This post was written by Connor Balough

While liberals bash conservatives for an alleged “Russian conspiracy,” history just confirmed that liberals fell for Soviet Propaganda, and it hurt America’s foreign relations to this day.


But the liberals have been dupes for the Soviet Union since the 1920s, when New York mainstream reporters said things like “I have seen the future, and it works” regarding Stalin’s Russia.


Take a look at the proof of what he said:

“Soviet Russia was a revolutionary government with an evolutionary plan”, enduring “a temporary condition of evil, which is made tolerable by hope and a plan.”[4]

After his return, he promoted his view of the Soviet Revolution and in the course of campaigning for U.S. food aid for Russia made his famous remark about the new Soviet society: “I have seen the future, and it works”, a phrase he often repeated with many variations.[5]The title page of his wife Ella Winter‘s Red Virtue: Human Relationships in the New Russia (Victor Gollancz, 1933) carries this quote.



From 1987,


For the second year in a row, liberal arms control activists battled in vain to force President Reagan to rein in the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program, so long as the Soviet Union did likewise.

In 1987, the arms controllers pursued the nuclear testing issue on two tracks: seeking to gain Senate approval of two unratified U.S.-Soviet test-ban treaties, and trying for a more sweeping ban, on all but the smallest tests, so long as the Soviets continued their moratorium.

The Senate’s treaty ratification fight ultimately foundered over questions of how each side would verify whether the other was complying with the pact’s terms. Although Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., tried to make it a priority at the beginning of the year, the treaty approval drive languished.

Later in the year, history repeated itself, up to a point, on the more sweeping test ban. As it had done in 1986, the House included a ban on all but the smallest nuclear weapons tests in its annual defense authorization bill. The Senate, also as in 1986, included no such provision.

In 1986, pre-summit politics doomed Capitol Hill’s effort to make Reagan observe a test ban. House-Senate conferees on the defense measure dropped the provision so as not to undermine the president in a pending summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

In 1987, a Reagan-Gorbachev summit again was in the offing. But the test-ban language died in conference more as a result of Democratic leaders’ eagerness to enact other tough arms control measures in the underlying defense authorization bill. Foremost of these were provisions that, in effect, bound the president to observe a strict interpretation of the 1972 U.S.-Soviet anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty and to comply with certain sublimits in the unratified 1979 strategic arms limitation treaty (SALT II).


Why does this matter?

The KGB funded these liberals.


In 1982 the Heritage Foundation published Moscow and the Peace Offensive, which said that non-aligned peace organizations advocated similar policies on defence and disarmament to the Soviet Union. It argued that “pacifists and concerned Christians had been drawn into the Communist campaign largely unaware if its real sponsorship.”[18]

Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that “the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad,” and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong,[19] although he does not identify any organisation by name. Lunev described this as a “hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost”.[19] The former KGB officer Sergei Tretyakov said that the Soviet Peace Committee funded and organized demonstrations in Europe against US bases.[20] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council “to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source.”[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were “virtually controlled” by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.

U.S. plans in the late 1970s and early 1980s to deploy Pershing II missiles in Western Europe in response to the Soviet SS-20 missiles were contentious, prompting Paul Nitze, the American negotiator, to suggest a compromise plan for nuclear missiles in Europe in the celebrated “walk in the woods” with Soviet negotiator Yuli Kvitsinsky, but the Soviets never responded.[21] Kvitsinsky would later write that, despite his efforts, the Soviet side was not interested in compromise, calculating instead that peace movements in the West would force the Americans to capitulate.[22]



The History Channel’s article from 2003 confirms this:

Mr. Beichman, author of Anti-American Myths: Their Causes and Consequences, is a Hoover Institution Research Fellow.

        I begin with the following proposition:

        Probably the greatest triumph in public relations in all recorded history was the elevation in the democratic West of the Soviet Union in its 74-year-existence to a symbol of moral righteousness and a country beyond criticism.[1] This triumph was all the more notable because from Day One of the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin’s system, to quote Robert Conquest, “had as one of its main characteristics falsification on an enormous scale.”[2]

        This success was manifest above all in Western journalism and in many universities. In journalism this triumph was to be found in the attitude of some foreign correspondents and in how they covered the news from Moscow and how their editors let them get away with sophistries that a small town weekly would have deemed impermissible. There was Walter Duranty of the New York Times and others like him who concealed the truth of what is today recognized as having been one of the most inhuman dictatorships of modern times, exceeding even Nazi Germany in its barbarities. And at long last a Pulitzer Prize Committee is looking into the possibility that the prize awarded to Duranty in 1932 might be revoked.

        There is no secret in later years about the warped coverage about the Soviet Union. Here are the words of another New York Times correspondent, Max Frankel, who after years in Moscow wrote:

For the “greatest story in the world” is also the greatest secret in the world. And the lone correspondent is a poor match for a giant, totalitarian government. The story is only rarely to be had on the scene. The scholars will have to dig out what really happened.[3]

  “What really happened”! In other words what Western correspondents, including Frankel himself, had been reporting about the Soviet Union to democratic publics over the years was either untrue, half-true or meaningless.[4]

– See more at:


TG Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply