of sectarian ideological differences regarding achieving a global Marxist-Leninist system. This is confirmed by testimonies from defectors from the communist world as well as primary source documents. A former senior Soviet GRU officer revealed that “Ideological sympathy with the Soviet Union is unnecessary: anyone who helps destabilize the West is our friend: no one is excluded, even if they are anti-Russian or anti-Soviet. There are no limits on policy or ideological grounds: they are all useful. An Irishman who is anti-British, an Arab who is anti-Jewish, or a Jew who is anti-Arab. The Quebecois wanted to split Canada—they were bourgeois capitalists who hated Russia…but we liked them.” Former high-level Czechoslovak Major General Jan Sejna noted that “The ultimate victory of the communist revolution is the red thread that runs through all Soviet policy no matter what new chieftains rise or fall. It is a precise, long term commitment to which all planning whether economic, military, cultural or whatever is harnessed just as all activities in the intelligence and propaganda fields.”[2] Differences can be repaired as easily as relations could be broken or strained. In fact, splits can be faked to throw the West off balance, thus opening the floodgates of trade and technology transfers. Meanwhile, the same “independent” and “anti-Soviet” communist countries continued their collaboration with Moscow and Beijing to the ultimate detriment of the United States. Splits also opened the door to cooperation (including military exchanges) and the flooding of Western countries with trade/diplomatic delegations. Why is this significant? Delegations from these ostensibly “independent” and “anti-Soviet” communist countries were seeded with intelligence agents working on behalf of long-range Soviet/Chinese interests.
Even areas where the Chinese seemed to be working in opposition to the USSR did not necessarily mean that their actions were beneficial to the US. An example was Chinese support for various factions of the Afghan anti-communist/anti-Soviet rebel factions colloquially called the Mujahadeen. A little history is in order. Starting in 1980, personnel from the Second Department of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Staff Headquarters trained Afghan resisters in the PRC and Pakistan (governed by Islamists not necessarily friendly to Western values). China also supplied 107 mm and 122 mm artillery, rocket pieces, 130 mm anti-aircraft guns, and other arms to the Afghan resistance factions. However, the PLA (like good communists) preferred to channel these weapons to the Maoist Communist National United Front of Afghanistan. Until 1985, the PLA had three hundred troops in Pakistan training the Afghan rebels. It was believed that the Second Department used this training to recruit Afghans for Chinese interests.[3] At the end of the day, this enhanced China’s interests not necessarily to the benefit of the anticommunist cause.
Sometimes, what appeared to be clashes or attempted coups against China by pro-Soviet elements were (possibly) highly convoluted disinformation operations aimed at fooling the US. National security analyst J.R. Nyquist raised the possibility that the 1969 border war between China and the Soviet Union and the death of alleged plotter PLA General Lin Biao were staged provocations. Nyquist noted “In 1971 a strange bit of intelligence appeared in the West. The head of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Gen. Lin Biao (Mao’s chosen successor), had supposedly formed a secret liaison with the Soviet General Staff in order to stage (of all things) a phony border war. One source later reported that this phony war would involve the actual destruction of two Russian regiments and four Chinese regiments. How did the Americans hear of this? There is no way to be sure, but it seems that U.S. intelligence may have penetrated the Chinese General Staff in the first half of 1971.” According to Henry Kissinger, Chinese aircraft tried to shoot down an American intelligence C-130 aircraft on a flight 100 miles off the PRC coast. As Nyquist asked, why did Beijing attempt to shoot down an American aircraft on the eve when Kissinger was making his historic trip to China? Nyquist speculated that the C-130 was on a mission to contact an American agent embedded within the PRC General Staff. Perhaps that agent was going to spill the beans on the Sino-Soviet border war being contrived. And then Nyquist lands another potential bombshell on the laps of his readers. He wrote that the Chinese report on the airplane crash and subsequent death of PLA General Lin Biao was potentially false. Nyquist wrote, “…the official report was a lie. According to Col. Stanislav Lunev, formerly with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, everyone on Lin Biao’s plane had been killed long before the plane took off. After flying the corpse-filled aircraft across the Mongolian border, the Chinese pilot parachuted out and walked back to China. In other words, the crash was staged.” After the crash, Chinese sources quickly revealed that the border war between the USSR and China (1969-1970 near the Ussuri River) had nothing to do with the crash of General Lin Biao. The purpose of this whole convoluted operation was to convince the US that the Sino-Soviet split was genuine.[4] Why was this significant? China could acquire increased amounts of technology from the US to modernize its economy and war machine. The US could be thrown off balance into believing that the international communist bloc was weakening. This was not as far-fetched of a possibly since the USSR and its ally Poland created elaborately staged civil wars in their countries. The USSR had experience in creating fake resistance armies in the Soviet Trust and the Polish “anti-communist” WIN organizations. It is known that the Trust and WIN groups even staged fake battles with the communist authorities to greatly enhance their credibility in the eyes of Western policymakers and intelligence analysts. One purpose in the organization of these fake resistance groups by communist authorities was to provide the appearance to Western intelligence that communism was weakening and collapsing. Could the Sino-Soviet border war be an elaborate deception? It is possible, even though the entire body of evidence is not available.
“Independent” communist countries such as Romania and Yugoslavia uttered statements which made them appear to be at odds with Moscow’s interests. However, when one peaks behind the curtains, they will find that these positions belied the reality of relations between the Soviet Union and “independent” communist countries such as Yugoslavia and Romania. North Korea’s stated position on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (December 1979-1980) was a case in point. Unlike their Warsaw Pact allies, North Korea refused to endorse Moscow’s brutal action and subsequent occupation.[5] This action supposedly beefed the image of North Korea as a country sometimes acting “independently” of Soviet interests. However, the reality was more complex. North Korea quietly stationed five hundred Special Purpose Force troops to buttress the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. North Korean Special Purpose Force troops engaged in counterinsurgency operations in the mountains of northeast Afghanistan and trained Afghan army personnel.[6] Troops in Afghanistan proves that North Korea’s refusal to endorse the Soviet occupation was a meaningless diplomatic exercise.
A common misunderstanding of many American policymakers and analysts is the notion that communists/socialists and Islamists are irreconcilable enemies. This is simply not always the case, since both forces were aligned against the United States, Israel, and the other Western countries. Islamists and communists were animated by a common messianic, collectivist worldview that were opposed to each other in the long-term. Communists were typically secular (and even atheist) while Islamists were religious fundamentalists. However, the communist countries during and after the Cold War saw the utility in deploying the powder keg of Islamism against the West. Defecting high-level CPSU Soviet International Department official Evgeny Novikov recalled that “…based on my own twenty years’ experience with Russian intelligence people involved in Arab affairs…The Soviet KGB had good…albeit indirect…connections with Islamic fundamentalists, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Jihad. The curriculum of Arab terrorists who studied at Moscow International’s Lenin School placed special emphasis on cooperation between Marxists and Islamists. Soviet instructors would encourage Arab terrorists to consider the Muslim Brothers and other Islamic extremists as ‘allies in class struggle.’ Good contacts between the KGB and Islamic fundamentalists existed at the time of the Egyptian Jihad’s 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat, after which Zawahiri[7] was jailed by Egyptian authorities.”[8] One of the al-Qaeda 9/11 hijackers Mohammed Atta reportedly met (secretly) with Cuban undercover agents shortly after his arrival in the United States during the year 2000. Federal investigators alleged that high-level officials of the Cuban biological warfare program spoke with Atta at a Miami motel. Federal investigators also claimed that Atta’s Cuban contact was a top Defense Ministry officer personally tied with Fidel Castro. This Cuban officer entered the United States under the cover of escorting Elian Gonzalez’s grandmothers in Miami.[9] An al-Qaeda defector noted in 2000 that North Korean, Iranian, Iraqi, and Cuban military personnel provided assistance at training camps located in in northeastern Afghanistan (Kunar province). The North Koreans allegedly brought chemical weapons and stored them in caves and sun baked mud houses.[10] The Chinese paid Osama Bin Laden several million dollars for unexploded US made cruise missiles left over from the 1998 attacks on al Qaeda camps. Libyan al-Qaeda agent Lased Ben Heni noted “With these weapons he (Bin Laden) has boosted his financial resources. From every part of the world, businessmen who hate Americans have come to study American missile strategy. In particular, businessmen have come from China. He works a great deal with China. He’s got good relations with them.”[11] Despite real tensions, Iraq under the Arab Socialist Ba’th Party of Saddam Hussein and Islamists developed an alliance directed against the United States. This extended into the realm of cooperation with Islamist terrorists. Captured Iraqi documents and journalistic reporting confirmed this information. During the 1980s, the Iraqis trained members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in guerrilla warfare, usage of firearms, rocket-propelled grenades, and document forgery. Referring to the Saddam-Muslim Brotherhood relationship, one former Muslim Brotherhood terrorist stated, “He used us and we used him.”[12] In October 1990, Sudan’s ideological guide Hasan al-Turabi led a delegation of Islamists to Jordan to meet with Iraqi government officials and emissaries of former al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.[13] In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent was ordered to work with an al-Qaeda group according to “priorities previously established.” According to an Iraqi Intelligence document, the Afghan Islamic Party maintained relations with Saddam’s regime since 1989. The Iraqis funded both the Afghan Islamic Party and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. One document dated from March 28, 1992 and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, described bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset “in good contact” with the Iraqi Intelligence station in Syria. The former head of Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with bin Laden on February 19, 1995. Bin Laden successfully requested that Iraq’s state-run television network broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda.[14] Iraq provided funds to the al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines to purchase weapons.[15] The Iraqis trained the Algerian Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) and the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA).[16] In 2002, the Iraqi Intelligence services passed $100,000 to Ansar al Islam.[17] An Iraqi Intelligence document dated from 1995 titled “The Saudi Opposition and Achieving the Relation and Contact with Them” recorded how Bin Laden requested Iraq join them in joint attacks on Saudi Arabia.[18] According to the Iraqi government document ISGZ-2004-019920, Ahmad Fadil Nazal Al-Khalayla (a.k.a. Abu Musaab Al Zarqawi) was present in Saddam’s Iraq in 2002.[19] Sometimes communists and other secular socialists appeared side by side with Islamists. British Trotskyite Communists, Labour Party MPs, Iraqi Baathist diplomats, Cuban delegations, and Russian visitors sat side by side with leading members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood at the Third Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Zionist Cairo Conference (December 2002).[20] During the 1990s, the Iraqis sponsored “Popular Islamic Conferences” at the luxurious al Rashid Hotel, which drew radical Islamists from all over the Middle East. Journalist Christopher Dickey, who attended those conferences, stated “Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a ‘secular Baathist ideologue’ who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they’re talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam’s version of it.”[21]
Sometimes Communists and Nazis/Fascists will cover up their radicalism by appearing more “traditionalist,” “conservative,” or “capitalist.” Why? To fool their wealthy domestic donors or international public opinion (especially Western governments and businessmen). Again, why? Because the international public opinion and the wealthy commanded tremendous power through their control over the economy and politics (through campaign contributions to political officeholders). If Bolshevik or Nazi diplomats shed their rough mannerisms and frayed clothing and acted in a more respectable manner, the West will then believe that Moscow and Berlin are governments worthy of doing business with. However, Moscow and Berlin were very deceptive in their rationale for such measures. Soviet defector Victor Kravchenko (of the Soviet purchasing commission in Washington) personally saw old Czarist-style Army uniforms approved by the CPSU Politburo for use by the Red Army. When concerns were raised about a restoration of imperialism and other Czarist trappings, the response by the Soviet leadership was “What a silly notion! Who cares what some idiots at home or abroad think? The hearts under the gilded shoulders will be true Soviet hearts, beating in unison, just as our men are fighting in unison for Comrade Stalin’s ideas…Besides if some people do assume it marks a return to imperialism, even that may be politically useful. It will make friends for our country in certain circles.”[22]
Fancy suits and ornate uniforms were tools used by the Bolsheviks back in the 1920s when the USSR was opened for foreign capitalist investment. A well-dressed Bolshevik diplomat would serve as an effective messenger for his cause if he was clothed in a suit or tuxedo. Perception is everything, especially in the eyes of Western elite. By 1924, there were heated debates between proletarian communists and Soviet Ambassadors led by Maxim Litvinov about this very issue in the pages of Moscow newspapers. The new Bolshevik line was that Soviet diplomats had to wear clothes appropriate for the country that they were stationed in-i.e. dress clothes. When Soviet envoy Adolf Ioffe complained that he did not want to wear knee breeches, Lenin retorted “Oh! Wear petticoats if you have to. The main thing is to get to court.” Bolshevik diplomats stored dinner jackets and other formal regalia in trunks with mothballs to be saved for the day that they were to be needed again.[24] When the Genoa Conference opened in 1922, the Soviet delegation wore top hats, silk gloves, cutaways,[25] and frock coats.[26] The Nazis, who wore proletarian and militaristic brown shirts, received the okay by the Party to wear
swallow tailcoats and suits with white ties. However, this was not because the Nazis became any less revolutionary or more tolerant of bourgeois values. As Nazi Minister Joseph Goebbels noted in an address to propaganda directors in 1936, “We must find a healthy style for our social life. The revolutionary or non-revolutionary is not determined by the laborer’s overalls or by the uniform or the swallow tail coat one wears but by the heart that beats beneath the shirt.”[27] Why is this history significant? Because the West (and the US) are fooled by appearances and lack a true comprehension of when they are being manipulated. A case in point is Russia under Vladimir Putin. Not an insignificant number of American right-wingers believed that Putin was a Christian simply because of him wearing a cross, professing Christian faith, and appearing at Russian Orthodox Churches. This is a case of failing to distinguish between appearance versus reality. Putin and his cronies were clearly molded by the Soviet political culture. They also adhered to aspects of the communist ideology, despite their carefully crafted, outward fealty to Christianity and traditionalism. Remember, the communist dictatorship in Russia utilized the Church in order to legitimize its rule and rally the population during times of crisis. The Living Church of the early 1920s and the elevated role of the Russian Orthodox Church during much of World War II were historical examples of this strategy. In 2000, Vladimir Putin was asked by CNN’s Larry King about why he wore a cross around his neck. Putin was evasive and refused to acknowledge his belief in God. When King pressed him for an answer, Putin said, “I believe in the power of man.”[28] That was a signal to Russian and foreign communists that Putin’s cross was a deception to gull conservatives, Western politicians, and intelligence services.
Lastly, what was the response of the US to these deceptions launched by various communist countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere? As we will see, even “conservative,” “freedom-loving” Administrations supported engagements with these dictatorships, despite evidence of their alignment with the Soviet Union and terrorist extremists all over the world. More liberal Democratic Presidents and Congresses? Forget it, it was even worse. Our leaders were either naïve or more often willfully blind. Vice President George H.W. Bush noted in 1983, “…we look to what degree countries pursue autonomous foreign policies, independent of Moscow’s direction. Some nations have introduced greater openness in their societies, lowered barriers to human contacts and engaged in market-oriented reforms. Others, unfortunately, continue to toe the Soviet line…”[29] With an eye to staying the course in relations with Romania, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, the Reagan Administration warned diplomats at the London Chiefs of Missions Conference “to not say screw them, lump them together or write them off.”[30] Even when Romania, Yugoslavia, and Hungary injured the interests of the US, the Reagan Administration continued to provide aid, trade privileges, and critical exports of capital equipment, including nuclear steam generators to Romania[31] and a reactor to Yugoslavia.[32] According to the former US Ambassador to Romania David Funderburk, the Reagan Administration refused to halt Bucharest’s dumping of steel and textiles in the fear of “harming the political relationship with that country.”[33] The Reagan Administration supported the continuation of Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for communist Romania.[34] Funderburk, who knew the truth about Ceausescu’s repression and anti-American activities, clashed with the détente-minded Vice President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of State Shultz, and Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.[35] Instead of implementing industrial policy (including systematic tariffs), the Reagan Administration believed that increased exports to communist countries would reduce the overall American trade deficit.[36] The Soviets and their allies in the Warsaw Pact were fully cognizant of the Reagan Administration’s policy towards Eastern Europe. Soviet documents documented the internal conflicts between the engagement versus national security minded factions within the Reagan Administration. In March 1984, KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov forwarded a secret document to MfS (East German State Security) Chief Erich Mielke and East German leader Erich Honecker which noted: “According to credible information, the Reagan Administration intends to enact American policy toward the socialist European countries in order to separate them from the USSR.” The document confirmed that policymakers within Reagan Administration were “not in full agreement with such policy (of differentiation). Roughly put, as they view the Soviet Union as the mortal enemy of the US and since the USSR considers Eastern Europe as its sphere of influence, they assert the following: It makes things worse for Moscow, and better for Washington, if the situation in Eastern European countries is as bad as it can possibly be. Proponents of this course do not see any sense in trade with Eastern European countries. They argue such trade bolsters their economies and thus contributes towards an overall growth of the Soviet bloc’s strength. They are also against any technology transfer to these countries, even for products destined for civilian use, since they are convinced such technologies will subsequently end up in the Soviet Union.”[37] The Soviets exploited these divisions within the Reagan Administration to its advantage. How? The US (under pressure from both business and globalist-Kissingerian minded diplomats) continued the gravy train of goodies (technology, trade privileges, and loans) to Romania, Yugoslavia, and Hungary. This will be covered in detail in this essay series.
Which countries and movements will be covered in this series? They include:
1) The Trotsky versus Stalin split and how certain Trotskyite Communist groups aided the Soviet Union’s long-range interests.
2) Romania under its former dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. I will argue that the Soviet-Romanian split was a fake purposely contrived to contribute to the image that the Bloc was weakening and to extract technology and other critical imports from the US, Western Europe, Japan, etc.
3) Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito (the former dictator from 1944-1980) and his successors. I will argue that their differences with the Soviet Union after 1954 were contrived at worst or vastly exaggerated at best.
4) The Soviet split with Albania, which seemed to be bona fide with a number of instances of continued collaboration between Moscow’s allies and the communist dictatorship of Enver Hoxha and Ramiz Alia. Therefore, this split was somewhat exaggerated on the account of this cooperation.
5) The “liberalization” of Czechoslovakia, which was wrongly represented as an untrammeled break with authoritarianism and the alliance with the Soviet Union.
6) “Tensions” between the “national communist” dictatorship of Wladyslaw Gomulka in Poland and the USSR. This was vastly overstated by the West, which obscured continued alignment and collaboration between Moscow and Warsaw.
7) The fraud of “goulash communism” of Janos Kadar in Hungary and how it was still very much an ally of the Soviet Union.
8) A misunderstanding of Soviet-North Korean intentions after Moscow (and some of their Warsaw Pact allies) opened trade relations with South Korea.
9) The two faces of “Eurocommunism.” This paper will review the Spanish, French, and Italian Communist Parties and their continued support for the Soviets, China, and their allies, despite their “democratic” face.
10) “Tensions” between the USSR, China, and Cuba under Fidel Castro during the mid-to-late 1960s and the late 1980s (between Gorbachev’s USSR and Cuba).
11) The manipulation of dissidents within the Soviet Union and some of its allies as a tool to transmit disinformation and break apart opposition movements.
12) The “tensions” between Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the Soviet Union, which was vastly overstated during the 1980s.
13) The rupture of relations between Egypt and the Soviet Union under Anwar el-Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. Egypt remained aligned against the West in certain areas and opposed to Israel and Zionism. Sadat and Mubarak retained highly selective, quiet relations and ties with the Soviet Union and its allies in areas where they are in agreement.
14) The fraud of the Axis Powers (Japan, Italy, and especially Nazi Germany) portraying themselves as “capitalist,” “conservative,” and not expansionist (i.e. seeking to conquer the British Empire and the United States of America). Britain and the US were also duped into believing that the Nazi Party contained “moderates” and “radicals.” In reality, both “moderates” and “radicals” in the Nazi Party sought the same goals traveling at different speeds.
15) The false splits within Iran, the Taliban, and Palestinian “liberation” (terrorist) movements. This was undertaken in order to lull the West (including the US) into supporting these movements/government (through trade and technology transfers) and to ultimately extract territorial concessions from Israel.
What are your opinions? Are there any other splits or “moderate” versus “radical” divisions that I should discuss? Please let me know.
[1] John H. George Be Reasonable: Selected Quotations for Inquiring Minds (Prometheus Books, 1994) page 272
[2] Pincher, Chapman. The Secret Offensive (Sidgwick & Jackson 1986) pages 206, 69.
[3] Eftimiades, Nicholas. Chinese Intelligence Operations (Frank Cass & Company Ltd 1994) page 101.
[4] Nyquist, J.R. “Russia and China’s Secret Collusion” June 7, 1999 WorldNetDaily Accessed From: https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19727
[5] “Foreign Involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War” Accessed From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War#:~:text=North%20Korea%20also%20refused%20to,East%20Germany%2C%20Vietnam%20and%20India
[6] Joseph S. Bermudez Terrorism, the North Korean connection (Crane Russak 1990) page 138.
