DISINFORMATIONFORMER SPY CHIEF REVEALS SECRET STRATEGIES FOR
UNDERMINING FREEDOM, ATTACKING RELIGION, AND
PROMOTING TERRORISM

Lt. Gen.

ION MIHAI PACEPA
AND Prof. RONALD J. RYCHLAKADVANCE PRAISE“Disinformation is a history of a still-hidden part of theCold War—the part hidden as deeply as the KGB’s molesin Western intelligence services—which has to be studied
to truly understand how communism sought to subvert
everything in its path. Like Whittaker Chambers’ Witness,
any study of the Cold War without Disinformation would
be profoundly incomplete.”—JED BABBIN, former deputy undersecretary ofdefense and author of In the Words of Our Enemies andInside the Asylum: How the U.N. and Old Europe Are
Worse Than You Think“Challenging false histories and subtle slanders, Pacepa
and Rychlak take us on a journey through the Empire of
Disinformation. Here we learn the theory and practice of
the Big Lie deployed against Christianity—against popes
and bishops. We learn how the Kremlin, even after thecollapse of Communism, continues its war against theWest; we learn how dezinformatsiya is used to inspire a
deep hatred of the Jews in order to mobilize Islam as abattering ram against Israel and America—to the benefitof Russia. If you want to understand the forces at work
behind the decline of Christianity and the rise of militant
Islam, you must read this book.”—JEFFREY NYQUIST, author Origins of the Fourth World
War, columnist, and radio talk show host on WIBG
(Ocean City, NJ)“As a Jew growing up in New York, I hated even hearing
Pope Pius XII’s name. But after seven years ofinvestigating and 46,000 pages of pertinent documents
collected, I came to the startling discovery that Pius XII
was revered and praised as a hero by all Jews during, andjust after, the war. If you want to know how 1 billion
people were tricked into hating him, read this book byGeneral Ion Mihai Pacepa and Professor Ron Rychlak
about the Kremlin’s still-secret dezinformatsiya. That
immense machinery accomplished the worst characterassassination of the twentieth century, and caused greatstrain between Jews and Catholics. But let me warn you:this book is scary! When you read it, you will discover
how you were maneuvered like a chess piece to achieve a
specific goal. You will also learn that the dezinformatsiya

enterprise is still dividing the Judeo-Christian world withdeadly international consequences.”—GARY KRUPP, chairman of Pave the Way
Foundation, dedicated to reconciling relations among theworld’s religions“Written by two foremost experts, this book is an eyeopening, demystifying work of political and historicalarcheology, a passionate and captivating endeavor tohighlight the communist techniques of cynical deception,
vicious plots, and perversely skillful concoction of
propaganda legends masquerading as historical evidence.
The authors display impressive erudition and uniqueinsights into the deep secrets of the Soviet and post-Soviet
disinformation machine. As a former highest-level
intelligence officer within the Soviet Bloc who broke withthe system for moral reasons and courageously exposed
its terrorist underpinnings, Ion Mihai Pacepa is aformidable witness to and a respected analyst of thecommunist intrigues, schemes, and manipulations.”—VLADIMIR TISMĂNEANU, author of Stalinism for All
Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism,
director of the University of Maryland’s Center for the
Study of Post-Communist Societies, and president ofRomania’s Institute for the Investigation of Communist
CrimesDISINFORMATIONWND Books, Inc.
Washington, DC
Copyright © 2013
Ion Mihai Pacepa and Ronald J. Rychlak
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, scanning, orotherwise—without permission in writing fromthe publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief
passages in a review.
Book designed by Mark Karis.
Cover illustration by Michael di Pietro—inspired byphotograph by David Malan.
WND Books are available at special discounts for bulk
purchases. WND Books, Inc.,
also publishes books in electronic formats. For more
information call (541) 474-1776,
email sales@wndbooks.com, or visit

www.wndbooks.com.
First Edition
Hardcover ISBN: 978-1936488605
eBook ISBN: 978-1936488988
Library of Congress information available
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

DEDICATIONTo Mary Lou, who helped me look at my past throughAmerican eyes.
—LT. GEN. ION MIHAI PACEPA
To my daughter Lindsey and all the Lindseys in my life.
—PROFESSOR RONALD RYCHLAK

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned torepeat it.
—GEORGE SANTAYANA, The Life of Reason, vol. 1, 1905

In Russia, “duck,” aside from its normal meaning, is aterm for disinformation.
‘When the ducks are flying’ means that the press ispublishing disinformation.
—PAVEL SUDOPLATOV, Deputy Chief of Soviet ForeignIntelligenceSpecial Tasks (Memoirs), 1994

AUTHOR’S NOTE
For the transliteration of Russian, we have followed
the guidelines of the United States Board on Geographic
Names, with the exception that iy and yy have beencondensed into a simple y when they occur at the end of
first and last names of individuals. A few familiar
deviations have been retained, such as Yuri Andropov.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction by R. James Woolsey
Foreword by Paul Kengor, PhD
PART I:GLORIFYING THE GUILTY, FRAMING THE INNOCENT

Prelude1. Drafted into the Securitate
2. The True Meaning of Glasnost
3. Defecting to America
4. The Black Art of Disinformation
5. The “Beauty” of Disinformation
6. Kremlin Framings
7. Stalin’s Encounter with Catholicism
8. The Kremlin’s New Enemy
PART II:ANATOMY OF A DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN: THE CREATION
OF “HITLER’S POPE”

9. The Failed Birth of “Hitler’s Pope”
10. Cardinal Stepinac
11. Cardinal Mindszenty

12. More Framings
13. Global War on Religion
14. The Vatican’s New Crusade
15. Liberation Theology
16. Khrushchev’s War on the Vatican
17. Preparations for Framing Pius XII
18. The Deputy
19. The Play
20. Disinformation under Every Rock21. KGB Fingerprints
22. The Deputy’s Anti-Semitism
23. The Deputy’s Ideological Roots
24. Rolf Hochhuth
25. A New Look at The Deputy
26. Khrushchev’s Political Necrophagy
27. Hitler’s Pope, The Book
28. Andropov’s Cocaine
PART III:
FRAMING THE US GOVERNMENT AS A PACK OF ASSASSINS

29. The End of America’s Innocence
30. Khrushchev: A Monument to Disinformation
31. Operation “Dragon”
32. New Hard Proof of the KGB’s Hand
PART IV:UNRAVELING TODAY’S WEB OF DECEIT

33. From Disinformation to Terrorism
34. Putin Time
35. From “Hitler’s Pope” to September 11, 2001
36. The Kremlin’s Nuclear Terrorism
37. A KGB Empire
38. Keeping the Lie-Machine Going
39. The Antiwar Movement
40. Marx’s Ghost Lives On
41. Disinformation in Today’s America
42. From Disinformation to Assassination
43. Marxist Personality Cults and Heavy Water
44. How I Became a “Filthy Jew Traitor”
Epilogue
Notes
Bibliography
Index

INTRODUCTION

THIS REMARKABLE BOOK will change the way you look at
intelligence, foreign affairs, the press, and much else
besides. Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking
defector we have ever had from a hostile intelligence
service. As chief of Romanian intelligence he was formany years in the key meetings with heads of state and aparticipant in some of the most sensitive discussions by
our enemies during the Cold War.
For starters, General Pacepa tells us that intelligencecollection is rather far down the list of what Romanian,and other Soviet Bloc, intelligence services were doing all
those years. Intelligence collection, he says, “has always
been more or less irrelevant.” I might add that whether
you agree or not that this is accurate for the period of theCold War, much intelligence collection is done today byhackers sitting at keyboards, not by case officers finetuning the location of dead drops.
So what were Romanian and Soviet spies spendingtheir time on in the Cold War years? General Pacepa
would say “framing,” i.e. rewriting history andmanipulating records, documents, etc., to bring that about.
To what end this dezinformatsiya? Oh, little matters likeusing press leaks to destroy the reputation of a national or
religious leader, engendering the spread of anti-Semitism,building up resentment against the United States or Israelin the Arab world. Soviet leader and long-time KGB head
Yuri Andropov, apparently a real aficionado ofdezinformatsiya, put it this way: “[Dezinformatsiya is]like cocaine. If you sniff once or twice, it may not change
your life. If you use it every day though, it will make youan addict—a different man.”So, one might say, it’s understandable during the Cold
War, but why now? And why are many governments in
the Mideast essentially doing the same thing, such as
spreading the crazy stories about 9/11—that it was theCIA, or the Mossad? I would imagine it’s fairly
straightforward: dictators need enemies to help them havemore reason to suppress their people. And we’re very
convenient.
Another major understanding emerges from thesepages. The communists had something between no
ideology and a dysfunctional one. We have one that
almost all Americans would sign on to: democracy, therule of law, and America as, in Lincoln’s words, the “last,
best hope of earth.” For most of us we also have ourreligion, generally Christianity or Judaism. This broughtout for the Soviet Bloc, and brings out for our current
enemies, a carefully targeted attack, or framing, to destroy
religion: to spread anti-Semitism, to smear the reputationsof a pope and other church leaders as anti-Semites when
they actually worked hard to protect Jews during the Nazi
era.
General Pacepa also shows how one can undo evenvery carefully constructed dezinformatsiya, such as the
1960s play The Deputy, trashing the reputation of Pope
Pius XII by using accompanying literature, remarkable forthe doctored photographs, the deceptive editing, etc.
General Pacepa has written that there were more in theSoviet Bloc working on dezinformatsiya than in the armed
forces and defense industry. It was, and to some extent
still is, a remarkable effort.
In spite of its perfection of the art of framing, its
experience, and its motive as an intelligence dictatorship
who needs us as an enemy, we may see as we move into
the twenty-first century that Russia is not our major
problem. Its demographics are awful (low birth rate, shortlife span for men) and its population could conceivably beunder 100 million by the middle of the century. It lives
almost wholly by selling oil and gas (and uses its leveragewith gas to threaten its neighbors with cutoffs). But thesubstantial recent discoveries of shale gas in many
countries, including the United States, Poland, and manyother locations, could deal Russia a heavy blow. Its gasmay not earn as much income and may be less useful as aweapon, and its oil may be replaced by much cheaper
natural gas-based fuels such as methanol.
None of us will feel too sorry for a shrinking group of
mid-twentieth century Russians, sitting on the sidelines,
desperately hoping to be noticed, with their cleverness inframing and the like increasingly irrelevant.
General Pacepa and his distinguished coauthor, Prof.
Ronald Rychlak, have done something remarkable inthese pages. They have not only helped us understandhistory and many of the current dezinformatsiya
operations that we continue to see—especially from
Russia and countries in the Mideast—but also have given
us a good start in learning how to defeat them. In short,they open a world that many of us didn’t know existed
and almost all of those of us who did know had seriously
underestimated.
—R. JAMES WOOLSEY, Chairman, Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies, Former Director of Central
IntelligenceFOREWORD

HERE IS A WORK that many of us have been waiting for, abook that— dare I say—history has been waiting for.
From start to finish, it is a gem of fascinating new
information, a goldmine of badly needed, long-overdue
Cold War material, a light into what truly was a world of
darkness. The authors are most unique: Ron Rychlak is anexpert on the much-maligned Pope Pius XII specificallyand on the Catholic Church generally, particularly during
the Cold War. Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highestranking intelligence official to defect from the Soviet
bloc, was, remarkably, a witness to many of the events thebook describes. General Pacepa remains with us still towitness to the truth and to the litany of falsehoods—
despite death sentences and a $2 million bounty set upon
his head by the late Romanian despot Nicolae Ceauşescu.
Thus, we have a rare confluence of a scholar of religious
history and an eyewitness to the dirty deeds orchestrated
by communists against the religious. Here we have literalscholarship with primary sources.
The result is a book at once breathtaking andinfuriating, and at times depressing. One is tempted to saythat readers will not be able to put this book down, butreaders may need to do just that simply to absorb theenormity of the information and to step away from thispeer into the dark side. One can only look for so long
before recoiling and needing a break. The sheer level of
unapologetic, unmitigated, and sustained Soviet slanderagainst religion and religious people, methodicallyunraveled by General Pacepa and Professor Rychlak,really is hard to endure. Yet, endure we must, because
their story must be told.
Anyone who has studied or been involved in thecommunist movement knows that communists had acampaign for just about everything they felt could bechurned into propaganda that aided and abetted their
purposes. Vladimir Lenin infamously stated that the “onlymorality” that his Bolsheviks recognized was that whichfurthered their interests. This meant that lying was fully
justified, that any target was legitimate, and that it wasalways open season on identified targets. Combine thismalice and moral relativism with what Mikhail
Gorbachev called the Soviet “war on religion,” plus a
network of servile communist parties around the world—
all devoted to what George Kennan termed “the master’s
voice” that spoke “infallibly” from the Kremlin—and you
had a literal international conspiracy to demonize themost saintly of religious figures who stood in the Soviet
way. The crass art of Kremlin deceit would be a vigorous
tool in this sustained effort, a hellacious effort with nomoral scruples. Only now, thanks to General Pacepa andRychlak, do we have a documented account of the effort
and its insidious offshoots.
A running thread throughout this book is the case ofPope Pius XII, which makes perfect sense, given that thePius case was at the nadir of the Soviet smear campaign,
starting under Stalin and Khrushchev. The authors showthat the attack against Pius was launched with a 1945
Radio Moscow broadcast that first echoed the extremely
unfair label “Hitler’s Pope.” The Soviets understood that
Pius XII was a mortal threat to their ideology, despisingcommunism as much as he did Nazism. They thus
embarked on an unholy crusade to destroy the pope andhis reputation, to scandalize his flock, and to foment
division among faiths.
General Pacepa and Rychlak have blown wide open
the smear campaign against Pius XII. No one who reads
this book will come away believing that Pius XII had everfavored Hitler or Nazism. And anyone who renders an
opinion on the Pius controversy now must go through thisbook. In fact, anyone who does not cannot have his or her
opinion taken seriously. With this book, the opening
question posed to anyone with a negative perception of
Pius as “Hitler’s Pope” must now be, “Have you read thebook by Pacepa and Rychlak?”

As this book crucially shows, the vicious myths
created by communists to discredit Pius have, quite
tragically, been unwittingly adopted by many mainstream
historians and journalists. The myth, which was initiallyquickly rejected by a contemporary generation that lived
through the real history and instantly knew better, pickedup momentum among the next generations that did notlive the history and did not know better. It has snowballed
and has been allowed to soil the reputation of a good man
who loved, helped, and even personally housed Jewish
people during the Holocaust. The KGB and its
accomplices perpetuated a poisonous image at complete
odds with that reality. The image remains with us now. It
is heartbreaking to see the rift that communists havecaused between Catholics who rightly admire Pius—andeven seek to canonize him—and their Jewish friends. The
communists did this, and have been getting away with it—or at least until this book.
This book conclusively exposes a host of damaging
lies, well beyond the Pius case. Much of the history wethought we knew, or we thought we even recently
uncovered, was actually spawned as communist
disinformation. As the authors note, this was a war “thatbroke out in 1945 and has never ended.” The Soviet
Union and Cold War are over, but the war on religion
remains, unwittingly reinvigorated by misled scholars
who have picked up “facts” that were never actually facts
to begin with.

The lies have been allowed to become “history,” tobecome “truth.” But what is truth? What is history? This
book has the real history. In that sense, this is a seminal
work that will start the process of remedying some serious
mis-education and unforgivably flawed “scholarship.”And historians and scholars must carefully discern how
General Pacepa and Rychlak got there: by hooking into a
key concept that properly redirects historians and scholars
to the truth—that is, understanding the outrageous anduniquely Soviet tactic of disinformation.
This is a crucial angle. General Pacepa and Rychlak
could have simply written a standard account of Soviet
persecution from a faith-based perspective. As theypeeled back the layers, however, they saw the rotting
marrow that was disinformation—known as
dezinformatsiya in Russian. Of course, General Pacepa
already knew this, having lived it and, regrettably, been areluctant participant. Now, making reparation, both heand Rychlak are able to explain to the world how
knowledge of Soviet disinformation explains much ofwhat we did not know, and, even more significantly,
much of what we got wrong. They have focused the
spotlight at an angle that offers historians a clarity thatheretofore has been lacking.
So patently dishonest was the Soviet use of
disinformation that even the Soviet definition ofdisinformation, published in the 1952 edition of the GreatSoviet Encyclopedia, was itself a form of disinformation.
Only the surreal upside-down world of Soviet
communism could produce such a litany of dishonesty.
The late Vaclav Havel spoke of the “communist culture of
the lie.”1 Here it is again, thrown wide open yet again.
General Pacepa and Rychlak lift the scales from our eyes,
and, as they do, we see a church on the cross, nailed thereby merciless persecutors.
But the authors’ concern is not merely the Catholic
Church, or the Christian church more broadly. Thisgroundbreaking book unravels not only the schemes
against Pius XII and figures like Cardinals Stepinac andMindszenty and Wyszynski. It shows the duplicity ofgroups such as the World Peace Council and WorldCouncil of Churches and Workers World Party; thebloody hands of surrogates from Vyshinsky to Romanianand Bulgarian intelligence; the Soviet role in liberation
theology; the witting and unwitting roles of players likeRomesh Chandra and Rolf Hochhuth and Erwin Piscatorand I. F. Stone and Edward Keating and John Cornwell;
the impact of paid agents, agents of influence, and dupes;
the macabre black art of Soviet “necrophagy;” and muchmore. Most ironic, the book highlights the loathsome antiSemitism behind the very conspirators of the original“Hitler’s Pope” campaign and other disinformation
efforts. The chapter on the Soviet promulgation of theinsidious Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy is anawakening. Here, the persecutors of Christ’s followers

resurrected an old Jew-hating standby and spread it asgospel truth to the West.
Indeed, the anti-Semitism documented in this book isshocking. The authors chronicle Yuri Andropov’s antiZionism campaign, support of Islamic terrorism, and dual
promotion of virulent anti-Semitism and antiAmericanism among Middle East Arabs. By 1978, theSoviet bloc planted some four thousand agents ofinfluence in the Islamic world, armed with hundreds ofthousands of copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
—and military weapons. The seeds they planted in the
Arab world decades ago still sow hatred and destructionin the form of violence and terror. Atheistic communism
sought out a handmaiden in radical Islam, with extremist
Muslims exploited by Soviet manipulators who hoped tobesmirch Judaism and Israel and Christianity andAmerica and the West—and too often with tragic success.
They promulgated not only acts of terrorism but egregious
acts of “diplomacy” like the infamous UN Resolution
3379, declaring Zionism a form of racism.
Alas, it is no shock at all—one supposes—when one
sees that the perpetrators behind these varying forms of
malevolence were the same political bandits who
advanced an international ideology that snuffed out the
lives of more than 100 million people in the twentiethcentury, twice the combined death toll of the two world
wars. And “bandits” is not too strong a word, or perhaps
political gangsters would be just as fitting. For anyone

who feels such language seems a little over-the-top, well
… you had better start reading, because you are in for an
ugly education. This is a sickening saga of Soviet deceitthat leaves one either wanting to take a bath or—ah, yes—maybe even go to church.
Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ron Rychlak havedone yeoman’s work. Pardon me if I say the Lord’s work,
as my better angels override my scholarly objectivity. We
owe a debt of gratitude to General Pacepa and Rychlak
for exposing the devils and the details behind thedisinformation.
—PAUL KENGOR, PHD, Professor of Political Science,
Grove City College

PART IGLORIFYING THE GUILTY,
FRAMING THE INNOCENTPRELUDE

DOWN THROUGH THE AGES, everyone who has sat on the
Kremlin throne—autocratic tsar, communist leader, or
democratically elected president—has been preoccupied
with transforming his country into a monument tohimself, and with controlling all expressions of religion
that might in any way impinge on his political ambitions.
Furthermore, the Russian rulers have traditionallyused their political police as the means for secretly
carrying out their grandiose plans. Tsarism, communism,and the Cold War may have been swallowed up by thesands of time, but the Kremlin continues these traditions.
Eventually, the Kremlin’s hand reached the shores of
the United States as well.
In March 1996, a sensational story jolted theAmerican conscience. The National Council of Churches(NCC) and the Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR),
two secretly Marxist organizations headquartered in the
United States, held a joint press conference to announce a“huge increase” in the number of arson cases committed
against black churches in the United States.
On June 8, President Bill Clinton denounced thosefires in a radio address, and he proposed a new federaltask force to investigate them. The president spoke withemotion about his own “vivid and painful memories of
black churches being burned in my own state [ofArkansas] when I was a child.” Charging that “racialhostility” was the driving force behind the fires, hepledged to place the full power of the federal government
behind the investigation. On June 15, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives assigned two hundred federal
agents to a new task force charged to investigate black
church fires.1 By July the accounts of arson committed
against black churches had snowballed, with more thantwenty-two hundred articles appearing in the press tocondemn what the Center for Democratic Renewal called“a well-organized white-supremacist movement.”2
The story spread like wildfire, inflaming decent people
everywhere against the perceived American racists who
had caused such terrible crimes. In Geneva, Switzerland,
the World Council of Churches (WCC)—the international
affiliate of the National Council of Churches—flew thirtyeight pastors to Washington, DC, to provide the American
government and people with more information about thisunprecedented racist tragedy.3

On July 13, President Clinton signed into law the
Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, which made churcharson a federal crime. On August 7, he also signed aspending bill that included $12 million to combat fires atchurches with black congregations. A few days later, theNCC ran full-page ads in the New York Times,
Washington Post and numerous other papers soliciting
donations for its new “Burned Churches Fund.” On
August 9, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NCC
had “managed to raise nearly $9 million,” and that
contributions were continuing to pour in “at about$100,000 a day.”4Then the bubble burst. It was eventually establishedby a private group, the National Fire Protection
Association, that in recent years there had been far fewer
church fires than usual, and law enforcement officials in
the South could not confirm any as having been raciallymotivated.5 No church burning had occurred in Arkansas
during Clinton’s childhood, in spite of his “vivid andpainful” memories, and the National Council of Churches
was accused of fabricating “a great church-fire hoax.”6
Average Americans looked upon the NCC/CDR hoax
as simply a slip of the pen, and forgot about it. No one athome or abroad asked why the whole slanderous hoax had
occurred in the first place. The political damage was done,
however.
The United States, which had paid with 405,399