[7] Zawahiri was a top al-Qaeda leader who was also trained by the Russian FSB during the Yeltsin regime.
[8] Novikov, Evgenii. “A Russian Agent at the Right Hand of Bin Laden?” Terrorism Monitor Volume: 2 Issue: 1 May 5, 2005 Accessed From: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=427
[9] Arostegui, Martin “Fidel May Be Part of Terror Campaign” Insight on the News November 9, 2001 Accessed From:
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/terror-campaign.htm
[10] Gannon, Kathy. “Bomb Plots: Investigations Point to Bin Laden's Terrorism Camps” Associated Press March 4, 2000
[11] “Beijing paid bin Laden for unexploded US cruise missiles” China Reform Monitor October 22, 2001 Accessed From: http://63.123.226.152/crm/crm410.htm
[12] Stephen F. Hayes “Saddam’s Terror Training Camps” The Weekly Standard January 16, 2006
[13] Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn “The Mother of All Connections” The Weekly Standard July 18, 2005
[14] Stephen F. Hayes “Saddam’s Dangerous Friends” The Weekly Standard March 24, 2008
[15] Stephen F. Hayes “Saddam’s Philippines Terror Connection” The Weekly Standard March 27, 2006
[16] Stephen F. Hayes “Read All About It” The Weekly Standard January 30, 2006
[17] Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn “Another Link in the Chain” The Daily Standard July 22, 2005
[18] Saddam Regime Document: Iraqi Intelligence met with Bin Laden in 1995 (Translation)
Pentagon/FMSO website about Iraq Pre-War Documents Accessed From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1600579/posts
[19] Document: Zarqawi in Iraq Long Before the War Started (See translation and interesting finds) Pentagon/FMSO Pre-war Iraq documents Accessed From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts
[20] “Cairo Declaration - is it really a ‘great opportunity?’” January 28, 2003 Accessed From: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/590
[21] Stephen F. Hayes “Saddam’s Terror Training Camps” The Weekly Standard January 16, 2006
[22] Kravchenko, Victor. I Chose Freedom (Robert Hale Ltd 1947) pages 420-421.
[23] Kravchenko, Victor. I Chose Freedom (Robert Hale Ltd 1947) page 444.
[24] “Soviet Statesmen Turn to Collars” Lawrence Journal World April 22, 1924 page 5. Accessed From: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=H3xT48m3F74C&dat=19240422&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
[25] Nation, R. Craig. Black Earth, Red Star (Cornell University Press 2018) page 40.
[26] Kocho-Williams, Alastair. “Engaging the World” December 4, 2007 Accessed From: http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/history/sovietdiplomats1920s.pdf
[27] “Nazi End Ban on the Swallow Tail Coat” New York Times February 25, 1936 page 1.
[28] J.R. Nyquist “The Lunatic and the Narcissist” February 18, 2014 Accessed From: http://www.jrnyquist.com/the-lunatic-and-the-narcisist.html
[29] Drozdiak, William. “Bush: U.S. Will Aid Maverick Soviet Bloc States” Washington Post September 22, 1983 page A1.
[30] Funderburk, David M. Pinstripes and Reds (Selous Foundation Press, 1987) pages 27 and 30.
[31] Stormer, John A. None Dare Call It Treason…25 Years Later (Liberty Bell Press 1990)
[32] Pelton, Robert W. Traitors and Treason (Lightning Source Incorporated, 2002)
[33] Interview with former US Ambassador to Communist Romania David B. Funderburk (1981-1985) August 17, 1989 Accessed From: https://cdn.loc.gov/service/mss/mfdip/2004/2004fun01/2004fun01.pdf
[34] Sieff, Martin. “U.S. leaders romanced Ceausescu” Washington Times December 28, 1989 page A6.
[35] Funderburk, David M. Pinstripes and Reds (Selous Foundation Press, 1987) pages 113-122.
[36] Funderburk, David M. Pinstripes and Reds (Selous Foundation Press, 1987) pages 169-171.
[37] “KGB Report on New Elements in US Policy Toward the European Socialist Countries” March 31, 1984 Cold War International History Project Woodrow Wilson Center Princeton University Accessed From: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/115720