American lives to save the world from the evils of Nazi
racism and the Holocaust, now found itself slandered as aneo-Nazi, racist country. Within a few years, over 40
percent of Canadian teenagers were calling the UnitedStates “evil,”7 and 57 percent of Greeks answered“neither” when asked which country was moredemocratic, the United States or Iraq.8 In Berlin, aGerman cabinet minister, Herta Däubler-Gmelin,compared new president George W. Bush to Hitler.9
Western Marxists, such as Venezuela’s ruinous dictator
Hugo Chavez also leapt into the fray, gleefully
entertaining the United Nations in 2006 with an indirect(but clearly understood) reference to the Americanpresident by saying: “Yesterday, the devil came here.
Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still
today.”10 By 2008, in the United States itself, someleaders of the Democratic Party even began describing
their own country as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm,”
unable to provide medical care for the poor or rebuild its
crumbling schools.11
The clue to understanding the significance of the black
church arson hoax lies in the documented fact that theWorld Council of Churches, which ignited and promotedthat story, has been infiltrated and ultimately controlled
by Russian intelligence since 1961. The Mitrokhin
Archive, a voluminous collection of Soviet foreign
intelligence documents smuggled out of the Soviet Union

in 1992, provides the identities and Soviet intelligencecode names of many Russian Orthodox priests dispatchedover the years to the World Council of Churches for the
specific purpose of influencing the politics and decisionsof that body. In fact, in 1972 Soviet intelligence managed
to have Metropolitan Nikodim (its agent “Adamant”)
elected WCC president. A 1989 KGB document boasts:“Now the agenda of the WCC is also our agenda.”12 Most
recently, Metropolitan Kirill (agent “Mikhaylov”), who
had been an influential representative to the WorldCouncil of Churches since 1971 and after 1975 a memberof the WCC Central Committee, was in 2009 elected
patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.13
The above slanderous attack on the United States andits churches was really nothing surprising. It reflects how
the Kremlin has for centuries preferred to carry out its
domestic and foreign policies by complicated deceptions.
Religion frequently figures in operations of the
traditionally cynical Russian leaders, who haveconsidered themselves the only god mankind needs.
Historically, the Kremlin’s manipulation of religion
for its own political purposes dates back to the sixteenth
century. When Ivan IV—the Terrible— had himself
crowned in 1547 as Russia’s first tsar, he also madehimself the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, as wasrecognized by the patriarch in Constantinople in 1591.
Muscovy had only recently been liberated by the Turks’overthrow of the Byzantine Empire, and it was from thelatter that Ivan had inherited the idea of a “symphony ofchurch and state.” The difference was that, instead of
having an emperor and a patriarch—as in Byzantium—
Ivan himself wore both hats. This merger of functions
persisted through all the tsars down to Nicholas II,
through all the Soviet leaders from Vladimir Lenin
through Boris Yeltsin, and still lives on in Vladimir
Putin’s Russia today.
Ivan IV was also the first head of Russia to establish
his own political police, the Oprichnina, or separate court.
Created in 1564 under Ivan’s personal direction, it was
mainly used to control the boyars who were threatening
his reign. That tradition has also lived on, going throughnumerous name changes, down to the Soviet Union’s
threateningly familiar KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy
Bezopasnosti, or Committee of State Security) andbeyond, to today’s FSB (Federalnaya Sluzhba
Bezopasnosti, or Federal Security Service). Russia’s
political police have always been responsible for keeping
order in church and state, in accordance with commands
issued by the man seated on the Kremlin throne.
Up until World War II, Russia was basicallyisolationist—inscrutable perhaps to foreigners—with alove of tackling problems indirectly and clandestinely
rather than head-on, but not considered a threat by the restof the world. Centuries ago, the Russian tsars were notparticularly finicky about concealing their hand when

conducting deceptions. Their political horizons essentiallyended at the Russian borders, and they knew the Russianpeasants had infinite faith in their tsar and in their
Orthodox religion, which he represented. Foreign visitors
were not always taken in, but that did not matter. In thenineteenth century, for example, Astolphe, Marquis deCustine, wrote extensively about his travels in Russia. He
railed against the “dexterity in lying” and the “naturalness
in falsehood” that he encountered in 1839, such as when
the tsar tried to overwhelm the visiting Frenchman with
an illumination spectacle at the imperial palace. This
display was designed to conceal the fact that hundreds ofspectators had drowned when a sudden squall overturned
their boats. “No one will ever know the truth,” he wrote inhis diary, “and the papers will not even mention thedisaster—that would distress the Czarina and imply blameon the Czar.”14 At the end of his trip, Custine concluded:“Everything is deception in Russia.”15
It was during the preliminary period leading up to
World War II that the Kremlin leader began seriously
thinking about world domination and tinkering aroundwith the organization and mandates of his foreign
intelligence service. Elsewhere in the world, foreign
intelligence services are primarily engaged in collecting
information to help their heads of state conduct foreign
affairs, but in Russia and later throughout the Russian
sphere of influence, that task has always been more orless irrelevant. There the goal is to manipulate the future,
not just to learn about the past. Specifically, the idea is tofabricate a new past for enemy targets in order to change
how the world perceives them. Besides targeting Westerngovernments—nowadays the United States in particular—
the Kremlin has come to view the powerful Westernreligions as dangerously hostile threats.
This brings us to the title of this book. Since WorldWar II, disinformation has been the Kremlin’s mosteffective weapon in its war on the West, especially on
Western religion. Iosif Stalin invented this secret“science,” giving it a French-sounding name andpretending it was a dirty Western practice. As this bookwill show, the Kremlin has secretly, and successfully,
calumniated leading Roman Catholic prelates,
culminating in Pope Pius XII; it almost succeeded inassassinating Pope John Paul II; it invented liberation
theology, a Marxist doctrine that turned many European
and Latin American Catholics against the Vatican and theUnited States; it has promoted anti-Semitism andinternational terrorism; and it has inspired anti-American
uprisings in the Islamic world.
In spite of Soviet communism’s demise,disinformation and its undercover international apparatus
are still very much alive and well today. They continue todistort the way millions of people view the United States,
they still manipulate religion—every religion—and theyplay a substantive role in fueling today’s international

terrorism.
Mao Zedong would have been proud. He was famousfor saying that a lie repeated a hundred times becomes thetruth.

1
DRAFTED INTO THE
SECURITATEI WAS ONLY TWENTY-TWO YEARS OLD when I became an
officer of the far-flung Soviet bloc intelligencecommunity and its disinformation machinery, and mywhole world was suddenly turned upside down.
Up until then, all I had wanted in life was to go to“America.” That had been my father’s lifelong dream. He
spent most of his working career managing the service
department at the Bucharest affiliate of General Motors,
the American automobile company, and he was firmly
determined that one day he would gather up his family
and emigrate to Detroit, where he had relatives. Trappedby World War II and then afterwards by the Sovietoccupation of Romania, he was forced to give up thatdream, though not before passing his love for America
along to me, his only child. The moment the United States
reopened its embassy in Bucharest after the end of thewar, I became one of its enthusiastic visitors and soon
joined the Young Friends of the United States, anorganization sponsored by the US government.
Furthermore, my best friend in those days, an older
boy who was my idol, had already emigrated to theUnited States and was there waiting for me. The son of anengineer who had been employed by an American-owned
oil company in Romania, he was my next-door neighborand mentor until he left Romania just before the start ofWorld War II to study in the United States. Then in
October 1944, I observed a young American lieutenant
stopping to stare at the rubble that had once been myfamily’s sturdy, two-story house. It had been flattened on
April 4, 1944, during the first American bombardment of
Bucharest. The lieutenant turned out to be my friend.
“Where is Mother?” was all he could say when he sawthat his house was also gone.
“She died in the April 4 bombing,” I said.
Visibly shaken, my friend, now “Lieutenant Bota,”
said: “I was with the squadron that dropped the bombs on
Bucharest that day.”We embraced.
“You know,” he told me a few days later, as he wasabout to leave Romania again, “I have a nice place to live
over there in America. Now it’s your home as much as it
is mine.”Why, then, did I end up in communist Romania’s
political police, the Securitate, instead of in America?
Put very simply, I shot myself in the foot. When I
graduated from high school, I decided to get myengineering degree before leaving for America. In thatsummer of 1947, when I was admitted to the Polytechnic
Institute in Bucharest, the Kingdom of Romania had acoalition government in which only a few cabinet
members were communists, and travel abroad wasunrestricted. A few months later, however, thecommunists overthrew the king, took over the entire
government and closed the country’s borders.
In January 1951, when the first generation of
Romania’s engineers and economists trained undercommunist rule were about to graduate, I was drafted as
an officer of the massive Soviet bloc intelligencemachinery. Under Soviet communism, where thegovernment paid for your entire education, you really had
no chance of choosing your employer. The government
decided where you had to work, and that was that.
I was distraught. But since I did not really know what
“America” meant, I was not able to assign true
dimensions to my loss. At the same time, I did not reallyknow what the Securitate was either. Moreover, I was justbeginning to enjoy a certain degree of popularity among
my classmates because of my Ariciul (“The Porcupine”),
a satirical magazine I put out filled with my own cartoons.
After the Nazi troops had occupied Romania and turned
the Bucharest General Motors affiliate into a military unit
for repairing German cars and trucks, Father had opened a
car repair business of his own. It was the only place inRomania repairing American cars, and he was doing sowell that he bought me a car as a reward for being
admitted to the Polytechnic Institute. That car, a small
Peugeot, gave me a leg up among my colleagues, because
there were only two other boys who had cars among all
the roughly two thousand students at that engineeringschool.
The saying goes that in the country of the blind, theone-eyed man is king. That’s what I was in the Securitate.
That organization, established just a couple of years
earlier, had at first been staffed with hastily recruited
miners and other blue-collar workers. They wereconsidered to be politically reliable, but most of themhardly knew how to hold a pen. Compared to them, I wasa whiz kid. My father, who had started his life as atinsmith in his father’s shop, had been determined to seethat his only child would never need to touch a hammer,
so he had spent every spare penny he earned on myeducation. At age nine I could play Beethoven’s Kreutzer
Sonata on my violin, at twelve I was showing off
Berlioz’s Idée Fixe at the musical evenings I would

organize for my fellow students, and at sixteen I was
lecturing on Marcel Proust’s In Remembrance of Things
Past.
My education was, however, not the only factor thatfavored my intelligence career. A couple of months after I
became a Securitate officer, I was called in by my boss,
Capt. Fănel Lazarovici, and told to report to the chief of
the Cadre (personnel) Directorate the first thing in themorning. The look on his face reflected my boss’s
commiseration. Cadre had already become a frightening
word throughout the country, and the chief of the
Securitate’s Cadre Directorate was said to be a sheer
terror. At least, that was what I had heard my fellow
officers whisper. Just by lifting one finger, they said, he
could have you promoted, demoted, or made to disappear
into thin air. Of course, I was unable to close my eyes thewhole night.
My shirt clung damply to my back on that April
morning in 1951 when I knocked on the mahogany door
with the nameplate reading Director de Cadre. Had“they” learned about my old visits to the American
Embassy? Or about the button with the king’s picture on
it that I used to wear? I inconspicuously flexed themuscles in my neck to see if I was still wearing my chain.
Was the cross hanging from it to blame?
Finding myself in the middle of a room the size of atennis court, I snapped to attention and blurted out, “Longlife, Comrade Colonel! Jr. Lt. Ion Mihai Pacepa
reporting.”“Chert vosmi!” the voice behind the desk swore loudlyin Russian. “By the devil, you’re already a grown man!”
It took me a minute to realize that I knew that voice.
That bulldog in uniform sitting behind the desk was theson of a man who had worked with my father at theGeneral Motors dealership in Bucharest. His father was
Carol Demeter—how could I ever forget him? From
1938, when Carol Demeter had been arrested forcommunist activity, until 1944, when he had beenreleased by the Soviet troops, my father had personallyseen to it that the prisoner’s wife and son lacked fornothing.
“Do you remember that slap your father pasted on mymug?” the colonel asked. His mustache bristled at me like
porcupine quills.
My flesh crawled. How could I forget? I had beenwith Father when he had finally located Demeter’s son,
who had been hanging around with a gang of loiterers andhad disappeared from home a few weeks before. The
imprint my father’s heavy hand had left on the wayward
teenager’s cheek still stuck in my memory. Father had
never slapped me. He had used words, not slaps, toeducate me.
“Well,” Colonel Demeter said when I finally managed
a nod, “that slap made a man out of me.” He explainedthat soon after that slap, he had started training to be acarpenter like his father, and then he had joined theCommunist Party and found his way to the Soviet Union.
“Now it’s my turn to pay your father back.”
My father never gave me the slightest hint that he had
ever spoken to Colonel Demeter about me. Nor did
Colonel Demeter actually say they had talked, although
for the next ten years I would physically sense his
protective hand cupped around me. Only once, in 1954,
when he went out of his way to see that my father wasburied with great military pomp, did he take credit forlooking out for me. In his funeral oration for my father,
Demeter, by then a Securitate general, rested an enormous
paw on my shoulder and addressed the coffin: “Rest inpeace. Your son is in good hands.”

In March 1953, Stalin died ignominiously, while trying tosober up in a scorching sauna after a long drinking boutwith his crony, Nikita Khrushchev. Today, few Russians
like to admit that they ever worshiped Stalin. Not many
Nazi admirers could be found in Germany after WorldWar II, either. But on March 6, 1953, four million people
wept in Red Square at Stalin’s funeral. Sirens wailed,bells tolled, cars blew their horns, and work stopped all
around the country. The whole Soviet bloc felt that an eraof history had passed into oblivion with this man whose

name had been synonymous with communism.
At that time, I was already a Soviet bloc intelligence
officer. I was not yet, however, aware that a Soviet
leader’s image was so important that he would go to any
lengths—even to the point of killing and imprisoning
millions, rewriting history, destroying institutions,manipulating religion, and changing traditions—all in aneffort to beatify himself or to demonize his competitorsand enemies. Soon thereafter, however, I would be
assigned to the inner circle of the despot’s enormous
dezinformatsiya machinery, which was responsible for allthat image-building.
Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, began his reign
by executing the whole leadership of Stalin’s politicalpolice as traitors, so as to give the appearance that hecondemned his predecessor’s crimes. That had become arite of succession in the Soviet Union. Only one of thefirst eight chiefs of the Soviet state security service whoserved between 1917 and 1954 is known to have died anatural death—Semen Ignatyev, who vanished into thin
air in 1953, then reappeared at a provincial post and diedof natural causes in 1983.1 Feliks Dzerzhinsky, thefounder of that organization, died suspiciously of a strokein 1926, after an argument with Stalin.2 The rest were
either poisoned (Vyacheslav Menzhinsky in 1934) or
executed as traitors and spies (Genrikh Yagoda in 1938,
Nikolay Yezhov in 1940, Lavrenty Beriya and Vsevolod

Merkulov in 1953, Viktor Abakumov in 1954).
To be on the safe side, Khrushchev executed his spy
chief, Vladimir Dekanozov, as well, replacing him as spy
chief with General Aleksander Sakharovsky, the chief
Soviet intelligence adviser to Romania, who had been myde facto boss and mentor in Romania. That brought me
into Khrushchev’s inner circle. During the ensuing years,
I would be pushed to the top of Romanian foreign
intelligence and would become involved in some of
Khrushchev’s most important foreign political projects,
from his brutal crushing of the 1956 Hungarian uprising
to his construction of the Berlin Wall and provocation of
the Cuban missile crisis.
Many years later I would look back on all these eventsand reflect on how they swept me into another world andput an end to any hope I had of working as a chemicalengineer, to say nothing of becoming an American. Now,
however, that I have finally been fortunate enough tosettle down in this country of my father’s and my own
youthful dreams, I have come around to understandingthat the path I was channeled into taking may have been,
in at least one respect, a blessing in disguise. Eventually
my intelligence career afforded me unique insights into asystem of government that has changed the course ofhistory. In fact, because Romania was a relatively small
country, I believe that I, as its top intelligence officer,
very possibly had a clearer picture of how the Kremlin
and its dezinformatsiya really functioned than perhaps allbut the very innermost Soviet inner circle.

2
THE TRUE MEANING OF
GLASNOST

FAST-FORWARD TO JANUARY 1972. Romanian tyrant
Nicolae Ceauşescu returned from the Kremlin more
excited than I had ever seen him before. “You go to
Moscow,” he told me at the airport, extending four limp
fingers in my direction. “We’re pulling off a big
glasnost.” I soon learned that Ceauşescu had spent his
entire Moscow trip talking about public relations
strategies with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and his
KGB chief Yuri Andropov. The two Soviets believed theWest had reached the historic point where it was eager toencourage the least sign of thaw in a communist leader.

To test this conclusion, they wanted to build Ceauşescu
up and make him a big box-office success in the West, asa trial run preparatory to launching the same trick with theman in the Kremlin.
You probably think Mikhail Gorbachev invented theconcept of glasnost to describe his effort to lead theSoviet Union “out of its totalitarian state and todemocracy, to freedom, to openness,” as he wrote.1 If so,
you are not alone. All of the media and most of the“experts,” even in Western defense establishments,
believe that too—as does the committee that awarded
Gorbachev the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the venerable
Encyclopedia Britannica defines glasnost as “Soviet
policy of open discussion of political and social issues. It
was instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s andbegan the democratization of the Soviet Union.”2
Merriam-Webster agrees.3 And the American Heritage
Dictionary defines glasnost as “an official policy of theformer Soviet government emphasizing candor withregard to discussion of social problems andshortcomings.”4
But in fact, glasnost is an old Russian term forpolishing the ruler’s image. Originally it meant, literally,
publicizing, i.e., self-promotion. Since the sixteenth
century’s Ivan the Terrible, the first ruler to become Tsarof All the Russias, all of that country’s leaders have usedglasnost to promote themselves inside and outside thecountry.
In the mid-1930s—half a century before Gorbachev’s
glasnost—the official Soviet encyclopedia definedglasnost as a spin on news released to the public:“Dostupnost obshchestvennomy obsuzhdeniyu, kontrolyu;
publichnost,” meaning, “the quality of being madeavailable for public discussion or manipulation.”5
Thus, back in the days when I was still a member ofthe KGB community, glasnost was regarded as a tool ofthe black art of dezinformatsiya, and it was used tosanctify the country’s leader. For communists, only theleader counted. They used glasnost to sanctify their own
leaders, and to induce hordes of Western leftists to fall forthis scam.
Glasnost is one of the most secret secrets of the
Kremlin, and certainly one of the main reasons for still
keeping the KGB’s foreign intelligence archives
hermetically sealed. The Cold War is over, but the
Kremlin’s glasnost operations seem to be still en vogue.
In August 1999, only days after Vladimir Putin was
appointed Russia’s prime minister, the KGB’s
dezinformatsiya machinery, capitalizing on the fact that
he had spent many years in Germany, started portraying
him as a Europeanized leader. (The fawning stories
neglected to mention that he had been assigned to East
Germany, a Soviet satellite at the time.) That same year, I
went with my wife— an American writer and intelligenceexpert—to visit Leipzig and Dresden and tour the
menacing buildings that had housed the Stasi (communist
East Germany’s political police) headquarters where Putin
had in fact spent his “Europeanizing” years. We learned
that the local Soviet-German House of Friendship—headed by Putin for six years—had been in fact a KGB
front, and that the undercover KGB officers running it had
simply worked out of operational offices at the Leipzig
and Dresden Stasi headquarters. We even sat in Putin’schair, now a museum piece.
Those prison-like Stasi buildings had been cut off
from even the normal and colorless East German life by
Stasi guards brandishing machine guns and flanked bypolice dogs. Yet, even today, the Kremlin still
reverentially implies that Putin’s experience in Germany
was similar to that of Peter the Great, allowing him toabsorb the best of European culture.
At the end of the 2001 summit meeting held in
Slovenia, President George W. Bush said: “I looked theman [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be verystraightforward and trustworthy.” Unfortunately, even
President Bush was deceived by glasnost. Putin
consolidated Russia into an intelligence dictatorship, not ademocracy. By 2003, more than six thousand former
officers of the KGB, who had framed millions as Zionist
spies and shot them, were running Russia’s federal andlocal governments. Nearly half of all top governmental

positions were held by former officers of the KGB.6 It
was like democratizing Nazi Germany with Gestapo
officers at its helm.
On February 12, 2004, Putin declared the demise of
the Soviet Union a “national tragedy on an enormous
scale.” Nevertheless, most of the world still sees him as amodern Peter the Great. That is the secret power ofglasnost.

“A man like me is born only once every five hundredyears,” Ceauşescu would proclaim, over and over again,
after 1972. That was his glasnost, and, unfortunately, I
was deeply involved in it.
For those who do not remember Ceauşescu, let me justsay that he was more or less a Romanian version of thecurrent Russian president, Vladimir Putin—an empty suit
who morphed into his country’s president without having
held any productive job, who knew nothing about how thereal world worked, and who believed that lying to theworld and killing off his critics were the magic wands thatwould keep him in power. Like Putin, Ceauşescu had
supervised his country’s political police organization
before becoming president. Behind the scenes, Ceauşescu,
like Putin, used his intelligence machinery to override

party politics as a means to power. Like Putin, he made aneffort to detract attention away from his humble andcolorless past by making his imperial dreams come true.
And of course, they both ascended to the throne driven by
the secret ambition to hang onto it for life.
After getting my marching orders from Ceauşescu in
1972, I was in Moscow a week later. KGB chairman
Andropov greeted me by getting right to the point: “The
only thing the West cares about is our leader.” He wasfamous for not wasting his breath on introductory
chitchat. “The more they come to love him, the better they
will like us,” he said. Making the imperialists believe ourleaders admired them was the most efficacious glasnost
tactic for now. It was as simple as that, and it worked, hesaid. The KGB had already achieved great success inmaking certain elements in the West admire— and evenlove—“the Comrade” (meaning first Stalin, then
Khrushchev).
Andropov’s dark, cavernous office breathed secrecy
from every inch of its thick walls, just as his new glasnost
did. The velvet window draperies were closed, and theonly light came from the flickering flames of a fire inside
the fireplace. The chairman’s ascetic fingers felt cold andmoist when he shook my hand. He took a seat on the sideof the table facing the warmth of the fireplace, not at thehead, as Soviet bureaucratic protocol required. His kidney
illness had worsened and he needed to keep warm, so asto avoid having to go to the bathroom too often during ameeting.
“Let the gullible fools believe you want to perfume
your communism with a dab of Western democracy, andthey will clothe you in gold,” Andropov declared. The
creation of the image of the “new Ceauşescu” should beplanted like opium seeds—patiently but tenaciously, one
by one by one. We should water our seeds day after day
until they bear fruit. We should promise that more
openness and Westernization will be forthcoming, if only
the West helps our new “moderate” Ceauşescu to defeat
his “hardline” opponents at home.
Some two hours later, the KGB chairman concluded
our meeting as abruptly as he had started it: “I’ll lay you amillion to one that the West will swallow it.”
When I left the Lubyanka (KGB headquarters), I tookwith me a devious glasnost plan for image reconstruction.
Ceauşescu followed it to the letter. He rebaptized theGrand National Assembly, Romania’s version of theSupreme Soviet, as “Parliament,” added a few religious
leaders to it, and declared it the country’s governing body.
Of course, it remained the same rubber-stamporganization Romania had had before. Next, Ceauşescu
publicly called for the Communist Party to reduce its
influence on the administration and the economy of thecountry. That was another inspired glasnost trick. Then

Ceauşescu staged a simulated economic decentralization,
instituted dual candidates for local elections, andannounced a campaign against corruption anddrunkenness.
That done, Ceauşescu created the national position of“president,” endowed it with broad governing powers,
and awarded himself the post.
To impress the religious, Ceauşescu even marchedbehind a metropolitan of the church and a clutch of priests
at his father’s funeral. Lastly, he developed a specialty oftelling anti-Soviet jokes.
It worked like a charm. Bucharest became an East
European mecca, filled to the brim with Westernjournalists and politicians eager to get a closer look at theman who had dared to change communism for the better.
A celebrity was born.
Western businessmen rushed to Bucharest, hoping to
get in on the ground floor for a slice of the new Romania.
Of course, most of them had been lured there by myundercover DIE (Romania’s foreign intelligence service)
operatives, who went to great lengths to pamper themduring their stay. Gradually, my undercover officers
became expert at “rewarding” the “friendly” visitors bysetting up interviews for them with Ceauşescu, inviting
them to lavish banquets held in Romania’s picturesquemonasteries, carousing with them at all-night parties andfinding them compliant girlfriends. Or even by involving
them in profitable businesses.
Today, no one remembers that Ceauşescu was once
Washington’s fair-haired boy. Contemporary politicalmemory seems to be increasingly afflicted with a kind of
a convenient Alzheimer’s disease. But two Americanpresidents went to Bucharest to pay Ceauşescu tribute,
when none had ever gone there before. To cap it all off,
my lord and master began a royal junket around the freeworld to sell his image—the United States, Japan, France,
Italy, the Vatican, Finland, West Germany, Spain,
Portugal, Egypt, Jordan, and the Philippines, to mention
only a few of his hosts.
On all of these trips, Ceauşescu kept me at his righthand. He now religiously believed that glasnost, notMarxist ideology, was the magic wand that would makehis ambitions a reality.
In 1978, I accompanied Ceauşescu on his fourth andmost triumphant trip to Washington, and I was next to
him when he took a historic drive throughout London
with Queen Elizabeth in the British royal coach. Few now
remember it, but a steady stream of front-page articles on
Romania appeared in the United States, Great Britain andWestern Europe at that time, extolling Ceauşescu’s new“Westernized communism.” The tyrant was portrayed as anew breed of communist ruler, one the West could dobusiness with. Romania seemed a normal country—aplace where people could criticize their government, visit
monasteries, listen to Western symphonies, read foreign
books and even point to their stylish first lady.
We were also quite successful at filling Western media
airwaves with the new image of Ceauşescu. The truth is,
the Western media are quite easily manipulated, for theyoften craft their stories from press releases and tend, on
the whole, to be indiscriminate about the nature andreliability of their sources. Our information fit quite wellwith the general mood of Western acceptance ofCeauşescu as a Westernized communist. In the West, his
position generally seemed a plausible and historic breachin the Iron Curtain, and almost no one stepped up to checkthe facts and contradict us.
In 1982, Yuri Andropov, the father of the modern
Soviet dezinformatsiya era, became ruler of the Soviet
Union itself, and glasnost became a Soviet foreign policy
as well. Once settled in the Kremlin, the former KGB
chairman hastened to introduce himself to the West as a“moderate” communist and a sensitive, warm, Westernoriented man who allegedly enjoyed an occasional drinkof Scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved
listening to Beethoven and American jazz. In reality,
Andropov did not drink at all, for he was alreadyterminally ill from a kidney disorder. The rest of theportrayal was equally false—as I well know, having beenquite well acquainted with Andropov. As for “moderate,”
any head of the KGB necessarily had hands drenched inblood.
In the brief span left to him, the cynical Andropov
focused on projecting his new image and promoting his
protégé, a vigorous and callous young professional
communist who was busy honing the same moderate
image for himself—Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gorbachev introduced himself to the West exactly as
Andropov had: a cultured sophisticate and aficionado ofWestern opera and jazz. The Kremlin has always known
that this picture holds particular charm for the gullible
West.
Gorbachev is thought to have been recruited by the
KGB in the early 1950s while studying law at Moscow
State University, where he spied on his foreignclassmates.7 As long as the KGB archives remain sealed,
we will not be able to learn more details about those years
of Gorbachev’s life. But we do now know that after
graduating from the university, Gorbachev interned at the
Lubyanka, the state security headquarters,8 where hecame under Andropov’s influence. Both had begun theircareers in Stavropol. Andropov got Gorbachev appointed
to the Soviet Politburo, and one Gorbachev biographer
even describes him as Andropov’s “crown prince.”9
Meanwhile, the West’s admiration for Ceauşescu’s

glasnost took on such a life of its own that it could not be
stopped. In a letter dated January 27, 1983, written toCeauşescu on his birthday, President Richard Nixon,
whom I had already briefed about Ceauşescu’s glasnost
after I defected to the United States, gushed:Ever since we first met and talked in 1967, I have watched
you grow in stature as a statesman. Your vigor, your singlemindedness, your acute intelligence—and especially yourability to act skillfully on both domestic and international
fronts—place you in the first rank of world leaders … At
65 most people are ready to retire, but for many of thegreatest leaders the most productive and satisfying years
are still ahead. I am certain that your best moments will
come in your second decade as President as you continue tofollow the bold, independent course you have set for yourpeople.10

The late Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, forwhose staunch anti-communism I have high regard, told
me in 1988 that Ceauşescu “may be crazy with his own
people, but believe me, General, he is the one who’ll
break up the Soviet bloc.” A few months later, however,Ceauşescu was executed by his own people at the end of atrial in which the accusations came almost word-for-wordout of my book Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae& Elena Ceauşescu’s Crimes, Lifestyle and Corruption.

By that time, however, Washington and the rest of theWest had shifted their affections. Now it was the man in
the Kremlin, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was seen as thenascent democrat and touted as a political visionary. Onceagain, the Western media appeared to swallow their own
hype. Gorbachev’s rhetoric about combining “communist
values” with “Western democracy introduced from thetop” and a “centralized free-market economy” enthralled
the world. Piles of Gorbachev’s Perestroika: New
Thinking for Our Country and the World took the place ofCeauşescu’s memoirs in bookstore windows.
So much for institutional memory.
In December 1987, when Mikhail Gorbachev went toWashington, I had the weird déjà vu feeling of watching a
reenactment of Ceauşescu’s last official visit to the UnitedStates in April 1978. I had prepared and directed that
visit, and during its actual performance I had also
accompanied Ceauşescu.
To my mind, the two communist leaders were
uncannily alike in both appearance and actions. Both men
were short in stature—like most dictators. Both brought
their foreign intelligence chiefs along with them— as
most communist rulers did. Both boosted their national
history and culture, reciting poems by their famous
writers. Both were said to be fans of American movies.
Both strode into Washington with firm step and swinging

arms, wearing equally broad smiles on their faces andalmost identical Italian suits of impeccable conservative
cut on their stocky bodies. Both chose to wear a businesssuit to the black-tie dinner at the White House—Ceauşescu always said that the black tie was the ultimate
symbol of capitalist decay, an opinion that caused me
many a protocol headache on his visits abroad.
Both Gorbachev and Ceauşescu welcomed every
photo opportunity in the United States, clearly indicatingthat they considered the American media the mosteffective way to polish their international image.
Gorbachev’s arrival was preceded by an NBC interview,
just as Ceauşescu’s had been by one with the Hearst
newspapers. Both publicly used Washington to reaffirm
their deep devotion to Marxism, although both had to
acknowledge that their communist systems at home werein deep trouble. (Translation: send money.) And bothwere not shy about letting the West know theirdetermination to stay in power for the rest of their lives.
After formal ceremonies, official document signing,
and the requisite exchange of fancy dinners, Gorbachev
again followed in Ceauşescu’s footsteps by turning on thecharm for members of Congress and high-level Americanbusinessmen. Both groups have often made themselvesuseful to foreign despots.

Both Gorbachev and Ceauşescu came to Washington
accompanied by their wives, a diplomatic first. Both firstladies were promoted as intellectuals in their own right. In
Washington, the Romanians publicized a scientific study
by Elena Ceauşescu—actually ghostwritten by my DIE.
Soviet advance publicity glowed over Raisa Gorbachev’s
university dissertation, even getting excerpts from it
published in the American press. On her fourth visit to
Washington, Elena Ceauşescu demanded that I get her an
American academic title. It was not easy, but I managed
to arrange a ceremony at Blair House making her anhonorary member of the Illinois Academy of Science.
Raisa Gorbachev returned to the United States in 1990
and was honored at a highly publicized Wellesley College
graduation.
Toward the end of their visits, both Eastern bloc
leaders received a taste of American democracy in action.
Ceauşescu had to face the thousands of Romanian andHungarian émigrés who besieged his residence at the
Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York, calling him“Dracula” for his ultra-Marxist domestic policies.
Gorbachev had to put up with a large demonstration
asking for the right of Jews to emigrate from the Soviet
Union. Those confrontations momentarily caused bothcommunist leaders to let slip their smiling masks,
allowing a glimpse of their steel teeth. In the end,

however, both won the American public back over to theirside by stopping their motorcades and impulsively
plunging into the crowd to shake hands.
In retrospect, it is easy to see that all of this was a
product of sophisticated dezinformatsiya experts andpublic relations crews, employing all their reliable,
smoke-and-mirrors framing techniques.
At the time, however, both leaders were perceived asmodern pragmatists who deserved to be supported.
Indeed, they were believed by many in diplomatic andacademic circles to really be—deep down—on America’sside. It was argued that they needed US support to help
them in impending tough struggles with their own
domestic “hardliners.”
I do not mean to imply that the mighty Gorbachev
would necessarily have been trying to copy Ceauşescu
word for word and step by step, but Andropov’s
resounding success at stage-directing Ceauşescu wascertainly there for Gorbachev to consider. It seems
particularly significant that Gorbachev, a couple of weeks
after returning home from his 1987 trip to Washington,
quietly awarded Ceauşescu the Order of Lenin, thehighest decoration in the Soviet bloc, in spite of the two
men’s strong public differences. As far as I know,Ceauşescu was the only East European leader Gorbachev
ever decorated with that high award.

I noted only one fundamental difference between
Gorbachev’s and Ceauşescu’s strategies to butter up theWest. Three months after Ceauşescu left Washington, theacting chief of his foreign intelligence service—this writer—was granted political asylum by the United States.
That event shattered the smiling mask Ceauşescu hadworn in Washington and allowed the inner workings of
his glasnost machine to lie spread out on the table for all
to see. From among Gorbachev’s innermost circle, no one
has yet stepped forward with the truth about that last
Soviet monarch’s methods of governing the country andabout his still-admired glasnost.
At the beginning of 2001, Gorbachev was still
publicly asserting that his glasnost (for which he had been
granted the Nobel Prize and named “Man of the Decade”
by Time magazine) was “leading the country out of its
totalitarian state and to democracy, to freedom, toopenness.”11 In March 2002, however, British Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, who had prominently
endorsed glasnost in the 1980s, cast the first doubt on
Gorbachev. She conceded that “the role of Mikhail
Gorbachev, who failed miserably in his declared objectiveof saving Communism and the Soviet Union, has been
absurdly misunderstood.”12

3
DEFECTING TO AMERICAGLASNOST REALLY MEANS LYING, and lying is the first step
toward stealing and killing. On the memorable day of July22, 1978, Romanian president Nicolae Ceauşescu
whispered in my ear, “I w-want Noel k-k-killed.”Ceauşescu stammered both when nervous and when
excited. “You don’t need to r-report back to me,” headded. “I’ll learn about it from the W-Western m-media
when he croaks.”
Noel Bernard was the director of Radio Free Europe’s
Romanian program, and for years he had been blackeningCeauşescu’s carefully crafted cult of personality.
Ceauşescu continued: “And a few days later, blow upthat whole w-wasp’s n-nest.” The “wasp’s nest” was theMunich headquarters of Radio Free Europe. “With abriefcase of S-Semtex,” Ceauşescu expertly specified,referring to an explosive that had been developed incommunist Czechoslovakia for use in international
terrorism. “We’ve g-got to f-finish with all that shit.”
All through those twenty-seven years I had spent in
the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I had been livingwith the nightmare that, sooner or later, orders to havesomeone killed would land on my plate. In 1951, when I
became an intelligence officer in the KGB community, I
swore to myself that I would avoid involvement in any
operations that could lead to a loss of life. I may havedone a lot of reprehensible things during all those years,
but I had kept that resolution. Up until that moment I had
been safe, since General Nicolae Doicaru, the longtime
chief of Romania’s foreign intelligence service, the DIE,
had been in charge of “wet operations,” as the KGB
community’s jargon termed the killing and kidnapping ofpolitical opponents abroad.
The previous June, however, Ceauşescu had anointed
me as head of his Presidential House, a new position, andthere was no way for me to avoid further involvement inpolitical assassinations, which had grown into a main
instrument of foreign policy throughout the Soviet bloc.
Head of Presidential House was a job essentially like

chief of staff in the American White House. Ceauşescu
had invented this post in April 1978, after his triumphantvisit to Washington—where I had accompanied him—but
within it he had also included the day-to-day handling of
Romania’s intelligence services. It was like being theWhite House chief of staff, national security adviser,
director of the CIA and head of the Department forHomeland Security all at the same time.
Since 1972, when I had risen to enter the inner
sanctum of the Soviet bloc, I had come to realize thatsooner or later I would have to screw up my courage andbreak with that evil society, which I was sure would
eventually either quietly collapse or else lead toworldwide cataclysm. The physical step, however, proved
to be much harder than the mental one.
Privilege can generate cowardice, as it did in my case.
Communist rulers have always been very generous with
their spy chiefs—that is, until they tire of them and killthem off. It proved not easy for me to renounce myexorbitantly luxurious life at the top of Romanian society,
my Bucharest villa with its swimming pool and sauna, myfleet of cars and drivers, my summer house at the BlackSea, and my hunting lodges in the Carpathian Mountains.
“Defector”—that word used by the US government for a
Soviet bloc official who chose freedom in the West—also
acted as a chain around my ankles, for the word lay infrighteningly close proximity to the word “traitor.”

The prospect of being involved in political killings
was the drop that finally burst the dam of my indecision.
On Sunday, July 23, 1978, I flew to Bonn, where I had todeliver a message from Ceauşescu to the West German
chancellor, Helmut Schmidt. Soviet ruler Leonid
Brezhnev had asked Ceauşescu for help in stealing thetechnology and blueprints for a VTOL (vertical take-off
and landing) military airplane that had been developed by
Fokker A.G., West Germany’s main airplane producer.
The Kremlin believed that using the “independent”
Ceauşescu to build a cooperative venture with Fokker for
producing a civilian airplane (Fokker-614) would afford
the best access for stealing the VTOL technology. The
German chancellor, however, had shown reluctance toapprove the venture, rightly fearing that the secret militarytechnologies involved might end up in Moscow.
“Just make sure you plant the conviction in his thickGerman skull that Moscow will never see one iota ofanything,” Ceauşescu instructed me, after he had finisheddictating his message to the West German chancellor.
“Promise him anything he wants.”
That Sunday, the music suddenly went dead on my
TAROM flight to Vienna, where I was to pick up an
Austrian plane for the rest of my trip. A woman’s voice
cut in fuzzily with an announcement in Romanian andGerman: “Ladies and Gentlemen, our plane will land at

Schwechat Airport in a few minutes. Captain Georgescu
and his crew wish you a pleasant sojourn in Vienna andhope you will fly TAROM soon again.”
The door of the plane had barely been cracked open
when Romania’s ambassador in Vienna, Dumitru
Aninoiu, whose wife was an undercover DIE officer,
hopped on board. “Welcome to Vienna, comrade statesecretary,” he greeted me loudly, using my cover title, as
he reached out to grab my briefcase. “We’ll have lunch
together.”
As we were leaving for the airport’s VIP salon, I castone final glance over my shoulder at the white BAC 1-11
plane with the Romanian flag painted on its tail. I knew I
had flown TAROM for the last time.

Two days later, a black taxi dropped me off in front of theUnited States Embassy in Bonn. As I stepped out onto thesidewalk, I could hear my heart pounding in my ears. My
mouth felt as if it had been freeze-dried, although thepalms of my hands were unaccustomedly moist. With a
few rapid steps, I crossed over to the entrance and wentinside.
The lobby for the general public was small but
crowded. A statuesque woman squeezed into a chic khakisafari suit and draped in several pounds of gold jewelry,
who was casually leaning against the wall next to thedoor, suddenly stopped talking when I came in. She
measured me up and down for a very long moment, as did
her companion, a short, pudgy man in an ill-fitting suit oflight gray silk. Some of the other people also turned tolook at me. Even the old-fashioned bureaucrat behind theteller-like window, his coat sleeves protected by black
sleevelets, raised his eyes to peer out at me. In short, thewhole room seemed to be watching me.
Of course, I knew that it was normal for a waiting
room crowd to give every new arrival a careful goingover. On that day, though, I could not think about what
was or was not normal.
I approached the Marine officer, who stood like astatue, feet apart and arms crossed over his chest, barring
the only door leading to the inside of the embassy, andsaid to him, dropping my voice as low as I could: “I am a
Soviet bloc two-star intelligence general, and I want todefect to the United States.”
I became a free man on July 27, 1978. Because of myextremely high position in the Soviet bloc, only thepresident of the United States could approve my request
for political asylum. Thus, Pete, the CIA officer I talked
to at the US embassy, scheduled another meeting for 10
p.m. three days later at the Dom-Hotel in Cologne, to giveme the answer. Those were three very long days.
When I arrived at the Dom-Hotel that fateful
Wednesday night, the first thing I did was look around forthe men’s room. As I opened the door, I saw Pete inside.
My biochemistry was, evidently, not unique.
Pete seemed embarrassed for only a second. Then hetook an envelope from his breast pocket and gave it to me.
It contained a cable signed by Adm. Stansfield Turner, thedirector of Central Intelligence, stating that President
Jimmy Carter was granting me political asylum, security
protection, and help for starting a new life in America. It
also said that a CIA airplane sent from Washington was
waiting at the Rhein-Main Air Base to pick me up.
Reading that cable over and over again gave me anenormous feeling of relief. Not in my wildest dreams,
though, had I ever imagined that I would become a free
man in a restroom.
It was past midnight when our four-car motorcade
came roaring up to the gate at the US Rhein-Main Air
Base. I was pleasantly surprised to find a pile of clothes
waiting for me on the plane, as all I had with me was theshirt and pants I was wearing.
Throughout all those years of torment in Romania, theonly things of which I had been certain of were that I
would not die under communism and that no matter how
high I might have been shoved up the communist ladder, I
would start my new life in America without any
encumbrances from my past. That was why, when I set
out from my room at the Intercontinental Hotel in
Cologne to board the CIA plane, the only things I took

with me were my passport; my personal notes; a camera
containing a couple of snapshots of my daughter, Dana;
and a wristwatch with the signature of King Hussein of
Jordan on its dial, which I had just gotten from the kingfor—as he put it—saving his life from an assassination
attempt organized by PLO leader Yasser Arafat.
After we had been served dinner, Pete called it a day.
“Let’s catch a few hours of sleep,” he suggested, guiding
me to the airplane’s bedroom. Pete took a pair of pajamas
and a travel kit out of his garment bag. After a couple ofmoments, he quietly put them back and, still dressed,
scrunched up under the blanket covering his bed. Pete’s
weariness may have been less overwhelming than his
embarrassment when he realized that I had neither
pajamas nor toothbrush. A few minutes later, Pete wassawing wood.
Of course, I was also exhausted and could hardly
believe everything was over. That whole Thursday, I had
tried to look as if I had been indeed getting ready for aroutine trip back to Bucharest, not for the voyage of alifetime. I had spent the morning in the acousticallyprotected “bubble” at the Romanian Embassy, in thecompany of the DIE chief of station, General Stefan
Constantin. At noon, I had again met Chancellery
Minister Hans-Jürgen Wischnewski at the
Bundeskanzleramt in Bonn to get Chancellor Schmidt’s
answer to Ceauşescu’s message. From the twinkle in his

eye and his warm handshake, I understood he must have
known about my decision, and that cheered me up
enormously—I had tremendous confidence in that bulldog
of a man.
Afterward I had flown to Bremen, where I held ameeting with Fokker representatives, and in the evening I
had been back in Cologne to meet with Frederick W.
Smith, founder and chairman of the American shipping
company Federal Express, who wanted to buy one
hundred commercial Fokker-614 planes that would be
produced in Romania in cooperation with Fokker. Then I
had attended the official dinner given for me by the
Romanian ambassador, Ion Morega, in the salons of theembassy, where I had even told a few jokes.
Now I, too, collapsed into bed. Not that I hoped toclose my eyes. God knows, that night I was more worked
up than words could tell. My thoughts turned back towhat must soon be going on in Bucharest. I remembered
what had occurred a couple of months earlier, when I had
reported to Ceauşescu that General Nicolae Militaru, thecommander of the Bucharest Military Garrison, was atthat moment in the process of being recruited by Soviet
intelligence. Hearing that, Ceauşescu ripped off his shirt.
He closeted himself with his wife at their summer
residence in Neptun, surrounded the place with a cordonof armored vehicles and security troops, and then vented
his rage on his minister of interior and me.

My own positions in the Romanian government were
infinitely higher than General Militaru’s, and I suddenly
felt a mischievous smile creeping onto my lips. Thank
God, I thought. At least I won’t be there having to copewith Ceauşescu’s hysterics again.

It was a glorious, sunny day outside when the CIA planelanded at the presidential airport inside Andrews Air
Force Base near Washington, DC, and that only
magnified the fireworks popping off inside of me. For
many, many years I had learned to hide my personal
feelings, for that was the way of life in a society where thegovernment had its informants everywhere and where
microphones covered you everyplace you went. But onthat unforgettable day, I had an overwhelming desire todance around in a jig all by myself.
I was a free man! I knew it would not be easy to start
my life over from scratch with only the clothes on myback, but I was eager to try my hand at it. I was a welleducated engineer and America was, after all, the land ofopportunity, wasn’t it?
To the right of our plane were a Boeing 707 and a 727
painted with the American flag and presidential seal, andthat also contributed to my feeling of having arrived in a
familiar place. Those Boeings were old friends of mine. I
had been involved in the visits of Presidents Nixon andFord to Romania, and I had traveled on an Air Force One
provided by President Carter to Ceauşescu to tour theUnited States. “Welcome home,” read a large banner
behind them intended for President Carter, but it gave me
the feeling that I, too, had come home.
A string of cars and a bunch of people were waiting
for me. One man was standing in front of the red carpet.
“Welcome to the United States, General,” he said, shaking
my hand. “You are a free man!”
Many years after that memorable day, I became
friends with a Holocaust survivor whose eyes always
misted up whenever he told about how one of theAmerican soldiers who liberated his concentration camp
had said to him: “You’re a free man!” So do my eyes,
whenever I remember those solemn words.
My first dinner as a free man, a candlelight feast that
ended long after midnight, remains vivid in my memory,
down to the last detail. I was feted as the only head of a
Soviet bloc espionage service who had ever asked forpolitical asylum. When I finally took myself upstairs, thenew day was beginning to break. I was overwhelmed. The
joy of finally becoming part of this magnanimous land ofliberty, where nothing was impossible, was surpassed
only by the joy of simply being alive. I was exactly threemonths short of the round age of fifty on that
unforgettable day of July 28, 1978, and I more than everregretted that I had kept postponing the fateful step for somany years.
When I finally reached my bedroom, I carefully
locked the door from inside. Then I took a little stone outof my pocket and fervently kissed it. It was one I had
picked up off the ground at Andrews. In 1973 I had
started the habit of secretly kissing the American soil
every time I set foot in the United States. I would always
find an unobtrusive way to pick up a small stone fromsomeplace around the airport and to bury it inside my
pocket until I could bring it out and devoutly give it a kisslater that night, in the darkness and surety of my room.
I kissed my little stone once more, then opened awindow and threw it outside, back where it belonged.
Falling to my knees, I prayed out loud for the first time inmore than a quarter century. It took me a while, as it was
not easy for me to find the right words to express mygreat joy and thanks to the good Lord. Forgiveness for mypast, freedom for my daughter and strength for my newlife were all I asked for at the end.
It was already day when I finished writing a letter tomy beloved daughter, Dana. Here is the passage in which
I explained why I had left her an orphan:… For twenty years I had the misfortune of being involvedin stealing from the West its technological data, which,
together with democracy and freedom, are its greatest
source of respect and pride. I was involved in stealing, but I
always maneuvered things so as not to be involved inassassinations … In 1978 I got the order to organize thekilling of Noel Bernard, the director of Radio Free
Europe’s Romanian program who had infuriated Ceauşescu
with his commentaries. It was late July when I got thisorder and when I ultimately had to decide between being agood father and being a political criminal. Knowing you,
Dana, I was firmly convinced that you would prefer nofather to one who was an assassin.

That letter was repeatedly broadcast by Radio Free
Europe and published in Le Monde. Unfortunately, Noel
Bernard was indeed killed by Ceauşescu’s political police,
the Securitate, in 1981. During that same year, a twentypound plastic bomb exploded at the headquarters of RadioFree Europe in Munich. The bomb was planted by“Carlos the Jackal” (Ilich Ramírez Sánchez), who,
according to Securitate documents recently released, hadbeen supplied by the Romanians with four hundred
pounds of plastic explosive, seven submachine guns and$1 million to assassinate me in the United States and toblow up Radio Free Europe headquarters.1 Fortunately,
Carlos was not able to find me. Eight employees at RFE
headquarters in Munich were, however, badly injured by
the explosion. Five Romanian diplomats assigned to West
Germany were expelled for their involvement in thatbloody operation.2

4
THE BLACK ART OF
DISINFORMATIONIT HAS BEEN MANY YEARS since I escaped from that evil
society known as the Soviet empire and came to theUnited States, the land of my youthful dreams. Millions
around the world have been ready to pay any price tobecome citizens of this unique country. I am one of the
lucky few who succeeded. Even today it is still difficult
for me to find adequate words to express my gratitude to
the US government for magnanimously granting me
political asylum, despite my position at the top of theSoviet bloc intelligence community.
In 1981, I married a true American patriot, superb
writer, and excellent linguist, who had also spent manyyears working against Soviet intelligence. Mary Lou
helped me become a true American. She has spent thebest years of her life assisting me to master English and tosurvive in spite of two death sentences hanging over myhead and multimillion-dollar bounties on my scalp. She
has also helped me, day after day, to build a new life
under the new protective identity provided by the CIA,
one that has nothing to do with Romania. It was not easy
for Mary Lou, as the fellow inhabiting this new skindidn’t have any real past to talk about, or any old friends
from that past to count on. But she managed marvelously.
We joined a yacht club, traveled around the world, madenew friends, and outwitted several assassination teams.
Because the FBI learned that Muammar Gaddafi’s
espionage service had succeeded in persuading twoformer CIA contract employees (Frank Terpil and Edwin
Wilson, who had meanwhile escaped arrest by defecting
to Libya) to provide internal CIA information about mywhereabouts in exchange for $1 million, the CIA gave mea brand-new identity. Once again, we started our lives
from scratch. New name, new past, new town, new home,
new clubs, new friends. And we managed again.
My first book, Red Horizons, was Mary Lou’s idea.
She helped me to look at my past through American eyes,and she put my manuscript into good English. In 1987,
Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and the late andlamented Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) handed the firstpublished copy of Red Horizons to President Reagan, whoreportedly would come to call it “my bible for dealing
with dictators.” A Romanian translation of the bookprinted in the United States was smuggled into Romania,
and a Mao-style pocket edition was illegally printed in
Hungary. In 1988, Red Horizons was serialized on RadioFree Europe.
In 1989, I was informed by Deputy Secretary of State
Lawrence Eagle-burger that my daughter had found a way
to request political asylum in the United States. Soon after
that, Congressmen Dick Cheney and Frank Wolf sent a
letter to Ceauşescu, cosigned by some three hundred othermembers of the US Congress, asking him to allow her
departure. Ceauşescu refused. To be on the safe side, his
Securitate launched the rumor that I had been found deadin a New York subway station.
Frustrated by the Securitate’s disinformation and by
the hermetical isolation of my daughter in Romania,
Congressman Wolf flew to Bucharest together with
Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) to contact mydaughter, who had been kept under virtual house arrest forten years. They wanted to assure Dana that I was still
alive, contrary to the disinformation launched byCeauşescu. Both congressmen barely escaped from anattempt by a Romanian secret police car to run them
down. Here is how Congressman Smith described it:
A police car filled with four burly policemen, or Securitatemembers, was following us. And on one occasion, just as I
turned around, the car’s headlights were switched off. I
thought, ‘They’re going to run us down.’ And all of asudden the car started racing toward us. I pushed Frank up
against the wall, and the car went up on the sidewalk, just a
few feet from us, and then roared down the street. We were
all pushed up against the wall, and if we hadn’t been aware,
we would have been hit from behind.1

On March 13, 1989, a picture in Time magazine
showed Red Horizons on the desk of President George
Herbert Walker Bush.2

July 28, 1989, was the most important benchmark of mynew life. On that day I became an American citizen. Alsoon that day, I was credited by the CIA as the only personin the Western world who had single-handedly
demolished an entire enemy espionage service—the one I
had managed. And I was given the following letter,signed by the CIA Director for Operations, a letter that
became the most precious present I had ever received in
my whole life:
Dear Lt. Gen. Ion Pacepa,
You have made an important and unique contribution to
the United States of which you can justly be proud.
Therefore, it gives me great pleasure, on this momentous
and solemn occasion, to wish you happiness and fulfillment

in this country as a US citizen.”3

On November 9, 1989, as I sat in front of the television
set watching the Berlin Wall being torn down, my eyes
welled up with tears. I was incredibly proud to be a
citizen of the United States. The whole world was
expressing its gratitude to this great country for its fortyfive years of successful Cold War against Marxism andthe Soviet empire.
During the night of December 21, 1989, I received aphone call from the head of the State Department’s teammonitoring the events in Romania. “They took yourdaughter, General.” Dana was indeed plucked from herhouse in Bucharest and driven to the Bulgarian border,
together with her husband and her in-laws. They were
given to understand that they would be executed there,
and that their bodies would be left along the border toindicate that they had been illegally trying to flee
Romania. Fortunately, just before the group reached theborder, they heard Radio Bucharest announcing thatCeauşescu had fled, and that his office was now in thehands of the people.
The two dozen Securitate officers escorting Dana
dropped everything and ran off like rats deserting asinking ship, leaving behind their cars, uniforms, andeven weapons. When Dana got back to Bucharest, shefound that the Securitate guard car that for eleven yearshad been stationed in front of her house had also beenabandoned. Together with a diplomat at the United States
Embassy in Bucharest, she searched the car and found not
only more abandoned uniforms and weapons, but even
operational files on her case. Included in the file were
photographs of people who were under no circumstances
to be allowed to enter their house—Congressman Wolf
was among them.
On Christmas Day 1989, Romanian tyrant NicolaeCeauşescu was executed at the end of a trial in which theaccusations came almost word-for-word out of Red
Horizons. (A second edition, published the following
March, contains the transcript of Ceauşescu’s trial, whichclearly was based entirely on facts found in Red
Horizons.) On January 1, 1990, the new Romanian
newspaper Adevărul (“The Truth”), which on that day had
replaced the communist Scînteia (“The Spark”), began
serializing Red Horizons. In its lead article, Adevărul
explained that the book’s serialization by Radio Free
Europe had “played an incontestable role” inoverthrowing Ceauşescu. According to a program onRadio Romania International, “the streets of Romania’s
towns were empty” during the Radio Free Europe
serialization of my book.4
The bullets were still flying over Bucharest whenCongressman Wolf landed there again, this time to free
my daughter. On January 6, 1999, the congressman
landed in Washington with my daughter and her husband,
who became the first Romanians to escape fromCeauşescu’s hell and reach the United States. Theirarrival was broadcast on forty-four US and international
TV stations. A few weeks later, Dana’s husband, asculptor, finished a bust of Congressman Wolf andpresented it to him. The second chapter of thecongressman’s latest book, Prisoner of Conscience, which
is dedicated to Red Horizons and Dana’s rescue from
Romania, ends with the story of that statue:
The bust now sits in my family room at home. My younger
grandchildren yell, “Pop Pop” whenever they see it, andrub the nose. “It was certainly not the most faithful portraitof the congressman,” General Pacepa notes, “but for Danaand her husband it was the symbol of their freedom.”5

Red Horizons was subsequently republished in twentyseven countries, and in 2010 the Washington Post
recommended it be included on the list of books thatshould be read in schools, next to Whittaker Chambers’s
Witness.
So I kept writing.
In 2010, my book Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey
Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination
was displayed at the annual meeting of the Organization

of American Historians in Washington, DC, and an
academic review called it a “superb new paradigmatic
work on the death of President Kennedy” and a “mustread” for “the most casual reader,” for the “serious
student preparing his or her own magnum opus,” and for“everyone interested in the assassination of President
Kennedy.”6
Also during 2010, I finished another manuscript,
dealing with disinformation and glasnost. My literary
agent, who was also running for US Congress as a
Republican, fell in love with it, but had problems
interesting a major publisher in it.
By then I was already eighty-two and I thought it wastime for me to hang up my war on disinformation andglasnost on a nail and spend the rest of my days justenjoying my new, marvelous life together with mybeloved Mary Lou.
Alas, I couldn’t.
A good friend, Kathryn Jean Lopez, at that time editorof National Review Online, forwarded me an e-mail from
Professor Ronald Rychlak, who wanted to discuss withme the details of an article, “Moscow’s Assault on the
Vatican,” that I had published in the NRO. That article
dealt with a KGB disinformation operation aimed atchanging Pius XII’s strongly anti-Nazi past and, absurdly,
alleging that he was in fact “Hitler’s Pope.” Professor
Rychlak, one of the world’s top experts on Pius XII,wanted me to help him write a chapter dealing with thisKGB framing of Pius XII, for inclusion in a new editionof his book Hitler, the War, and the Pope, in which hehad thoroughly documented that Pius XII had saved half amillion Jews from the Nazis. I agreed. The new edition
was successfully published.
Soon after that, Ron suggested we cowrite a wholebook about the framing of Pius XII. We ended up
building a book on Soviet disinformation, in which theframing of Pius is one of its major examples.
Disinformation has caused worldwide damage to thereputation of the United States, and now it is putting
down roots in this country itself. To fight this invisible
weapon, we must first recognize it for what it is anddecode its hidden mission, since it is usually clothed ininnocuous civilian dress— as were the terrorists who
killed three thousand Americans on September 11, 2001.
That is the purpose of this book.

5
THE “BEAUTY” OFDISINFORMATION

MOST POLITICIANS, people in the academic world, and the
media believe that disinformation is an obsolete Cold War
phenomenon. As late as 1986, however, the word“disinformation” was not listed among the three hundred
thousand entries of Webster’s New World Thesaurus, oreven in the twenty-seven volumes of the New
Encyclopedia Britannica. It is widely—and erroneously—
believed that the word is simply a foreign synonym formisinformation. Even the Microsoft Word 2010 software
used to type the draft of this book underlined the word
disinforming and suggested replacing it withmisinforming.

In reality, disinformation is as different frommisinformation as night is from day. Misinformation is an
official government tool and recognizable as such.
Disinformation (i.e., dezinformatsiya) is a secretintelligence tool, intended to bestow a Western,nongovernment cachet on government lies. Let us assume
that the FSB (the new KGB) fabricated some documents
supposedly proving that American military forces were
under specific orders to target Islamic houses of worshipin their bombing raids over Libya in 2011. If a report on
those documents were published in an official Russian
news outlet, that would be misinformation, and people in
the West might rightly take it with a grain of salt andsimply shrug it off as routine Moscow propaganda. If, on
the other hand, that same material were made public in theWestern media and attributed to some Westernorganization, that would be disinformation, and thestory’s credibility would be substantially greater.
In April 2003, the Western media were inundated withhundreds of horror stories about the looting of the
National Museum in Baghdad. Television stations aroundthe world showed the weeping deputy director of themuseum blaming the Americans for allowing thedestruction of “170,000 items of antiquity dating backthousands of years.” That was a piece of disinformation.
Eventually it was reliably reported that museum
employees had hidden the supposedly looted treasures ina safe place long before the Iraq War started, and at theend of hostilities they were safe, in American protective
custody. Museum officials later listed only twenty-five
artifacts as definitely missing.1 But the damage was done.
Countless people around the world still talk about thedevastating images of empty display cases repeatedly
shown on their television screens, accompanied byaccusations that the Americans had allowed that tohappen.

In the course of history, many countries during wartime
have used various techniques to deceive the enemy about
their real intentions. At one extreme is the huge, hollow
wooden horse constructed by the Greeks in the second
millennium BC to gain entrance into the impregnable cityof Troy. At the other extreme is the complicated andmasterful operation put together by British intelligence in1944 to make the Germans believe that the Allied forces
would invade France around Calais rather than on theactually intended beaches of Normandy. Russia became
the first major power to make deception a permanent
national policy, which eventually distorted every facet of
Russian tsarist and communist society.
According to the highly classified training manuals on
disinformation that codified my previous existence, the“science” of disinformation (and it was specifically andproudly termed a science) was born in Russia, it wasdeeply rooted in the Russian soil and in that country’s
history, and there it would remain forever. The manuals
taught that, born in eighteenth century Russia,
disinformation was the fruit of the passionate love affair
between Catherine the Great and Prince Grigory
Potemkin, her principal political and military adviser. In
1787, Potemkin, by then the governor general of the New
Russia (today’s Ukraine), took the empress on a tour of
the Crimea, which he had been instrumental in annexing
from the Turks four years earlier. To impress her,Potemkin had arranged for sham villages to be erectedalong the route the empress would take. One of thoseempty-façade villages, erected at the mouth of the small
river Bug, went so far as to welcome the empress with atriumphal arch inscribed: “This is the way toConstantinople.”
It is not an accident that disinformation was born in
Russia. In the eighteenth century, the French Marquis deCustine remarked that in fact “everything is deception in
Russia, and the gracious hospitality of the Czar, gathering
together in his palace his serfs and the serfs of his
courtiers, is only one more mockery.”2 Custine also noted—in language that cannot be improved upon even today—that “Russian despotism not only counts ideas andsentiments for nothing but remakes facts; it wages war on
evidence and triumphs in the battle.”3 General Walter
Bedell Smith, a former United States ambassador toMoscow, who wrote an introduction to the 1951 English
translation of the marquis’s diary, stated that Custine’s
political analysis was “so penetrating and timeless that it
could be called the best work so far produced about theSoviet Union.”4 This book is perhaps the most insightful
analysis of all of twentieth-century Russia.
There is a proverb saying that lies have short legs; that
may be true elsewhere, but in post-tsarist Russia
disinformation became a national policy that played a far
greater role in shaping that country’s past and present
than even Potemkin could ever have foreseen.
World War I and the new era it brought about swept
away five emperors, eight kings and eighteen dynasties,5but no country was more changed than Russia. When the
Great War ended, Russia looked like a mobile homecommunity hit by a hurricane. The new communist rulers
assassinated the tsar, his family and his aristocracy,
abolished the country’s governing institutions,demolished her millennial religion, seized the land owned
by wealthy Russians, confiscated the country’s banks andindustrial enterprises and killed off most of their owners.
Russia’s history, traditions, social customs, ethical values,and everything else that had ever meant something before
the October Revolution of 1917 were thrown upside down
and inside out— even if only for the sake of change.
Nevertheless, the new communist rulers religiously
preserved the “science of disinformation,” realizing that

this historic Russian tool fit their needs like a glove.
Changing minds is in fact what communism is all about.
It is also a quintessence of Russia, going all the way backto the Potemkin villages erected to allege rural prosperity.
No wonder communism, Russia and disinformation weresuch a good fit.

During the Cold War, more people in the Soviet bloc
worked for the disinformation machinery than for theSoviet army and defense industry put together. The bloc’s
intelligence community alone had well over one million
officers and several million informants around the world.
All were involved in deceiving the West—and their own
people—or in supporting this effort. To them should be
added the vast number of people working for theinternational disinformation organizations that the KGB
secretly created. These organizations were headquarteredoutside the Soviet Union, pretended to be independentinternational entities, and published their own newspapers
in French or English. Some of those international“Potemkin villages” in which I was personally involved
include: the World Peace Council (with branches in 112
countries); the World Federation of Trade Unions (withbranches in 90 countries); the Women’s International
Democratic Federation (with branches in 129 countries);
the International Union of Students (with branches in 152

countries); and the World Federation of Democratic
Youth (with branches in 210 countries).
It is a typically Russian tactic not to attack a threat
head-on, and disinformation proved a deliciously indirect
way of confounding the Kremlin’s enemies. The firstinternational “Potemkin village” was founded in 1949 andgiven the respectable name of World Peace Council(WPC), so that it would not look Russian. Its main task
was to claim authorship for Soviet-concocted materials“documenting” that the United States was a warmongering, Zionist country financed by Jewish money
and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion.”
The goal was to create the fear that the United States
would ignite a new war in order to transform the rest of
the world into a Jewish fiefdom.
There was a major condition for disinformation to
succeed, and that was that a story should always be built
around a “kernel of truth” that would lend credibility.
Over my twenty-seven years in the Soviet bloc
intelligence community, I was privy to many Cold War
disinformation operations that eventually lost steam butwere never entirely compromised, because of that kernelof truth. The “kernel of truth” for the World PeaceCouncil was that it was headquartered in Paris and chairedby the French Nobel Prize winner Frédéric Joliot-Curie, a
leftist persuaded by Stalin to lend his name to thisinternational Potemkin village.

To be on the safe side, Stalin decided to makedisinformation look as if it also were historically French.
In the early 1950s, my DIE (Romania’s foreign
intelligence, or espionage, service) was instructed by its
Soviet counterpart to launch the rumor that the word
disinformation was derived from the French—in otherwords, to represent this traditionally Russian ruse as aFrench capitalist tool targeted against the peace-loving
peoples of the Soviet bloc. I do not recall the exact
definition received from Moscow, but it was similar to the
one that can be found in the 1952 edition of the Great
Soviet Encyclopedia:
DEZINFORMATSIYA (from des (q.v.) and French
information). Dissemination (in the press, on the radio, etc.)
of false reports intended to mislead public opinion. The
capitalist press and radio make wide use of
dezinformatsiya, in order to fool the people, entangle themin lies, and depict the new war being prepared by the
Anglo-American imperialist bloc as a defensive weapon,
but depict the peaceful politics of the USSR, countries ofthe people’s democracy and other peace-loving countries as
allegedly aggressive. A special role in disseminations of
this sort of provocative reports, of every kind of falsehoods,
etc., belongs to the American capitalist press, radio andvarious publication agencies, furnishing false information
to the press and to other propaganda organizations. The
leading circles of the USA, Great Britain, France and otherimperialist governments often resort to dezinformatsiya inmatters of international relations; numerous examples ofthis kind of dezinformatsiya are found in the well-known
Sovinformburo document “Falsifiers of History (Historical
report)” (1948). The Anglo-American imperialists makewide use of dezinformatsiya in order to conceal the
predatory nature of the war unleashed by them in Korea inJune 1950.6

Today most people believe that disinformation does
indeed derive from some French word. But the official
French dictionary, the Larousse, did not mention any such
word as desinformation in 1952, or even in its 1978
edition.
Back in those early postwar days, the Frenchgovernment saw through Moscow’s ruse. In 1954 it
rejected any French paternity for the word disinformation,accused the World Peace Council of being a KGB front,
and kicked it out of France. One of the Soviets’ mosttrusted influence agents of that period, French philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre, tried to persuade the French government
to rescind its decision. He publicly vilified the UnitedStates as a racist country suffering from political rabies.7
It did not help. Moscow was forced to move the World
Peace Council headquarters temporarily to Sovietoccupied Prague and later to the “neutral” Helsinki.8(At the top of the KGB community it was known that
Jean-Paul Sartre was used as an influence agent. The
KGB archives are still sealed, but facts about Sartre’s
cooperation with the KGB have started coming to light.

Here is one: In 1967, French terrorist Régis Debray
published his first book, Revolution in the Revolution, aprimer for communist guerrilla insurrection that praisedcommunist terrorist Che Guevara to the skies. Debray
dedicated his life to exporting Cuban-style communism toSouth America, but a few months after he published his
book, a Bolivian Special Forces unit trained by the US
captured him in Bolivia, together with the whole guerrillaband led by Che Guevara. Che was sentenced to deathand executed for terrorism and mass murder. Debray wassentenced to thirty years in jail, but was released after
three years following the insistent interventions of Sartre.
In the 1980s, Debray served as adviser for Latin America
to French president François Mitterrand. After that,
Debray committed his life to spreading hatred against theUnited States. In February 2003, he published “TheFrench Lesson” in the New York Times, which described
Debray as “a former adviser to President François
Mitterrand,” but omitted to mention that he had spentyears in jail for terrorism and that he was freed because
Sartre vouched for him. Debray’s article contains every
imaginable anti-American cliché.9 Here is one more
attestation to Sartre’s connection with the KGB: On June
15, 1972, the West German police captured one ofSartre’s favorite pupils, German terrorist Ulrike Meinhof,
who was financed by the KGB. Soon after that, she sent a
letter to her ideological master, Sartre, asking him for
moral support. Sartre complied. When he went to theStammheim prison in West Germany to encourage her,
Sartre was chauffeured by German terrorist Hans-Joachim
Klein, a KGB agent and Carlos the Jackal’s deputy for the1975 OPEC terrorist attack in Vienna.10)
It is no wonder that the World Peace Council was
expelled from France. Behind its supposedly Frenchfaçade, it was as purely Soviet as could be. Its daily
business was conducted by a Soviet-style Secretariat,
whose twenty-one members were undercover foreign
intelligence officers from nine Soviet bloc countries(USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania,
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Albania, and Cuba). The
World Peace Council also had twenty-three Soviet-style
vice presidents, all communists, who were divided asfollows: four represented communist countries (USSR,
Poland, East Germany, and Romania); three represented
communist governments loyal to Moscow (Cuba, North
Vietnam, and Angola); two represented the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) and the African National
Congress (ANC), both anti-American terrorist
organizations sponsored by Moscow; four represented
nonruling communist parties (United States, France, Italy,
Argentina); and ten represented national-level WPC
affiliates in the Soviet bloc and other Soviet puppet
countries. Most of the WPC’s permanent employees were
undercover Soviet bloc intelligence officers specializingin “peace operations,” whose task was to shape the newWestern peace movements into “fifth columns” for the“socialist camp.” The World Peace Council had Moscowfinanced branches in 112 countries. It also put out two
publications in French, Nouvelles perspectives andCourier de la Paix, which were managed by KGB—and
DIE—undercover officers and controlled by the Soviet—
and Romanian—disinformation service.
Even the money for the WPC budget came from
Moscow, delivered by Soviet intelligence officers in theform of laundered American dollars to hide its Soviet
origin. (In 1989, when the Soviet Union was on the vergeof collapse, the WPC publicly admitted that 90 percent of
its money came from the KGB.11)
Over the years, Moscow created numerous
international Potemkin villages in every imaginable
element of Western Europe. Today, few Europeans arewilling to admit they were ever influenced by these efforts
to demonize the United States as a Zionist country anddrive a wedge between Jews and Christians. By the mid
1950s, however, some 30 million people in Western
Europe were voting the anti-American Communist ticket(35 percent of the population in Italy and 20-25 percent inFrance, Portugal, and Greece). That was a remarkablesuccess for the Soviet bloc disinformation, consideringthat the United States had liberated Western Europe from
Nazi occupation and rebuilt its war-decimated economies.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, most of theinternational “Potemkin villages” built by the Kremlin
survived and continued carrying out the same antiAmerican messages as during their heyday. The World
Peace Council moved from Helsinki to Athens, Greece,
but it was still headed by its KGB-selected chairman
Romesh Chandra, an Indian communist who in the 1970s
required all WPC national branches to initiate
demonstrations against the American war in Vietnam.
After 1991, when the United States remained the only
superpower, Chandra focused his WPC on “waging a
struggle against the New World Order.”12 According to
its current charter, the WPC has now “broadened into aworldwide mass movement” whose task is to support“those people and liberation movements” fighting“against imperialism.”13 That “imperialism,” of course,
really means the United States.
On December 14, 2002, Chandra convened a meetingof his Soviet-style Executive Committee, which
thereupon strongly “condemned the extremely dangerous
escalation of US aggressiveness on the global level.” Aninternational appeal in typically execrable Soviet-stylelanguage issued by the Soviet-style WPC Secretariat on
the same day called upon “the people of the world” toorganize “unprecedented mobilizations” against“American imperialism.”
The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), thesecond largest of KGB “Potemkin villages,” also survived

the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is still headquarteredin Prague, and it still uses anti-American Cold War
rhetoric. During its 14th Congress (New Delhi, March 2528, 2000), for instance, it demanded “the immediate
lifting [of the American] economic blockade against
Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya.”14
The Women’s International Democratic Federation(WIDF) adopted a new charter during the United Nations’Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing,
demanding in typical Cold War oratory that “the womenof the world” fight “the globalization” of the “so-called‘market economies,’” which are “a root cause of theincreasing feminization of poverty everywhere.”15 On
March 8, 2000, the WIDF organized a “World March of
Women” in Calcutta to celebrate the Soviet-establishedInternational Women’s Day.16
The International Union of Students (IUOS),
headquartered in Prague, now has 152 national unions ofstudents from 114 countries. It continues to propagate
hatred for the United States. An international appeal
issued during the 2001 “International Students’ Day”
condemned the United States’ “vengeful attacks on
Afghanistan that have set back the struggle for stability in
the Middle East and served to fuel further racism andintolerance around the world.”17
While these groups hide their true ties to Moscow,
they continually advance ideas and programs that supportthe Kremlin’s causes. They are perfect outlets forcontinuing disinformation.

6
KREMLIN FRAMINGS

THERE IS A WIDESPREAD belief that the worst damage from
Soviet/Russian intelligence operations against the Westhas been the theft of highly classified secrets, such as thetechnology for the atom bomb. Not so. The absolutely
worst—and often irreparable—damage done to the Free
World has been caused by the Kremlin’s disinformation
operations designed to change the past. The
transformation of Stalin from the political killer who
slaughtered more than 20 million innocent people in theSoviet Union alone into the political god over one-third of
the world generated not only forty years of Cold War, butalso the greatest political hoax perpetrated in history:
international respect for Marxism and admiration formurderous communist leaders.

In KGB jargon, changing people’s pasts was called“framing,” and it was a highly classified disinformation
speciality. Because of those KGB framings, there are few
things more difficult for Russian and Western historians
today than to predict Russia’s past.
In January 1934, the XVII Soviet Communist Party
Congress was hailed as the “Congress of the Victorious.”
Who would have predicted that 98 out of the 139
members of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party elected at that Congress would later be framed as“enemies of the people” and put to death by the same
regime that had praised them? In fact, 1,108 out of the
1,966 delegates to this Congress were framed as “counterrevolutionaries,” and 848 of them were executed.1
Over the following years, millions of other innocent
Soviet citizens were framed as traitors and killed, andmillions of other Russians took to the streets to condemn
those “traitors” and to demand their scalps.2 After WorldWar II, the Kremlin’s black art of framing was exported
to the newly created communist countries in Eastern
Europe.
Contrary to popular belief, the countries of Eastern
Europe did not become proletarian dictatorships becauseof revolutions carried out by the indigenous communist
parties—in 1945, Romania’s Communist Party had fewer
than fifteen hundred members. The Sovietization ofEastern Europe was accomplished by the Kremlin throughsubversive framing operations that were later stampedwith an outwardly political cachet. The leaders of East
European democratic parties were not politically purged;
they were systematically shot or imprisoned after being
framed as Nazi war criminals. That gave the Kremlin
reason to stage “popular” demonstrations demanding
those parties’ abolition. The leading East European
figures in industry and agriculture were framed assaboteurs and shot or jailed, so as to provide the local
communists with pretexts to nationalize the economy andcollectivize agriculture. It was a long and bloody framing
process that lasted well over ten years.
The Kremlin’s framings can be negative, fordemotion, or positive, for promotion; either way, they canliterally affect the course of world history. Admirable
Westerners have been slandered or “framed” as criminals,
and criminally unworthy characters in the Soviet/Russian
sphere of influence have been portrayed or “framed” assaints.
During the Stalin era, more than 7 million“uncooperative” Soviet citizens were marked for
demotion, framed as Zionist spies or Nazi collaborators,
and executed or sent to gulags. The useful ones wereframed positively, even glorified. All the initial leaders of
the East European countries (Walter Ulbricht in Germany,
Klement Gottwald in Czechoslovakia, Georgi Dimitroff in
Bulgaria, Mátyás Rákosi in Hungary, and Gheorghe
Gheorghiu-Dej in Romania) were absolute nobodies whoswore loyalty to the Kremlin’s religion, MarxismLeninism-Stalinism, and they were framed into national
heroes by the Soviet dezinformatsiya machinery.
Once installed on their countries’ thrones, those empty
suits adopted the Kremlin’s framing practice as their own.
On August 23, 1944, Romania’s heroic King Michael led
an audacious coup d’état that overthrew the pro-Nazi
government, ending the country’s alliance with Germany.
He then had Romania join forces with the Allies against
Hitler. In 1945 the king was decorated by President Harry
Truman, whose decoration decree stated that King
Michael had “single-handedly pulled Romania out of thewar” although he “had no control over the country which
was allied with the German aggressor.”3 The king’s action
had been so courageous and unique that he had become
the only other foreigner besides the American general
Dwight Eisenhower to be decorated with the Soviet Orderof Victory.4 On July 21, 1945, fifteen days after the
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet had decorated the king,Soviet marshal Fedor Tolbukin presented King Michael,
who was also a pilot, with two sport airplanes as a giftfrom Stalin and sign of his personal appreciation.5 The
leader of the Romanian Communist Party, Gheorghe
Gheorghiu-Dej, just freed from Nazi jail, was shown by
the media of those days kneeling before the king andkissing his hand to thank him for his outstanding act of
courage. Three years later, the same Gheorghiu-Dej, nowinstalled by Stalin as Romania’s ruler, had King Michaelframed as a Nazi collaborator and Western spy andexpelled him from the country.6
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Romanians wereframed after that. Romania’s Danube–Black Sea Canaltrial was one of the most contemptible framing operationsof that era. Inspired by Stalin, who had altered the courseof the Volga, Gheorghiu-Dej decided to build a navigablecanal connecting the Danube with the Black Sea. Dej’s
plan lay far beyond Romania’s engineering capabilities atthat time, and several years after the first shovelful ofearth had been dug, little had been accomplished. Dej saw
that there was no hope of completing the project in theforeseeable future. To extricate himself, he decided toclose the construction site and blame the lack of progresson Western sabotage.
On a Securitate report showing the difficulties facedby the management of that mastodon project, Dej
penciled in his distinctive, violet lead: “The persons
named here should be arrested, publicly tried as saboteurs,
and executed.” The show trial took place in July 1953,
accompanied by street demonstrations demanding that the“saboteurs” be publicly hanged. Three people were
executed and four sentenced to long terms in jail. Soon
afterward, the construction site of the Danube–Black Sea
Canal was closed, and for many years the public did
indeed believe it had been sabotaged by Westernintelligence agents.
The Kremlin’s practice of framing political or
religious leaders, negatively or positively, has a long
history. Imre Nagy, the Hungarian prime minister whom
the Kremlin believed to have generated the Hungarian
uprising of 1956, was marked for demotion. He was
kidnapped from Hungary by a Soviet KGB/Romanian
DIE team, framed as a Zionist spy, and hanged.7 The
details I disclosed about that framing, published in 1987
in my book Red Horizons, aroused so much interest incommunist Hungary, that a year later the book wassecretly republished there in an illegal, pocket-size
samizdat Hungarian edition (now a highly desired
collector’s item).
On the other hand, Urho Kaleva Kekkonen, Finland’slong-time president and a Soviet agent, was marked for
promotion. Kekkonen was built up as a successfulpolitical leader by the KGB and its predecessors (which
had ghost-written his public speeches for almost twenty
years). Kekkonen was manipulated by the Soviets until
1981, when he ended his twenty-five-year term aspresident of the then Soviet-friendly Finland.8 Olof
Palme, also marked for promotion, was molded into a
Swedish prime minister and helped by the KGB to export
the Soviet welfare state to Western Europe.
Herbert Wehner, who became a member of the West
German cabinet in charge of “all-German affairs”

(meaning relations with East Germany), was anapprentice clerk before joining the German Communist
Party in 1927 and defecting to the Soviet Union. There he
was molded into a Social Democratic political leader by
the Soviet political police, which later fabricated abackground for him showing that he had spent World War
II in Sweden— not in the Soviet Union, as was the truth.
In 1946, Stalin dispatched Wehner to West Germany via
Sweden. Wehner’s invented biography as an anti-Nazi
and anticommunist militant—a Soviet fabrication—
helped him become deputy chairman of the
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) in 1958,
to chair the SPD group in the Bundestag (1969–1983),
and to become a member of the West German
government (1969–1983). Wehner remained a top West
German politician until his death in 1990.
In 1974, I had my last meeting with Willy Brandt, thechairman of the SPD, who had become West Germany’s
chancellor and the author of its Ostpolitik (an opening
toward the East, meaning the Soviet Union and its East
German vassal). On that day, Brandt seemed distressed.
This was shortly after the arrest of Günter Guillaume, an
East German “illegal” officer groomed to ingratiate
himself into West German political circles. He ended up
becoming Brandt’s most trusted friend and adviser andpractically ran the country. Guillaume’s arrest was
shattering, and Brandt admitted to me that he felt
betrayed. One month later, Brandt would write to theWest German president: “I accept political responsibility
for negligence in connection with the Guillaumeespionage affair and declare my resignation from theoffice of federal chancellor.”9As a matter of fact, framing KGB illegal officers as
Western politicians helped the Kremlin acquire a better
understanding of what was going on in some Westerncountries than it had of affairs in the Soviet Union itself.
The Cold War is over, but the Kremlin’s framing
operations seem to be still en vogue—and even to be
infecting the United States.

7
STALIN’S ENCOUNTERWITH CATHOLICISMSINCE ANCIENT TIMES, the Kremlin had manipulated
religion according to its own interest. Russia’s tsars
appointed themselves leaders of the Orthodox Church inorder to instill domestic obedience. The first Soviet tsar,
Vladimir Lenin, killed thousands of priests and closed
most of Russia’s churches so as to make MarxismLeninism the country’s sole religion.1 Stalin, who
continued that bloody rampage, transformed Lenin’s new
religion into Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and used it toportray himself as a Soviet saint in order to keep his
famished, oppressed population quiet. Twenty years after
the November 1917 revolution, only five hundredchurches remained open in the Soviet Union.2
On August 23, 1939, the Kremlin started a war against
non-Russian religions as well. On that day, the Soviet
foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, and his German
equivalent, Joachim von Ribbentrop, met in the Kremlin
to sign the infamous Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact.
German archive documents state that Stalin was euphoricthat day. He told Ribbentrop: “The Soviet government
takes this new pact very seriously. I can guarantee, on myword of honor, that the Soviet Union will not betray its
partner.”3
There were many reasons for Stalin’s elation. Bothhe and Hitler believed in the historical need to expand
their territorial empires. Stalin called that need “worldproletarian revolution.” Hitler termed it “Lebensraum”(living space). Both based their tyrannies on theft. Hitler
stole the wealth of the Jews. Stalin stole the wealth of
Russia’s Orthodox Church, and of the country’s
bourgeoisie. Both Stalin and Hitler hated religion, andboth replaced God with their own cult.
The secret protocol of the Hitler-Stalin Pact
partitioned Poland between the two signatories and gave
the Soviets a free hand over Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Finland, Bessarabia, and Northern Bukovina. Most ofthese new countries were Catholic, which in Stalin’s mind
meant subordinated to a foreign power—the Vatican. That
was unacceptable for the man who had become the Soviet

Union’s only god—at whose order 168,300 Russian
Orthodox clergy had been arrested during the purges of
1936–1938 alone, 100,000 of whom had been shot.4 The
Russian Orthodox Church, which had had more than fiftyfive thousand parishes in 1914, was now reduced to five
hundred.5
The many hundreds of Catholic churches in those
Baltic States that Hitler had just bartered off to the Soviet
Union posed a new threat to Stalin’s image as thecountry’s Little Father—as the tsar had been called. Thosechurches were beholden to another father, Pope Pius XII,and Stalin refused to even consider allowing any rival tointerfere with his absolute reign.
Stalin could not dethrone the pope, who was highly
praised and out of his reach. But he could wipe theCatholic churches off the face of the map in the new
Baltic countries, just as he had done with the Russian
Orthodox churches.
Stalin’s solution was to dispatch his favorite hangman,
Andrey Vyshinsky, to Sovietize the Baltic States and, inthe process, to destroy their national Catholic Churches.
Vyshinsky was an old NKVD (political police) hand who
had worked wonders in the cover position of publicprosecutor during Stalin’s war against the Russian
Orthodox Church and during Stalin’s Great Purges of theyears 1936 to 1938. Vyshinsky knew what he had to do.
More than 7 million people had been sentenced to deathand shot during the years he had been Stalin’s main
prosecutor, just to make sure his boss was Russia’s only
deity.
Latvia was occupied by the Red Army on June 17,
1940, and the next day Vyshinsky arrived in Riga as
Stalin’s special envoy. “I accompanied Comrade
Vyshinsky when he went to Latvia,” General Aleksandr
Sakharovsky once boasted to me, “and in 1943 I became
Comrade Vyshinsky’s deputy for Sovietizing Romania.”(In 1951, General Sakharovsky came to Bucharest as
chief Soviet adviser for the newly created Securitate,
Romania’s equivalent of the Soviet political police,
thereby becoming my de facto boss. In 1956 Sakharovsky
went on to become chief of the entire Soviet foreign
intelligence service, a position he held for most of theCold War years. According to Sakharovsky, theSovietization of Romania, carried out by the same
Vyshinsky, was an improved version of the Latvian
operation.)
A few days after Vyshinsky arrived in Riga, he forced
Kārlis Ulmanis, the Latvian president, to appoint a“people’s government” consisting of members who had
already been approved by Moscow. In accordance with
Vyshinsky’s plan, only two members of the new
government were communists: the minister of interior andthe chief of the national police.
After he succeeded in installing his government,Vyshinsky delivered a speech from the balcony of theSoviet Embassy in Riga, assuring the population that
Moscow did not have the slightest intention of including
Latvia in the Soviet Union. A couple of days later,
however, Vyshinsky ordered his Latvian chief of police toarrest President Ulmanis and the main leaders of Latvia.
They were then deported to the Soviet Union with thehelp of security police Vishinsky had brought with him to
Riga. He forced the new “people’s government” toschedule parliamentary elections in two weeks, and he set
up a “Working People’s Bloc” (controlled by undercover
Soviet security police officers) to run the elections—witha single list of candidates.
Vyshynsky’s elections took place on July 14–15,
1940. There was no secret ballot. Only the tabulation of
the votes was secret; it was conducted by the Ministry ofInterior, headed by one of Vyshinsky’s men. The results
claimed that 97.8 percent of the votes were for the(unknown) Bloc candidates. Soon after that, the newlyborn Latvian Communist Party launched the slogan“Soviet Latvia.” Speaking again from the balcony of theSoviet Embassy, Vyshinsky expressed his hope that the
newly elected “people’s parliament” would realize thewish implied in that slogan. Of course, that is exactly
what happened.
On July 21, 1940, Vyshinsky’s parliament proclaimed
Latvia a Soviet republic, and two weeks later Moscow’s
Supreme Soviet incorporated it into the Soviet Union. It

did not take long for Latvia’s Catholic priests to be sent toSoviet gulags and for their churches to be closed.
Soon after that, Vyshinsky integrated Estonia and
Lithuania into the Soviet Union in the same manner. The
entire Catholic hierarchy and about a third of the Catholic
population of those two small countries was either
deported or shot.6

8
THE KREMLIN’S NEW
ENEMY

WHILE VYSHINSKY WAS DEMOLISHING the Catholic churches
in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, Stalin learned that
Hitler intended to sign a Tripartite Pact with Italy andJapan. In September 1940, Stalin sent his spy chief,
Vladimir Dekanozov—a trusted fellow Georgian covered
as deputy minister of foreign affairs—to Berlin. There,
during a walk in the woods, he gave Ribbentrop tounderstand that Stalin was ready to join the Axis. On
November 12, 1940, Stalin sent his closest collaborator,
Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, to Berlin to finalize
the details of his future cooperation with the BerlinRome-Tokyo Axis.

Stalin believed those talks were successful, and on
November 20 he appointed his spy chief as Soviet
ambassador to Germany. Dekanozov presented his lettersof accreditation to Hitler on December 19, 1940, without
knowing that on the previous day the Führer had
approved Operation Barbarossa for the invasion of theSoviet Union, and that he had ordered his troops to beready by May 15, 1941.
A few weeks later, Stalin scribbled on an intelligencereport predicting that Hitler would attack the Soviet
Union in June 1941:
You can send your ‘source’ to his f*cking mother. This is adezinformator.1

On June 22, 1941, Hitler did indeed betray his
nonaggression pact with Stalin when he invaded theSoviet Union, seeking Lebensraum for the German
people.2 For the first few weeks, the Nazis met noorganized resistance from the Red Army. The Russians
paid a heavy price for Stalin’s love affair with Hitler. Ten
million military men and fourteen million civilians were
killed. Five million more were taken prisoner by the
Nazis.
On December 7, 1941, while Hitler’s armies were at
Moscow’s gates, Japan suddenly pushed the United States
into the war by attacking the American naval base at Pearl
Harbor. That attack saved Stalin’s skin and gave him anew lease on life. On the following day, President
Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress that December
7 was “a date which will live in infamy.”3 He requested adeclaration of the existence of a state of war between
Japan and the United States, and Congress voted in favorof the declaration.
Soon thereafter, the United States began supplying
huge quantities of military hardware to the Soviet Union
to help Stalin demolish a substantial part of Hitler’s
military machine. It worked.
On April 20, 1945, the Red Army reached theoutskirts of Berlin, and ten days later Hitler committed
suicide. (The Nazi propaganda machine announced that
he had died fighting with his last breath for Germany andagainst Bolshevism.4) On May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany
capitulated to the Allies, which now included the Soviet
Union. Once denied diplomatic relations with most of theFree World, Stalin now joined the exclusive victors’ club.
He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize5 and was
ready to take on the world.
However, there was one more enemy Stalin wanted todefeat: the Ukrainian Catholic Church, the last Vaticanenclave in the Soviet Union. The very prominent
archbishop of Lvov, Josyf Slipi, and most of Ukraine’s
bishops, including Gregory Chomysyn, Jown Layesvki,
Nicolas Carnecki, and Josaphat Kocylovsky, were framedby Stalin’s political police as “Nazi collaborators.” Allwere sent to jail or slave-labor camps. Some five hundred
Ukrainian Catholic priests were sent, without trial, togulags—officially phrased as “destination unknown forpolitical reasons.”6 Bishop Niceta Budka was sent to a
Siberian gulag—where he perished in December 1945.
Hundreds of other leaders of the Ukrainian Catholic
Church were also framed as Nazi collaborators.7
Pius XII answered by issuing an encyclical(Orientales Omnes Ecclesiae)8 to the faithful in Ukraine—and indirectly to those in the Baltic States— assuring
them that “God will do justice,” and that “in His loving
kindness He will Himself calm this terrible storm andfinally bring it to an end.”9
Stalin took Pius XII’s encyclical as a declaration ofwar, and he answered as was his wont: six Ukrainianbishops were immediately framed as Nazi collaboratorsand murdered.10 Now was the moment for Stalin to open
an ad hominem offensive against Pius XII himself.
In those days, Stalin’s most effective way to slander
people was to accuse them of being pro-Nazi—atreasonous offense in World War II. In 1945, Stalin
created an intelligence unit that specialized in framing
people as Nazi collaborators—SMERSH. Stalin himself
had a hand in coining its name. It was from the Russianwords meaning “death to spies” (smert shpionam). Stalin
subordinated the unit directly to himself. Its thugs soon
became adept at the mass framing of people as Nazis,

forcing them to confess and removing them from thescene by arrest, trial, imprisonment, or death.
SMERSH started out by slandering as Nazi
collaborators hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens
living in areas of the Soviet Union that had been occupiedby the German Army, as well as almost all of the morethan 2 million repatriated Soviet soldiers who had beentaken prisoner by the German Wehrmacht.11
In June 1945, the US ambassador in Moscow, Averell
Harriman, reported to the State Department: “TheEmbassy knows of only a single instance in which arepatriated prisoner has returned to his home and family
in Moscow.”12 Washington would later learn that
SMERSH had framed most of those repatriates as Nazi
collaborators and sent them to Soviet gulags above theArctic Circle, where many died.13
Stalin’s SMERSH used the same strategy to discredit
Bulgaria’s pro-Western leaders in order to replace themwith Moscow’s men. Although Bulgaria never declared
war against the Allies and had been one of only three
European countries (along with Finland and Denmark)that had saved their entire Jewish population,14 Andrey
Vyshinsky, whom Stalin charged to Sovietize Bulgaria,
nevertheless tasked SMERSH with portraying most of thecountry’s leaders as Nazi war criminals.
Thus, on February 2, 1945, Vyshinsky and his
SMERSH unit for Bulgaria executed three regents, 22

ministers, 68 members of parliament, and 8 advisers toKing Boris, after framing them as Nazi war criminals.
During the following months, another 2,680 members of
Bulgaria’s government were executed by the Soviet
security forces as Nazi war criminals, and 6,870 were
imprisoned, even though most of those leaders had been
instrumental in bringing Bulgaria over to the Allied side.
The United States, which had helped Bulgaria stay out of
the war, was momentarily nonplussed, and Moscow leapt
at the chance to install its own puppet regime. That was
the beginning of the end for a democratic Balkan area—
for a long while.
Now Stalin and his SMERSH were ready to declare
war on the Vatican itself. It was a war the communist
tyrant had to win. After all, Pope Pius was the single
highest-profile Christian leader in the entire world, andatheistic communism’s very existence and expansion
required that it discredit and demonize its chiefcompetitor—the Christian faith.
The next section of this book (Part II) unfolds one of
the most consequential and dastardly disinformation
campaigns of the entire Cold War era, the framing of amuch-loved, anticommunist and anti-Nazi pope—one
who not only opposed Hitler and defended Jews, but evenpersonally sheltered Jews from persecution—into a
supposed “Nazi collaborator.” Readers should prepare
themselves for an in-depth, guided tour of a sophisticated,complicated, long-term, multifaceted campaign of pure

lies and smears. That is the nature of disinformation.

PART IIANATOMY OF ADISINFORMATIONCAMPAIGN:
THE CREATION OF “HITLER’S
POPE”

9
THE FAILED BIRTH OF“HITLER’S POPE”

THE WAR BETWEEN COMMUNISM and the Catholic Church isalmost as old as communism itself. In 1846, two years
before Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto,
Pope Pius IX referred to “that infamous doctrine of socalled Communism which is absolutely contrary to the
Natural Law” and which “would utterly destroy the rights,
property and possessions of all men.” After World War II,
as the Soviet Union spread its communistic doctrine into
new territories, the battle became fiercer.
On June 3, 1945, Radio Moscow proclaimed that theleader of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, had been
“Hitler’s Pope,” mendaciously insinuating that he hadbeen an ally of the Nazis during World War II.1 This was
the first salvo of a calculated SMERSH operation
designed to smear the reigning pope in the eyes of theworld.
Radio Moscow’s insinuation fell flat as a pancake.
Just the day before, on June 2, 1945, in an allocution to
the Sacred College which was broadcast on Vatican
Radio, Pius XII spoke of the “satanic specter of Nazism”
and noted that his predecessor, Pius XI, called it what itreally was: “the arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, thedenial of His doctrine and of His work of redemption, thecult of violence, the idolatry of race and blood, theoverthrow of human liberty and dignity.”2 As for his own
efforts, Pius XII explained:
Continuing the work of Our Predecessor, We never ceased
during the war to oppose Nazi doctrine and practice theunshakable laws of humanity and Christian faith. This wasfor Us the most suitable, We may even say the only
effective, way of proclaiming in the sight of the world theunchanging principles of the moral law among so mucherror and violence, to confirm the minds and hearts ofGerman Catholics in the higher ideals of truth and justice.
Nor was it without effect. We know in fact that Our
broadcasts, especially that of Christmas 1942, were in spiteof every prohibition and obstacle studied by diocesan
conferences and expounded to the people.3

Pius also noted the death of about two thousand

Catholic priests at Dachau. The wartime pontiff did notvary in his approach to the Nazis, regardless of whether
the victims were Catholic priests or Jewish peasants.
The June 1944 edition of a bulletin put out by the“Jewish Brigade Group” (US Eighth Army) carried afront-page editorial that completely undermined Radio
Moscow’s insinuation: “To the everlasting glory of thepeople of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church we canstate that the fate of the Jews was alleviated by their truly
Christian offers of assistance and shelter.”4 The Israeli
Federation of Labor’s daily newspaper, Davar, quoted a
Jewish Brigade officer shortly after Rome’s liberation:“When we entered Rome, the Jewish survivors told us
with a voice filled with deep gratitude and respect: ‘If wehave been rescued, if Jews are still alive in Rome, comewith us and thank the pope in the Vatican. For in the
Vatican proper, in churches, monasteries and private
homes, Jews were kept hidden at his personal orders.’”5
Another event that took place just weeks earlier madeRadio Moscow’s insinuation outright ridiculous. On
February 13, 1945, the chief rabbi of Rome and his wife,
Israel and Emma Zolli, converted to Catholicism during awidely popularized ceremony. Zolli adopted the Christianname Eugenio to honor the man who, according to him,
had done so much to protect the Jews during the war:
Pope Pius XII, born Eugenio Pacelli. In his 1945 memoir,
Zolli explained:No other hero in history has commanded such an army; anarmy of priests works in cities and small towns to provide
bread for the persecuted and passports for the fugitives.
Nuns go into canteens to give hospitality to women
refugees. Superiors of convents go out into the night tomeet German soldiers who look for victims …. Pius XII isfollowed by all with the fervor of that charity that fears no
death.6

It may be hard for someone who was not there, at theheart of the Fascist persecution of the Jews, to understand
why Rabbi Zolli took Pius XII’s name. Zolli, however,
had just witnessed how thousands and thousands of lives
within his own Jewish congregation, people he knew andloved, had been saved by Pius XII, and Zolli decided to
pay his respects in his own way. He wrote that his
conversion was based on a true religious revelation, but
he chose the Christian name Eugenio and had the pope act
as his sponsor (or godfather) as a way of thanking him forhis efforts to protect the Jews during the war.

Radio Moscow’s insinuation that Pius XII was “Hitler’sPope” attracted no attention whatsoever in the West,because the pope’s heroic support of the Allies andgenerous aid to the Jews during World War II was still
fresh in people’s minds. They knew this man too well,based on the word of the highest Western authorities, forthe insinuation to take hold.
On August 3, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
wrote to the pontiff:
I should like … to take this occasion to express to His
Holiness my deeply-felt appreciation of the frequentactions which the Holy See has taken … to renderassistance to the victims of racial and religious
persecutions.7

On September 6, 1944, Winston Churchill announced:“I have spoken today to the greatest man of our time.”8
Churchill admired Pius XII’s “simplicity, sincerity andpower.”9 Albert Einstein wrote: “Only the Church
protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up tillthen I had not been interested in the Church, but today I
felt a great admiration for the Church, which alone has
had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral
liberty.”10 The secular magazine Wisdom editorialized:“Of all the great figures of our time, none is more
universally respected by men of all faiths than Pope Pius
XII.11
Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli had become Pope Pius XII
on March 2, 1939, as the world was on the brink of war.
From his first days as pontiff, he unequivocally took the
Allies’ side against Hitler. One day after his coronation,
Pius held a series of meetings with the US ambassador to
England, Joseph P. Kennedy (father of the futurepresident). Afterwards, Kennedy wrote to his superiors at
the US Department of State indicating that the new pope
held a “subconscious prejudice that has arisen from his
belief that Nazism and Fascism are pro-pagan, and as propagan, they strike at the roots of religion.” Pius was
greatly disturbed by the “trend of the times.”
Nevertheless, Kennedy deemed it prudent for such
opinions to be kept private, and he urged the pope to enter
into negotiations with the Reich.12
During World War II, many Germans were involved
in resistance work. One of the most ambitious plans camefrom the High Command of the German Armed Forces,
which in late 1939 began plotting to overthrow Hitler.
The reaction by other nations to an anti-Hitler coup was aserious concern. If they were to stage a revolt, the British
and French might take military advantage of it, occupy
Germany, and mete out harsh justice. The resisters
therefore wanted to reach an understanding with theAllies.
There was only one neutral leader who was trusted by
the resistance: Pope Pius XII. Noted Protestant minister
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was already communicating with the
Vatican about his resistance work.13 The leaders of thisplanned coup recruited Josef Müller, a lawyer from
Munich, to travel to the Vatican to ask the pope to broker
a peace agreement.
Although he was concerned about how this would

impact the Vatican’s neutrality, Pius XII relayed
messages between Müller and the British. On several
occasions Müller also brought messages concerning
military plans and troop movements. Pius forwarded thesewarnings to the threatened governments.14 In fact, on
February 28, 1940, Pius met with the Americanambassador to Italy for forty-five minutes and conveyedmuch potentially useful military information.15 As others
have noted: “Never in all history had a pope engaged sodelicately in a conspiracy to overthrow a tyrant byforce.”16
In May 1940, anti-Hitler Germans sent a message tothe Vatican concerning the German plans to invade
Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium.17 Pius forwarded
these messages on to the Allies.18 Despite the warning,
the Allies were unable to capitalize on the information.
On May 10, 1940, German troops moved in. On the verynight of the invasions, Pius personally drafted threemessages of condolence that were then sent, via
telegrams, to the Queen of Holland, the King of Belgium,and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg.19 They were also
printed on the front page of the May 12 issue of the
Vatican newspaper.20 (Most of the 180,000 copies wereconfiscated shortly after they were delivered to thenewsstands; news carriers were savagely beaten.21)
Mussolini took the telegrams as a serious personalaffront. He called the papacy “a disease wasting away the

life of Italy,” and he promised to rid himself of this“turbulent priest.”22 The editor of the Fascist publication
Regime Facista wrote in October 1942: “The Church’s
obstruction of the practical solution of the Jewish problem
constitutes a crime against the New Europe.”23
According to the London Tablet of October 24, out of
disgust at the number of Jews that were released from
Nazi-occupied areas owing to Vatican pressure, the Third
Reich circulated 10 million copies of a pamphlet sayingthat Pius XII inspired a lack of confidence in the Catholic
world.24 The pamphlet argued that earlier popes had notbeen friendly to Jews, and this “pro-Jewish” pope was the
only one who “found it necessary to make interventions
on behalf of Jews.”25 Mussolini, too, vented his
displeasure over the “anti-dictatorial darts” that appearedin L’Osservatore Romano.26
Invoking Pius XII’s name three times, the American
bishops released a profoundly pro-Jewish statement on
November 14, 1942. It said:
Since the murderous assault on Poland, utterly devoid of
every semblance of humanity, there has been apremeditated and systematic extermination of the people ofthis nation. The same satanic technique is being applied tomany other peoples. We feel a deep sense of revulsion
against the cruel indignities heaped upon Jews in conquered
countries and upon defenseless peoples not of our faith ….
Deeply moved by the arrest and maltreatment of the Jews,
we cannot stifle the cry of conscience. In the name ofhumanity and Christian principles, our voice is raised …
We cannot too strongly condemn the inhuman treatment towhich Jewish people have been subjected in many
countries.27

Pius sent them a letter thanking them for theircollaboration.28 He also told a Spanish diplomat, “If theGermans win, it will mean the greatest period ofpersecution that Christians have ever suffered.”29
In late 1942, Pius sent three letters of support tobishops in Nazi-occupied Poland. The letters wereintended to be read by the bishops to the faithful. The
bishops all thanked the pontiff, but said they could not
publish his words or read them aloud. Bishop Stefan
Sapieha of Krakow explained in a letter dated October 28:“It displeases us greatly that we cannot communicate
Your Holiness’ letters to our faithful, but it would furnish
a pretext for further persecution and we have already had
victims suspected of communicating with the HolySee.”Pius would later cite this experience in a letter toBishop Konrad von Preysing of Berlin:
We leave it to the [local] bishops to weigh thecircumstances in deciding whether or not to exercise
restraint to avoid greater evil. This would be advisable if
the danger of retaliatory and coercive measures would be
imminent in cases of public statements by the bishop. Herelies one of the reasons We Ourselves restrict Our publicstatements. The experience We had in 1942 with

documents which We released for distribution to thefaithful gives justification, as far as We can see, for Our
attitude.30

In his 1942 Christmas statement, broadcast over
Vatican Radio, Pius said that the world was “plunged into
the gloom of tragic error,” and he spoke of the need for
mankind to make “a solemn vow never to rest until
valiant souls of every people and every nation of the earth
arise in their legions, resolved to bring society, and to
devote themselves to the services of the human person
and of a divinely ennobled human society.” He said thatmankind owed this vow to “the hundreds of thousands
who, through no fault of their own, and solely because of
their nationality or race, have been condemned to deathor progressive extinction.”31 He urged all Catholics togive shelter wherever they could. In making thisstatement and others during the war, Pius used the Latin
word stirpe, which means race or nationality, but which
had been used for centuries as an explicit reference toJews.32
British records reflect the opinion that “the Pope’s
condemnation of the treatment of the Jews & the Poles isquite unmistakable, and the message is perhaps moreforceful in tone than any of his recent statements.”33 A
Christmas Day editorial in the New York Times praised
Pius XII for his moral leadership:

This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice cryingout of the silence of a continent. … In these circumstances,in any circumstances, indeed, no one would expect thePope to speak as a political leader, or a war leader, or in
any other role than that of a preacher ordained to standabove the battle, tied impartially, as he says, to all people
and willing to collaborate in any new order which willbring a just peace. … Pope Pius expresses as passionately
as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for
freedom when he says that those who aim at building a newworld must fight for free choice of government andreligious order.34

The pope’s Christmas message was not hard for the
Axis leaders to decipher. The German ambassador to the
Vatican complained that Pius had abandoned any pretenseat neutrality and was “clearly speaking on behalf of theJews.”35 One German report stated:
In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiatedthe National Socialist New European Order. … [H]isspeech is one long attack on everything we stand for …
God, he says, regards all people and races as worthy of thesame consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalfof the Jews … he is virtually accusing the German peopleof injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself themouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.36

Unfortunately, recognition that their evil actions had
been noticed by the pope did not cause the Nazis tochange their behavior.

On May 5, 1943, the Vatican secretariat issued amemorandum regarding the horrors being faced by Polish
Jews:
The Jews. A dreadful situation. There were approximately
four and a half million of them in Poland before the war;
today the estimate is that not even a hundred thousand
remain there, including those who have come from othercountries under German occupation. In Warsaw a ghetto
had been established which contained six hundred and fifty
thousand of them; today there would be twenty to twentyfive thousand. Some, naturally, have avoided being placedon the list of names. But there is no doubt that most havebeen liquidated. The only possible explanation here is thatthey have died…. There are special death camps near
Lublin (Treblinka) and Brest-Litovsk. It is said that by thehundreds they are shut up in chambers where they [are]gassed to death and then transported in tightly sealed cattle
trucks with lime on their floors.37

On June 2, 1943, in an address to the cardinals thatwas broadcast on Vatican Radio and clandestinely
distributed in printed form, the pope expressed in new andclear terms his compassion and affection for the Polishpeople and predicted the rebirth of Poland. He assured his
listeners that he regarded all people with equal good will.
He then provided a bit more insight into his thoughts.
[D]o not be surprised, Venerable Brothers and beloved
sons, if our soul reacts with particular emotion and pressing
concern to the prayers of those who turn to us with anxiouspleading eyes, in travail because of their nationality or theirrace (stirpe), before greater catastrophes and ever moreacute and serious sorrows, and destined sometimes, even
without fault of their own, to exterminating constraints.38

The pope warned the cardinals to be cautious about
what they said. “Every word we address to the competentauthority on this subject, and all our public utterances,have to be carefully weighed and measured by us in theinterests of the victims themselves, lest, contrary to ourintentions, we make their situation worse and harder tobear.”39
In June 1943, after Italy’s King Victor Emmanuel III
arrested Mussolini, Hitler sent his troops into Rome. They
took the city after just two days of fighting. Rome’s
population was swollen to almost double its size by
refugees drawn by what they thought was the protectionof an open city. Pius had the Vatican secretary of state
write to the leaders of all religious orders and ask them tohelp refugees in any way they could. At first, people
could pass freely into Vatican City, but when the Nazis
realized the pope was offering shelter to Jews and otherrefugees, they began checking identification. The Church
countered by providing fake identification for people
wanting to enter the Vatican. Later still, many people
made mad dashes to safety after dark.
All available Church buildings were put to use. One
hundred fifty such sanctuaries were opened in Romealone. “Shelters were improvised everywhere, in lofts, instorage rooms under stairs, hidden behind blind doors or
cupboards, subterranean galleries, ancient Roman doors
used as escape routes: all this as soon as the alert sounded—according to agreed signs, such as the convent bells—
that a Nazi inspection was approaching.”40 Catholic
hospitals were ordered to admit as many Jewish patientsas possible, even if their ailments were fictitious.41 Castel
Gandolfo, the pope’s normal summer home, was used toshelter thousands of refugees. A wartime US intelligence
document reported that the “bombardment of Castel
Gandolfo resulted in the injury of about 1,000 people andthe death of about 300 more. The highness of the figuresis due to the fact that the area was crammed withrefugees.”42 No one but Pope Pius XII had authority toopen his summer home to outsiders. In fact, his personal
bedroom was converted to a nursery and birthing area,
and about forty babies were born there during the war.43
Father Robert Leiber, Pius XII’s private secretary andpersonal confidant during the war said: “The Pope sided
very unequivocally with the Jews at the time. He spent his
entire private fortune on their behalf. … Pius spent what
he inherited himself, as a Pacelli, from his family.”44
Similarly, rescuer John Patrick Carroll-Abbing wrote:
Never, in those tragic days, could I have foreseen, even in
my wildest imaginings, that the man who, more than any
other, had tried to alleviate human suffering, had spenthimself day by day in his unceasing efforts for peace,
would twenty years later be made the scapegoat for men
trying to free themselves from their own responsibilities
and from the collective guilt that obviously weighs soheavily upon them.45

German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop
testified at Nuremberg that he had a “whole deskfull ofprotests” from Rome.46
The 1943–1944 American Jewish Yearbook reported
that Pius XII “took an unequivocal stand against the
oppression of Jews throughout Europe.” The head of the
Italian Jewish Assistance Committee, Dr. Raffael Cantoni,
who subsequently became the president of the Union of
all Italian Jewish communities, reported: “The Church
and the papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far as
they could save Christians…. Six millions of my coreligionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there
could have been many more victims, had it not been for
the efficacious intervention of Pius XII.”47
In 1945, the chief rabbi of Romania, Dr. Alexander
Safran, expressed the gratitude of the Jewish community
for the Vatican’s help and support for prisoners in theconcentration camps. Grand Rabbi Isaac Herzog ofJerusalem wrote:
I well know that His Holiness the Pope is opposed from thedepths of his noble soul to all persecution and especially tothe persecution … which the Nazis inflict unremittingly onthe Jewish people … I take this opportunity to express …
my sincere thanks as well as my deep appreciation … ofthe invaluable help given by the Catholic Church to theJewish people in its affliction.

Chief Rabbi Herzog of Palestine, who was also father
to the future president of Israel, said: “The people ofIsrael will never forget what his Holiness and his
illustrious delegates … are doing for us unfortunate
brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history… ” After the war, Herzog sent “a special blessing” to thepope for “his lifesaving efforts on behalf of the Jews
during the Nazi occupation of Italy.”Grand Rabbi Herzog of Jerusalem sent a message
expressing thanks for actions taken by Pius XII and theHoly See on behalf of Jewish people. After six months ofresearch at Yad Vashem, Pinchas E. Lapide, the Israeli
consul in Italy, wrote:
The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the
war than all other churches, religious institutions andrescue organizations put together. Its record stands instartling contrast to the achievements of the International
Red Cross and the Western Democracies … The Holy See,
the nuncios, and the entire Catholic Church saved some
400,000 Jews from certain death.48

He eventually increased his estimate to about 860,000
Jews.
The World Jewish Congress also expressed its thanks

and donated two million lire (about $20,000) to Vaticancharities. The press reported that the gift was given inrecognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews
from Fascist and Nazi persecution.49 Dr. Joseph Nathan, arepresentative of the Hebrew Commission, expressing
thanks for support during the Holocaust, said: “Above all,we acknowledge the Supreme Pontiff and the religious
men and women who, executing the directives of the Holy
Father, recognized the persecuted as their brothers and,with great abnegation, hastened to help them,disregarding the terrible dangers to which they were
exposed.”50
The National Jewish Welfare Board wrote to Pius:“From the bottom of our hearts we send to you, Holy
Father of the Church, the assurance of our unforgotten
gratitude for your noble expression of religious
brotherhood and love.”51
The New York Times reported that Rome’s population
grew during Nazi occupation because “in that period
under the Pope’s direction the Holy See did an exemplary
job of sheltering and championing the victims of the
Nazi-Fascist regime. I have spoken to dozens of Italians,
both Catholics and Jews, who owe their liberty andperhaps their lives to the protection of the church. In somecases anti-Fascists were actually saved from execution
through the Pope’s intervention.”52 The article went on to
explain that “none doubt that the general feeling of theRoman Curia was anti-Fascist and very strongly antiNazi.” The World Jewish Congress, on December 1,
1944, at its war emergency conference in Atlantic City,
sent a telegram of thanks to the Holy See for theprotection it gave “under difficult conditions to thepersecuted Jews in German-dominated Hungary.”53
The end of the war saw Pius XII hailed as “theinspired moral prophet of victory,”54 and he “enjoyednear-universal acclaim for aiding European Jews throughdiplomatic initiatives, thinly veiled public
pronouncements, and, very concretely, an unprecedented
continent-wide network of sanctuary.”55 As explained byan author and correspondent who lived in postwar Italy:
Only by the most strenuous means had Pius XII, an
extraordinary being, maintained the prestige of the Church.
This tall, frail man with piercing black eyes had for twentyfive years conducted an almost incredibly arduous reign.
He had literally thrown open the huge bronze doors of the
Vatican and invited people to come to him. No longer was
the Vicar of Christ unapproachable … He had seen to itthat for the first time since the fourteenth century foreign
cardinals outnumbered Italians in the Sacred College andhe had severely condemned racialism, anti-Semitism andtotalitarian doctrines.56

Stalin lost his 1945 battle against Pius XII, but he wasdetermined to win the war. Stalin believed in Lenin’s1904 book: One Step Forward Two Steps Back (TheCrisis in Our Party).57 Pius XII was, evidently, much too
big a fish for Stalin’s SMERSH to go after at that time.
Instead, Stalin decided to focus on framing some of the
cardinals whom he had inherited with the new East
European satellites. They would be indicted as having
been pro-Nazi, of course, as that was what had worked sowell before. Stalin was sure the framing of the cardinals
would prove valuable later, when the climate would be
more propitious for secretly framing Pius XII without
revealing the Soviet hand.
It was time for Stalin to call upon Vyshinsky again.

10
CARDINAL STEPINAC

THE NEW YORK TIMES of September 6, 2009, displayed apicture of what it referred to as the “controversial”
Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac’s new tomb in the Cathedral of
the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Zagreb,
Croatia. Stepinac, however, should never have been
considered “controversial.” In 1946, he was framed as aNazi collaborator by Stalin’s framing machinery. Thatsame year, Louis Breier, a Jewish community leader,organized a protest in New York City to defend thememory of Stepinac. Breier declared:
This great man was tried as a collaborator of Nazism. We
protest against this slander. He has always been a sincere
friend of Jews, and was not hiding this even in times ofcruel persecutions under the regime of Hitler and hisfollowers. Alongside with Pope Pius XII, Archbishop
Stepinac was the greatest protector of persecuted Jews in
Europe.1

Cardinal Stepinac’s framing revealed the organic
connection between Nazism and communism, and it
proved that Pius XII was absolutely right to fight both.
Like Pope Pius XII, Stepinac was a staunch opponent ofNazism and communism. Also like Pius XII, he openly
defied those oppressive regimes. Both men were hated by
Stalin, who ordered that both be framed. The primarydifference between them was that Pius XII lived in the
Vatican, where Stalin could not touch him physically,
while Stepinac lived in a Soviet satellite country, where
Stalin could not only frame him but also put him on trial.
Stepinac was framed by Tito’s state security service,
the UDBA (Uprava državne bezbednosti), an organization
created by Stalin’s political police and in those days run
by a Soviet intelligence veteran, Aleksander Rankovic,
and his Soviet advisers. They did such a good job thateven today many believe that Stepinac was engaged inpersecution of the Serbs.
Before and during the trial, Yugoslavian leader Josip(Broz) Tito made a series of public speeches condemning
Pope Pius XII as an enemy of “the Yugoslav
government,” but he did not limit his comments to
Stepinac. He asked: “On whose side, however, was the
Pope? He was not defending the Yugoslav cause.” Theofficial Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano
explained that, “Tito was echoing the Moscow line.”2Years later, I learned from my Yugoslavian
counterpart Silvo Gorenc that Stepinac’s show trial had
been staged by Andrey Vyshinsky, the old intelligencehand who had worked undercover as the public prosecutor
during Stalin’s purges. Three years after that trial,
Vyshinsky became the foreign minister of the Soviet
Union.

At the beginning of World War II, the area now known as
Croatia was part of Yugoslavia. In March 1941,
Yugoslavia formally joined Hitler’s Axis. Serbiannationalists seized control of Belgrade, however, andannounced that they were siding with the Allies. As aresult, Hitler invaded Yugoslavia and gave his support to
Croat nationalists who declared an independent Croatia.3
The new Croat government was led by Ante Pavelić anddominated by his Nazi-like party, the Ustashe.4 The
Ustashe government enacted race laws patterned after
those of the Third Reich. Jews, as well as gypsies, Serbs,
communists, and dissident Catholic priests were beaten,
interned in concentration camps, or murdered. The
brutality of the Ustashe shocked even the Nazis.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia

was Archbishop Aloysius (“Alojzije” in Croatian)
Stepinac. Historians have noted that when the brutality
began, the archbishop “almost immediately … used his
position to speak out against the treatment of Jews andOrthodox Christians.”5 Stepinac rescued hundreds ofrefugees through direct action, but many more “throughhis sermons in which he vigorously condemned theimplementation of Racial Laws.”6 The Frenchambassador in Zagreb was convinced that Stepinac’s
interventions were behind the relaxation of race laws in
Croatia.7
Stepinac’s sermons against the Ustashe abuses were sostrong that soon the Church was not permitted to publish
them. Catholics and others who were opposed to theregime copied and circulated them in secret, however.8
Stepinac also provided copies of his sermons, to enable
the partisans to broadcast extracts over the radio.9 On atleast one occasion, Stepinac had a copy of his sermon
smuggled to Chief Rabbi Freiberger of Croatia.10 In Italy
and other occupied areas, the same was done with Pius
XII’s radio broadcasts.
In October 1941, the Ustashe destroyed the main
synagogue in Zagreb. Shortly thereafter, at the cathedral,
Stepinac roared: “A House of God, of whatever religion,
is a holy place. Whoever touches such a place will pay
with his life. An attack on a House of God of any religion
constitutes an attack on all religious communities.”11

In February 1942, Stepinac protested to the Interior
minister about the destruction of Orthodox churches.12
The Associated Press reported that, “by 1942 Stepinac
had become a harsh critic” of the Ustashe, condemning its“genocidal policies, which killed tens of thousands ofSerbs, Jews, Gypsies and Croats.”13 One sermon from
October 31, 1943, was typical of many that the
archbishop gave on the dignity of all humanity. He said:
We have always asserted the value in public life of theprinciples of the eternal law of God without regard towhether it applied to Croats, Serbs, Jews, Bohemians,
Catholics, Mohammedans, or Orthodox. … The Catholic
Church knows nothing of races born to rule and races
doomed to slavery. The Catholic Church knows races andnations only as creatures of God… for it the Negro ofCentral Africa is as much a man as the European. For it theking in a royal palace is, as a man, exactly the same as thelowest pauper or gypsy in his tent. … We condemn all
injustice; all murder of innocent people; all burning ofpeaceful villages; all killings, all exploitation of the poor
…14

A German Nazi general in Zagreb declared at thetime: “If any bishop in Germany were speaking this way,
he would not descend alive from his pulpit!”15
Stepinac’s contempt for the Nazis is reflected in an
incident that took place during the German occupation.
Hans Frank, the Nazi official in charge of the occupation,

continually hinted that he wanted to be invited to dinner at
the archbishop’s residence. Presumably, this would help
legitimize Frank’s position. Finally the invitation came.
When Frank sat down to dine with the archbishop, he wasserved a meager meal of black bread (made in part fromacorns), beet jelly, and ersatz coffee. Stepinac calmly
explained that this was the only food he could obtain withthe ration coupons provided by the Nazis, and he certainly
could not risk the arrest of himself or one of his
household servants by trading on the black market.16
In February 1944, the Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land,
Isaac Herzog, sent a letter thanking the apostolic legate in
Istanbul, Roncalli, for “all you have done” to save theJews.17 He also wrote to Abbot Marcone, the Vatican’srepresentative in Zagreb,18 to “express how deeply I
appreciate all you have done for our unfortunate brothers
and sisters,” noting that he was following the good
example of Pope Pius XII.19

In 1944–45, communist partisans under Tito occupied
Zagreb. The new Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia
became a Soviet satellite. Its Moscow-controlledgovernment nationalized the economy and undertook
Soviet-style persecution of the Catholic Church byconfiscating property,20 closing seminaries and schools,21
banning Masses, and persecuting clergy.

Before coming to power, the communists “usedCardinal Stepinac’s speeches in their propaganda, as the
cardinal always spoke against the Nazi occupation andagainst the violation of human rights committed by
Pavelić.”22 Now, however, the cardinal was a threat.23 It“bothered the new regime that the Catholic Church was
the only organization outside of its control.”24
On May 15, 1945, Stepinac’s car was confiscated.25
Two days later, the UDBA arrested him. The archbishop
was held for seventeen days. On the day after his release,
Tito summoned Stepinac for a face-to-face meeting.26 The
communist leader wanted the Croatian Church to sever its
ties with Rome. Tito argued that the Vatican had nottreated Slovak nations very well. Stepinac not only
corrected Tito on historical facts, he threw down thegauntlet: “I insist upon freedom for all the people. You
have given no sign that you intend to respect theConstitution. I am going to resist you on every move inwhich you disregard the Constitution and the people.”27
In March 1946, Tito asked the Holy See to recall
Stepinac and replace him with another archbishop. When—in accordance with Stepinac’s wishes—Pius XII
refused the request, the stage was set for the archbishop’s
rearrest.
At the beginning of September 1946, Stalin sent
Vyshinsky to Zagreb. On September 18, Tito’s UDBA
arrested Stepinac and charged him with six criminal

counts, including: helping to organize Nazi crimes;
collaboration with the Nazi puppet Pavelić and his
Ustashe; and responsibility for crimes committed bychaplains in the Ustashe army.28
Tito used his “justice” system as a “tool for solving
political problems.”29 “[T]rials were quick and merciless,without any objectivity.”30 The Evangelical bishop,
Zagreb’s Mufti, the head of the Croatian Orthodox
Church, and others were tried and executed.31 Even
priests who had no connections to the Ustashe were
executed.32
Stepinac’s trial started on September 30, 1946. Thatday, Time magazine reported on the archbishop’s
defiance:
Archbishop Stepinac lashed out at the Nazi “master race”
idea and condemned the execution of hostages as “inhumanand anti-Christian.” He was just as fearless in condemning
Communist outrages. In 1945, the Archbishop wrote in apastoral letter: “The enemies of the Catholic Church … thefollowers of the materialistic communism … have in our
Croatia exterminated with fire and sword priests and themore eminent of the faithful. … The number of dead priests
is 243; 169 are in prison.”33

The American press recognized the trial as a fraud.34
The prosecution had fifteen months of open access togovernment and church documents in which to prepare its

case. Stepinac’s lawyers were restricted to a one-hour
visit to their client and one week in which to collectevidence for the defense.35 American Archbishop Joseph
Hurley was present as the representative of Pope Pius XII.
Stepinac was not, however, permitted to consult with him
during the proceedings.36 Many defense witnesses were
not permitted to testify, and much of the defendant’s
evidence was disallowed. Key prosecution evidence was
manufactured. As one author put it:
The trial was a farce. The testimony of witnesses was
falsified in court reports. Witnesses were threatened. Judges
delivered long monologues, and provided the “appropriate”
answers to their own questions. The courtroom was packed
with Communist agitators, whose vocal demonstrations
were heavily covered by the government-controlled media;
only five Church representatives were allowed to bepresent.37

One hundred fifty priests from Zagreb risked arrest by
issuing a statement in support of their archbishop,38 andPope Pius XII said: “We have the right and the duty toreject such false accusations.” He called it “a very sadtrial.”39
On the fourth day of the proceedings, Stepinac gave athirty-eight-minute speech. Time magazine reported thatthe archbishop “temporarily lost his equanimity.” He“shook an angry finger at the court, and cried: ‘Not only
does the church in Yugoslavia have no freedom, but in ashort while the church will be annihilated.’”40 He
continued:
For seventeen months a campaign has been waged againstme, publicly and in the press; and for twelve months I
suffered actual house arrest in the Archbishop’s palace. …
During the war the Church had to find its way throughcountless difficulties. There was a desire to aid, as much as
it was at all possible, the Serbian people. … I was persona
non grata to either the Germans or the Ustashe; I was not
an Ustasha, nor did I take their oath as did some of theofficials of this court whom I see here. The Croatian nation
unanimously declared itself for the Croatian State and I
would have been remiss had I not recognized andacknowledged this desire of the Croatian people enslavedby the former Yugoslavia.41

Stepinac accused his communist prosecutors of
behaving like the Gestapo. He said his conscience wasclear. He also said that he was being prosecuted in orderfor the state to attack the Church. He denied having
conducted any religious conversions in bad faith.42
Publication of the archbishop’s statement or thearguments made by his defense attorneys was prohibited
during the entire rule of the communists in the former
Yugoslavia. Those who made copies and clandestinely
distributed them faced criminal prosecution.43 A
government-sponsored film that appeared in theaters
throughout the nation shortly after the trial falsely made itappear that Stepinac offered no defense at all to thecharges.44
During his trial, the prosecution produced a report
allegedly sent by the archbishop to the pope, dated May
18, 1943. It bitterly condemned the Serbs and the
Orthodox Church. It also showed Stepinac to have beenworking for the Ustashe and calling on the pope toarrange for foreign intervention in Yugoslavia.45
Stepinac denied having written or sent this report.46 It
was not written on diocesan paper, and it did not have his
address or signature. It was in Italian, instead of theformalized Latin style normally used by the archbishop. It
referred to Stepinac as Metropoleta de Croatiae et
Slovoniae, but Stepinac never referred to himself thatway. It contained detailed information about Bosnia that
Stepinac was unlikely to know, as Bosnia was not part ofhis diocese.47 Although the communists claimed the letter
was found in the Croatian Foreign Ministry offices,
Stepinac never sent his reports there. The prosecutor,
Jakov Blažević, claimed to have a copy signed by
Stepinac, but he did not produce it at the trial. Neither
does it appear in the record of court documents.48
In 1950, a group of American senators sought to allow
American aid to Yugoslavia only on the condition ofArchbishop Stepinac’s release. Realizing the need forbetter relations with the West after the split with theSoviet Union, and also concerned about the archbishop’sdeclining health, Tito expressed a willingness to release
Stepinac from prison if he would leave Yugoslavia.49 As
Time magazine explained:
Marshal Tito, busy mending fences, made a direct offer tothe Vatican last month to release imprisoned Archbishop
Stepinac. Tito’s condition: that Stepinac leave Yugoslavia
the moment he is released. Last week the Vatican reported
Tito’s offer—and its own reply: no bargain. “The Holy See
would be pleased if Monsignor Stepinac were freed,” said
the answer to Tito. “The Holy See is informed, however,that that Most Excellent Prelate, being convinced of his
innocence, prefers to remain near his faithful.” That seemed
to hand Tito’s awkward dilemma right back to Tito.50

Stepinac explained: “They will never make me leaveunless they put me on a plane by force and take me overthe frontier. It is my duty in these difficult times to staywith the people.”51
In December 1951, Tito ordered Stepinac to bereleased from his cell and sent to house arrest in his native
village of Krašić.52 The Vatican still wanted Tito’s regime
to acknowledge Stepinac’s innocence and to resolve otheroutstanding issues. Quoting the Vatican newspaper, Timemagazine reported: “Another bishop, His Excellency
Monsignor Peter Cule of Mostar, is still unjustly held …
Fully two hundred priests and religious are in prison.
Seminaries are still held requisitioned, and monasteries
and convents are still confiscated … Freedom of worship

… is suffocated.”53
Immediately after Stepinac’s transfer, Pope Pius XII
announced that he would be elevated to the cardinalate. In
response, Tito’s government severed diplomatic relations
with the Vatican.54 Stepinac did not go to Rome to beinvested as a Prince of the Church, because he knew that
the Yugoslavian government would not permit him to
return home. He explained: “To leave Yugoslavia in thesetimes would mean to abandon my post and to abandon mypeople … I shall stay here, if need be, until my death.”55
Stepinac lived in two rooms in a small house next to abeautiful little church in Krašić. He was able to say Massand administer the sacraments. He also wrote many lettersto priests and others, encouraging them in the faith,
though the communists monitored all of his writings andthey were subject to confiscation.56 When a visiting
journalist asked him how he felt, the cardinal replied,“Here, the same as in Lepoglava … I am doing my duty.”
When asked what that was, he said: “to suffer and workfor the Church.”57
In 1953, Stepinac refused to go abroad for treatment ofa blood-clotting problem. Two American physicians were,
however, permitted to come to Yugoslavia to treat him.
The disease, polycythemia (sometimes called ‘reverse
leukemia’), involves an excess of red blood cells.58 It
prompted Stepinac to joke: “I am suffering from anexcess of reds.”59
Stepinac’s health grew worse. He developed
congested lungs, and he died of a pulmonary embolism on
February 10, 1960. Years later, testing conducted by
Vatican officials indicated that he had been slowly
poisoned.
Time magazine reported that he had “never worn his
cardinal’s red robe. But no living prince of the Roman
Catholic Church had a better right to it than Alojzije
Cardinal Stepinac … For years, he was a silent but
unforgotten symbol of the war between Communism andChristianity.”60
Pope John XXIII honored Stepinac with a Solemn
Requiem Mass in St. Peter’s—a ceremony usuallyreserved for cardinals who have died in Rome. On thebasis that Stepinac had been stripped of his archbishopricby the state, Tito decreed that the funeral could take place
only in the little church at Krašić.61 With mounting
international pressure, however, he eventually gave
permission for a funeral with full honors in Zagreb
Cathedral.62
In 1985, Stepinac’s prosecutor, Jakov Blazevic,
acknowledged that Stepinac had been framed and that hewas tried only because he refused to sever ties between
Croatians and the Roman Catholic Church.63 Blazevic
said that if Stepinac had agreed to head an independent
Catholic Church, he would not have been brought tocourt.64
Nearly forty years after the trial, one of Tito’s seniorlegal officials by the name of Hrncevic, who had put
together the original case against Stepinac and arranged
the trial, stated: “The indictments were designed rather
more for publicity than for legality.”65 Yugoslavian
political dissident Milovan Đjilas, who had once beenclose to Tito, said that the problem with “Stepinac was
not his policy towards Ustashe, but towards theCommunists.”66
In October 1998, after Croatia came out from undercommunism’s thumb, the Church beatified Stepinac.

In framing Stepinac, Stalin and his Yugoslavian viceroys
unintentionally created a record that today exposes themethodology of Soviet framing. A study of that record
also shows how fabricated evidence designed to frame
Stepinac as a pro-Nazi has tainted the investigation ofPope Pius XII’s record.
In the 1960s, Italian writer Carlo Falconi wrote The
Silence of Pius XII, a book entirely based on documents
provided to him by the communist government of Croatia—including those used to frame Archbishop Stepinac.67
In fact, the title of each and every chapter in Falconi’s
book is related to Croatia.68

In his foreword, Falconi explained that the “central
core of the Croatian documents” that had been provided
to him by the Croatian (communist) government “brought
to light an entirely new and unsuspected harvest ofrevelations on the men and the mysterious world” of high
Vatican officials. Falconi’s book impressed researchers
because it was highly footnoted and relied on documentsthat had been used in litigation. The Silence of Pius XII
shaped much of the early scholarship “documenting” that
Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.”
We now know that Falconi was not looking atlegitimate documents, but at communist fabrications.69 In
1985, Jakov Blažević, who prosecuted Stepinac,
confessed that the documents on which the archbishop
was tried were false.70 In 1992, one of the first acts of
Parliament in the newly independent Croatia was to issue
a declaration condemning the framing and “the political
trial and sentence passed on Cardinal Stepinac in 1946.”71
Though modern writers should know better, The
Silence of Pius XII, based on false documents created by
Croatian communist government, remains much cited tothis day. John Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope, published in
1999, made much use of it. In fact, Cornwell praised
Falconi’s “painstaking” research.72
Falconi and the works built upon his book have tainted
the entire investigation into Pope Pius XII. As Croatianscholar Jure Krišto has explained: “The documents whichboth men [Falconi and Cornwell] used had, of course,
been assembled by the Yugoslav secret police, then led by
the Serbian Communist [head of the UDBA] Aleksandar
Ranković, and fed to Falconi in order to compromisePope Pius XII as ‘Hitler’s Pope.’”73 These documents
have confounded scholars of Pope Pius XII for decades.74
In October 2008, on the tenth anniversary of Cardinal
Stepinac’s beatification, thousands of people gathered to
pay their respects to him.75 For them, the cardinal was acourageous leader, a hero, and a saint. A courageousleader because he went alone to war against Nazism andcommunism. A hero because he won. And a saint because
he sacrificed his life for the religious freedom of his
followers.
In the annals of history, Cardinal Stepinac will also go
down as a key witness in any future trial seeking to
identify the true culprit in the vicious war against Pius XIIand the Judeo-Christian world. It is a war that broke out in
1945 and has never ended.

11
CARDINAL MINDSZENTYLESS THAN TWO YEARS after Croatian Catholic Cardinal
Stepinac was framed, Stalin focused on Jószef Cardinal
Mindszenty, the Roman Catholic archbishop and primateof Hungary. In the highly classified manual ofdezinformatsiya that codified my life within the Soviet
intelligence community, it was proclaimed on the first
page, all in upper case letters: “IF YOU ARE GOOD ATDISINFORMATION, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITHANYTHING.” The KGB manual began with an example
illustrating how framing could “neutralize even a saint.”
The “saint” in question was Mindszenty, called a “saintly
hero” by the Vatican because of his epic resistance during
his imprisonment by the Nazis (1944–45).
The KGB manual summed up the “Mindszenty

case”—with customary Soviet self-importance—as one of“our most stupendous, monumental dezinformatsiya
operations.”1 The KGB considered framing its enemies anhonorable task, and it was proud to boast about asuccessful operation. Soviet leaders and their politicalpolice organizations lived indeed in a world of their own,
and they did not fear disclosure of their ways. In reality, it
was— for those days—a quite sophisticated attempt tomalign the Catholic Church.
On December 26, 1948, Mindszenty was arrested by
the AVO (Allamvedelmi Osztaly), the Hungariansubsidiary of the Soviet security police. At AVO
headquarters in Budapest, Mindszenty was subjected tobrutal nightly beatings and urged to sign confessions,which he refused to do. At his trial, held February 3–5,
1949, he was framed with fabricated documents andsentenced to life imprisonment. It was Stepinac revisited.
Two fortuitous circumstances make Mindszenty’s casea real eye-opener into how Stalin and his security police
went after Pius XII’s archbishops and cardinals. The firstis that Mindszenty was blessed with being able to survive
with a clear head and write a detailed account of
everything that had happened to him. His book, Memoirs,
was published in New York in 1974 and provided
devastating insight into the way the AVO slandered him
as conspiring to overthrow the communist government
and as having made illegal currency transactions. Thesecond and unique event was that László and Hanna
Sulner, a Hungarian couple who worked with the AVO tofabricate the documents used in Mindszenty’s framing,managed to escape to the West immediately after the trial
started and published several accounts of exactly what
they had done. Theirs is a fascinating story and sheds newlight on how the Kremlin went about framing Pope Pius
XII himself, many years later.
Cardinal Mindszenty was born Jószef Pehm in
Mindszent, a village in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on
March 29, 1892.2 His ancestors had all been Hungarians,
traceable back for many generations, and his family
members were all devout Roman Catholics, as were many
Hungarians. He was ordained a priest in 1915 andpatriotically adopted the name Mindszenty in 1941 when
the Nazis were threatening all of Eastern Europe. In 1944,
Pope Pius XII made him a bishop, and on September 16,
1945, the same pope appointed him archbishop of
Esztergom and primate of Hungary.
Throughout his life, Mindszenty was an outspoken andpolitically active defender of humanitarian principles,causing him to be arrested by various dictatorships in the
up-and-down of twentieth-century Hungarian politics. His
first imprisonment was from February 19 to May 15,
1919, after he publicly attacked Michael Karolyi’s
revolutionary government, becoming a leader in the
newly founded Christian Party and editing a paper critical

of the regime.3 Karolyi’s government gave way to Bela
Kun’s short-lived “Hungarian Soviet Republic” in 1919.
The communists continued to see Mindszenty as an
opponent, and he was arrested again. After several
harrowing days, during which his life hung in the balance,
Mindszenty was sent back to live with his parents in his
home village.4
During most of World War II, Hungary sided with
Nazi Germany but remained unoccupied, therefore
becoming a refuge for European Jews. In the spring of1944, however, the Germans invaded Hungary under thepretext of safeguarding communications. They set up a
puppet government in Budapest and immediately issued
anti-Jewish laws, insisting that the Jews be confined inghettos. The Vatican protested vigorously and regularly
against the inhumane treatment of the Jews in Hungary, as
did all the Hungarian bishops, including Mindszenty.5
Catholic churches in Hungary offered conversion to
thousands of Jews to save them from persecution anddeportation, just as Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg
saved many by giving them Swedish passports—until the
Nazis caught on and began going after the converts.6
From November 1919 (when the Romanian army,
with the consent of the Allied powers, ended Bela Kun’s“Hungarian Soviet Republic”) to October 1944, Hungary
was headed by Adm. Nicholas Horthy. With the Nazis incontrol of Hungary, they began deporting Jews. This led

to complaints from Catholic leaders. Horthy complained
to the Germans that he was being bombarded withtelegrams from the Vatican and others, and that thenuncio was calling on him several times each day.7 In theface of these protests, Horthy withdrew his support fromthe deportation process, making it impossible for theGermans to continue. In a cable to Pope Pius XII, Horthy
wrote: “It is with comprehension and profound gratitude
that I receive your cable and request you to be convincedthat I shall do all within my power to make prevail thedemands of Christian humanitarian principles.”8
Horthy agreed to work against the deportations andeven signed a peace agreement with the Allies. More than
170,000 Hungarian Jews were saved from deportation on
the very eve of their intended departure.9 The Germans,
however, would not be dissuaded.
The Germans arrested Horthy in October, put Hungary
under the control of a group of Hungarian Nazis known as
the Arrow Cross, and the deportations resumed. On
October 31, 1944, the Hungarian bishops, including
Mindszenty, protested. That same month, Pius joined inan effort to raise money to support Hungarian refugees,
urging all the faithful to redouble their efforts on behalf ofall victims of the war, regardless of their race.10 Almost
every Catholic Church in Hungary provided refuge topersecuted Jews during the autumn and winter of 1944.11
On November 26, 1944, Mindszenty was againarrested. This time it was for his opposition to the proNazi Arrow Cross government, and he was charged withtreason. Fortunately, he avoided trial and was freed when
the German troops left on April 4, 1945. The country thencame under Soviet occupation.
Remarkably, Mindszenty was able to leave the country
on November 30, 1945, and travel to Rome, where on
February 21, 1946, he received the cardinal’s hat fromPope Pius XII. When he came back to Hungary, Soviet
troops were still in the country, and religious and politicalconditions were as bad as ever. That fall, the local state
security service arrested a group of “conspirators” against
the communist government. They were tried the following
March. The leaders were condemned to death, the others
to long prison terms. On October 24, 1947, Mindszenty
protested vigorously to the premier.
In May 1948, the communist authorities had notrouble subduing the Hungarian Reformed Church, by thesimple expedient of removing the heads of the Church
and replacing them with others who were willing to go
along with the new regime. The Catholic bishops could
not so easily be replaced, since they were appointed by
the pope.
Mindszenty continued to protest, as Church schools
were closed and religious orders banned by thecommunist government. Schoolchildren and factory
workers were ordered into the streets to demonstrateagainst him, proclaiming: “We will annihilate
Mindszentyism! The well-being of the Hungarian people
and peace between Church and state depend on it.”12
On the morning of November 19, 1948, the policearrested Mindszenty’s secretary, Dr. András Zakar, as he
was about to enter the archiepiscopal palace in Esztergom
and carted him off to the notorious No. 60 Andrássy
Street, state security headquarters in Budapest.
Mindszenty realized that he himself would soon bearrested. On December 16, he convened a final
conference of bishops at the palace. As the bishops left,
the police blocked the road, searched each car, and hadeach passenger identify himself—evidently in thesuspicion that the primate would try to escape with thebishops.
Stalin undoubtedly wanted Mindszenty arrested,framed, and “neutralized”—not necessarily killed,because that would make international waves, butremoved from the scene for life, perhaps so physically
mistreated and mentally addled that he would never again
be able to challenge the communist rulers. Since the war,
the Soviets’ tried-and-true method had been wherever
possible to slander their enemies as having been pro-Nazi.
The Hungarian primate, however, was widely known as
having used his Church to protect Jews, as having
publicly denounced the Nazis over and over again, and as
having been imprisoned by the Nazis’ Hungarian allies,the Arrow Cross. Some other plausible peg would have to
be found for the framing.
When the Soviet state security officers and theirsurrogates in the satellite countries of Eastern Europe
were ordered to frame someone—that is, to change his
past and the way the public perceived him—the first thing
they did was to collect as much information as possible on
the target: where he had traveled, who his contacts were,what kind of letters and documents he had written,
especially those providing samples of his handwriting andsignature.13 Accordingly, on December 23, 1948, squadsof policemen forced their way into Mindszenty’s
archiepiscopal palace and meticulously rummaged
through every room, especially the archives, alleging thesearch was in connection with the case of Dr. Zakar, thesecretary being held under arrest. During the search,
Mindszenty, his visiting mother, and three local priests
were locked in a small dining room. When the police
were finished, they asked him to sign a record of thesearch. He refused, but took the occasion to protest thearrest of two priests of the archdiocese.
After the search, the chief of the secretariat, Dr. Gyula
Mátrai, told Mindszenty that his secretary, Dr. Zakar, hadcome to the palace with the police and had shown themaround. According to Mátrai, Zakar had acted oddly,
running down the halls, laughing constantly, and with astrange look on his face and in his eyes. The primate

could only suppose that he must have been beaten anddrugged into submission and cooperation. Mátrai also
reported that in the archives the police had shownparticular interest in a collection of metal cylinders. These
were of various lengths and diameters and were used tosafeguard valuable archdiocesan papers, such as property
deeds and blueprints, and to protect them from dust anddecay. The police took one empty cylinder with them.
Later, at the trial, they would allege that Zakar had
revealed its special hiding place to them, and they would
produce its supposedly incriminating contents.
On the night of December 26, 1948, a large police
squadron noisily drove up to the palace. Colonel Décsi of
the security police, followed by eight or ten of his men,burst into Mindszenty’s apartment, found him kneeling inprayer, and ordered him to come with them. When heasked to see a warrant for his arrest, one policeman
scoffed that they did not need one, bragging that they
could find traitors, spies, and currency smugglers evenwhen they wore a cardinal’s robes.
For the next thirty-nine days, Mindszenty was
imprisoned and interrogated at 60 Andrassy Street. There
the guards—laughing loudly, telling dirty jokes, andsmoking in his unventilated room—stripped him of his
clothing and gave him only what he called a harlequin“clown suit” to wear. Every day the colonel interrogatedhim and insisted he sign “confessions,” which he refused
to do. Every night, a major would beat his naked bodywith a rubber truncheon until he collapsed, but the guards
prodded him so that he could not even sleep. They also
urged him to eat, claiming they would order whatever hewanted from a restaurant. Knowing that prisoners wereusually drugged, he at first refused all food, but then in
his starved state he succumbed to consuming a little breador clear broth. A team of three silent doctors examined
him before every meal and left pills for him to take. He
tried to crush the pills into the uneaten food, or makethem stick to the roof of his mouth and later hide thecrumbs in his shoe. After two weeks, he grew weaker(and, as he later realized, probably did get blurry-mindedfrom drugs present even in the clear broth), and he agreed
to sign the minutes of his previous interrogations,although he was later sure he had never signed any“confession of guilt in the sense of an indictment.”
From the beginning, Colonel Décsi told the archbishop
exactly what confessions were required from him. The
charges boiled down to Mindszenty’s allegedly
treasonous contacts with the American Embassy in
Budapest and with Otto von Hapsburg, in connection witha plot to stir up a Third World War. Supposedly
Mindszenty had orchestrated the theft of Hungary’s
crown jewels, and he planned to overthrow thecommunist government, draw up a cabinet for the future
kingdom of Hungary, and then bring the ancient Crown ofSaint Stephen to Budapest in order to crown Otto vonHapsburg as king.

This may sound like the plot for an overblown
historical novel, but it is what the Hungarian security
police came up with after digging through all those files
they had collected from the palace archives—not to forgetthat metal cylinder, which would become a tangible
exhibit at Mindszenty’s trial.
The Soviet disinformation experts always said a goodframing operation had to be built up around a “kernel oftruth,” and here it was. The security police knew that
Mindszenty had met with Otto von Hapsburg in the
United States in the summer of 1947. In fact, the cardinal
had attended a Marian Congress in Ottawa that year, andhe agreed to meet afterwards with the Hapsburg heir, atthe latter’s request, in Chicago. Mindszenty asked him forhelp in obtaining and transporting charitable gifts from
Americans to the Hungarian Church. In that sameconnection he had also been in touch with Cardinal
Spellman, the archbishop of New York, and with theAmerican Embassy in Budapest. Mindszenty had also
written many letters—obviously now in the hands of thepolice—expressing his wish that the Holy Crown be
returned for safekeeping to Rome and entrusted to thecare of Pius XII, during the current “difficult period oftribulations and vicissitudes.”On the evening of February 2, 1949, Mindszenty wasdressed in a new black suit and escorted to the building of
the Budapest People’s Court by a large detachment ofpolice, headed by Colonel Décsi and Lt. Gen. GáborPéter, an undercover Soviet security police officer who
was the chief of Hungary’s AVO. The next morning abarber came to make the cardinal presentable. He put on
his black suit again and set out for the courtroom,accompanied by six other “conspirators.” Later, four weretreated as irrelevant, and only three were allegedly in on
the conspiracy: the cardinal-primate, his secretary, and “amonk whose health had been shattered.”
The show trial was conducted from February 3–8,
1949. Mindszenty reportedly confessed to the crimes he
was accused of, agreeing that he had written the letters
supposedly found in the cylinder that discussed plotting tooverthrow the government. In his book, he wrote that hewas so physically and mentally exhausted that he scarcely
knew what he was saying. All the defendants were foundguilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On February 12, 1949, Pope Pius XII condemned thejailing of the cardinal and excommunicated everyone
involved in his trial and conviction.
On February 6, before the trial was even over,handwriting experts Lázlo and Hanna Sulner escaped toAustria and began telling their story to the press. They
denounced the trial as a farce, displaying microfilms of
the fabricated documents they had produced for the
Hungarian security police in order to frame Mindszenty.14
They attested that several months before the search of thearchiepiscopal palace, they had been given copies of thedocuments allegedly found in the metal cylinder produced
at the trial, with instructions to “edit” them. Theseactually were copies of letters and memoranda that the
cardinal had ordered to be destroyed so as not to involveothers after his anticipated arrest; a typist in the cardinal’s
secretariat had been intimidated into providing thematerials to the police.15
Even more interesting is the Sulners’ description of
how they operated. Hanna’s father had been a pioneer in
handwriting analysis and an authority on questionable
documents. Hanna studied criminology and took over her
father’s business after his death, later to be joined by
Lázlo, who became her husband. Hanna’s father had
invented a device that took words and phrases frommanuscripts and put them together as desired to form a
new manuscript, and Lázlo developed this technique tosuch perfection that even experts could not detect theforgery.16
The Sulners and their device came to the attention of
the Hungarian secret police in September 1948, when
they showed Lázlo a list of cabinet members Mindszenty
was allegedly going to appoint after the overthrow of thegovernment. Lázlo immediately dubbed it a forgery andproduced a better list, which was later amended and usedas evidence at the trial.
On January 4, 1949, Lázlo was asked to produce a
confession by Mindszenty in accordance with thetypewritten draft the police provided. The Sulners werealso asked to forge other documents, signatures, andmarginal notations for the case. When they did not work
quickly enough for the police, they and their entire
apparatus were moved to police headquarters. A steadyflow of documents resulted, some of which were
produced by ignorant, inexperienced police officers andresulted in what Mindszenty described as “outlandish
form and spelling, such as my confession.”17 The Soviet
security police would have immediately learned fromtheir Hungarian counterpart about the Sulners’ virtually
foolproof technique for fabricating documents. As aresult, it is clear why disinformation and framing experts
in any of the Soviet bloc intelligence services were
insatiable in their efforts to collect as many original
documents as possible on a target.
At the time that I was involved in the Soviet operation
against Pius XII that will be discussed later in this book, I
could not understand why the Soviets kept asking him for
more and more essentially uninteresting documents from
Vatican files. It is now apparent that they were looking fora little “kernel of truth” of the Otto von Hapsburg kind, orthey may have been seeking words and signatures that
could be perfectly duplicated by the Sulner technique to
produce an entirely different “original.”
During the Hungarian uprising of 1956, Cardinal
Mindszenty was set free, but his freedom lasted for only ashort while. Soon the communists regained control of thegovernment, and he sought asylum in the US Embassy in
Budapest, where he lived for the next fifteen years. On
September 23, 1971, under Vatican pressure, thegovernment of Hungary allowed Mindszenty to leave thecountry. He moved to Vienna, but continued his primacyof the Hungarian Catholic Church until December 1973,
when, at the age of eighty-two, he was replaced. He diedin Vienna on May 6, 1975. In 1991, as soon as Hungariancommunism collapsed, in accordance with his wishes, his
remains were expatriated to Esztergom by the
democratically elected government in Budapest.
Mindszenty’s life and his battle against the Kremlin’s
framing were the subject of the 1950 film Guilty ofTreason, which author and historian Steve O’Brien called“an extraordinary time capsule from the start of the Cold
War,” that “illustrated how the Communists were out tobesmirch the Vatican’s high churchmen.”18 In 1955, aslightly fictionalized version of the Mindszenty case was
the subject of another movie, The Prisoner, starring Alec
Guinness. That film opened with the cardinal’s arrest andwith his real statement that any reported confession
would be “a lie or the result of human weaknesses.”19
The Mindszenty Museum in Esztergom, which opened
after communism collapsed, is another monument to
Mindszenty’s life and to the Kremlin’s criminal framingof him,20 as is the Mindszenty Foundation in St. Louis,

Missouri.

12
MORE FRAMINGSCARDINALS MINDSZENTY AND STEPINAC were not Stalin’s
only high-ranking Catholic victims outside of theinscrutable Soviet Union. Several other cardinals in
Eastern Europe also suffered. Josef Cardinal Beran ofCzechoslovakia was one of them. Arrested by the Gestapo
on June 6, 1940, Beran, at that time a bishop, wasimprisoned in Pankrác, Theresienstadt, and at the Dachau
concentration camp. After the war, he was appointed
archbishop of Prague and primate of the Church in
Czechoslovakia. When the communists took over in 1948,
Beran prohibited his clergy from taking an oath of loyalty
to the new regime, calling it “treason to the Christianfaith.” He also protested the new regime’s seizure of
Church property and the infringement of religious liberty.

In June 1949, the newly created Czechoslovakian
political police arrested Beran and convicted him in ashow trial. He was reimprisoned from 1949 to 1963. Even
upon his release, Beran was impeded from exercising his
episcopal ministry. He repeatedly offered his resignation
to the pope, but it was always refused. In 1965, Beran
moved to Rome in exchange for governmental
concessions to the Church. Pope Paul VI made him a
cardinal that same month.1
Stefan Cardinal Wyszyński of Poland was another ofthe Kremlin’s victims.2 When the Second World War
broke out in 1939, Wyszyński served as chaplain of a unitof the Armia Krajowa, a Polish anti-Nazi undergroundresistance organization. This caused him frequently to bea target for the Germans. After the war, Pius XII
appointed him Bishop of Lublin. After the death ofCardinal Hlond in October 1948, Wyszyński was named
metropolitan archbishop of Gniezno and Warsaw.
The new communist government in Poland was hardon the Catholic Church. The conflict increased following
Pope Pius XII’s 1950–1955 decrees against communism(discussed further in the next chapter). The Kremlin and
its Polish viceroys unleashed a new round of persecution
against the Polish clergy. Numerous priests were arrested
and accused of collaborating with “reactionary
underground movements.”3

Wyszyński tried to reach a working agreement withthe regime in 1950, but it did not hold. Pope Pius XII
appointed him cardinal and primate of Poland on January
12, 1953,4 but his persecution continued. Wyszyński wasarrested on September 25, 1953. He was quickly
imprisoned (eventually moving to house arrest).5 At the
beginning of 1954, there were nine Catholic bishops andseveral hundred priests in Polish prisons.6
Wyszyński was incarcerated for a little over three
years. In 1956, when the short-lived Hungarian
Revolution was ignited, Poles organized street
demonstrations demanding religious freedom andWyszyński’s release.7 The Catholic clergy joined in thecall for his freedom. On October 28, 1956, Wyszyński
was set free, and he returned to his post. Within two
years, however, the communist propaganda machine
again went after him with enough personal attacks that hiscause drew the attention of the Western media.8
In 1966, Wyszyński oversaw the celebration of
Poland’s Millennium of Christianity, the one thousandthanniversary of the baptism of Poland’s Prince Mieszko I.
The communist authorities refused to allow Pope Paul VI
to visit Poland. They also prevented Wyszyński from
attending overseas celebrations. In the 1970s, however,Wyszyński gave his support to the growing Solidarity
movement. Pope John Paul II was elected in 1978, and thecommunist officials could not prevent his papal trip. That
1979 visit sparked a revolution that led to the eventual
downfall of the Soviet bloc.
Cardinal Wyszyński died on May 28, 1981, at age
seventy-nine. To commemorate the twentieth anniversaryof his death, the postcommunist Polish government
celebrated 2001 as the Year of Stefan Cardinal
Wyszyński, who also became known as the Primate of theMillennium.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), which
had been in communion with the Holy See since theUnion of Brest in 1595–96, was in tension with theRussian Orthodox Church, especially after thecommunists took power. The conflict was largely
overlooked during the Second World War, because thechurches had the same negative opinion of the Nazis.
Unfortunately, the conflict reemerged when the war cameto an end.
On April 11, 1945, the Ukrainian Catholic bishops
were arrested, including Archbishop Josyf Slipyj. From
1920 to 1922, Slipyj had studied at the Pontifical Oriental
Institute in Rome and the Pontifical Gregorian University.
In 1939, with the blessing of Pope Pius XII, Slipyj wasordained as the archbishop of Lviv. He became the headof the UGCC in 1944. Now, along with the other bishops,
he was accused of collaboration with the Nazis andsentenced to forced labor in the Siberian Gulag.
In response, Pius XII issued his encyclical Orientales
Omnes of December 23, 1945. In it, the pope not only
condemned communism; he openly and specificallyattacked Moscow Patriarch Alexis. The situation got
worse March 8–10, 1946, when Soviet authorities forcibly
convened an assembly of 216 priests, and the so-called
Synod of Lviv was held at which the Ukrainian Greek
Catholic Church was forcibly “rejoined” to the Russian
Orthodox Church and forced to revoke its union with
Rome. The UGCC first became a “Church of Silence,”then a “Church of Martyrs,” as many Ukrainian Catholics
who were interned by the communists were tortured
and/or murdered.
Archbishop Slipyj was the heart and soul of theunderground Ukrainian Catholic Church, even though he
was imprisoned in the Siberian Gulag. News of his
courageous witness spread, especially after some of his
prison writings were released into circulation. In 1957,
Pius XII sent him a congratulatory letter on the fortiethanniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, which ofcourse the communist authorities confiscated. In light of it
and of Slipyj’s own writings, they cracked down evenharder and added seven years to his sentence.

Stalin’s death in 1953 did not make it easier on Slipyj
or the UGCC. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was justas hard on religion as his predecessor had been. A
fortunate combination of events, however, led to Slipyj’s
release.
In October 1962, Pope John XXIII opened the Second
Vatican Council, and with it a new approach toward theworld (“aggiornamento”). This included searching new
avenues to ease the suffering of Christians undercommunist rule, while at the same time being sure not towithdraw any of the Church’s warnings about MarxistLeninist ideology. The new approach was described by
Msgr. Igino Cardinale, chief of protocol at the Secretariatof the Holy See, as being “ready to engage in relations
with any state,” as long as there was a reliable assurance
that “freedom for the church and the sanctity of the moral
and spiritual interests of its citizens” were respected.
Just a few days after Vatican II opened, the Cuban
Missile Crisis broke out. President Kennedy, a Catholic
himself, sought help from the Vatican. He contacted theauthor Norman Cousins, who in turn contacted the HolySee. On October 24, 1962, John XXIII issued a dramatic
appeal to the relevant leaders not to remain deaf to “thecry of humanity.” On October 28, Khrushchev told
President Kennedy that the missiles would be withdrawn.
Many historians believe Pope John’s public appeal
provided Khrushchev with a face-saving way to change
course, depicting himself as a savior of world peace,rather than an outfoxed aggressor who blinked. Kennedy
thanked John XXIII for his help.
Shortly after this, Cousins met with Khrushchev as anintermediary for the Holy See, to discuss world peace,religious freedom, and Archbishop Slipyj. By early 1963,
the Soviets agreed to release Slipyj on the condition that
he would remain in exile, and that his freedom would not
be exploited by the Church for “anti-Soviet” purposes.
The release was to be regarded as an amnesty, and Slipyj
was still officially considered an enemy of the Soviet
government. The Holy See agreed not to exploit thematter, but made no promises about restricting its
admonitions against communism.
On January 23, 1963, Slipyj was set free. He arrived in
Rome in time to participate in the Second Vatican
Council, but his freedom was complicated by the fact that
Russian Orthodox observers had been invited to attend thecouncil. Their presence deeply shocked the Ukrainianbishops who thought that the Holy See was conceding far
too much to these accessories to the Soviet suppression of
the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Holy See,however, believed that this approach accomplishedecumenical and political goals without compromisinggenuine principles.
Slipyj had been secretly (in pectore) named a cardinalby Pope Pius XII in 1949, but in 1965 Pope Paul VI
named him publicly. At that time he was the fourthcardinal in UGCC history. In 1969 Pope Paul VI createdthe new office of major archbishop, appointing Slipyj as
its first incumbent. He died in Rome on September 7,
1984. In 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union, his relics
were returned to St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv.

13
GLOBAL WAR ON RELIGIONJANUARY 1951, three years after Cardinal Mindszenty wasarrested, Stalin was riding high. Since the end of WorldWar II he had dramatically expanded his empire throughthe skillful application of, alternately, the naked sword
and the veiled hoax. He now had dominion over twentyone countries—fifteen union republics and six European
satellites. The borders of his real estate extended from theNorth Pole to the 35th parallel and enclosed twelve seas
belonging to three oceans (Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific),
27,000 lakes and 150,000 rivers with a total length of 2
million miles. Counting the communist revolution in
China that had been initiated and organized by Soviet
advisers and was now about to succeed, the ruler in the
Kremlin would oversee more than a third of the world’s

population.
Stalin believed the time was ripe to gather all ofGermany under the communist umbrella. Germany was
the cradle of Marxism—Karl Marx’s birthplace—and it
was a matter of personal pride for Stalin to see it
communist. In June 1948, he sealed off West Berlin,
hoping to compel the Western Allies to surrender theentire city to the Soviet occupation forces. West Berlin
was a tiny oasis in the Soviet-occupied part of Germany,and the Soviet ruler was sure that the small Allied militaryforce controlling the Western sectors was no match for thesurrounding armored units of the Red Army. Stalin
miscalculated. Never in his wildest nightmares could hehave anticipated that the United States would set up the
Berlin Airlift in order to keep West Berlin alive. Nor
could he have dreamed that his blockade would cause thebirth of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)in April 1949, and one month later propel the threeWestern occupation forces to unite their zones into a newWest German nation—thereby setting the stage for the
eventual collapse of all German communism. On May 12,
1949, Stalin admitted defeat and ended the Berlin
blockade. Five months later he also relinquished his
dream of bringing the whole of Germany into “our camp,”
when he established an East German nation in that portionof the country occupied by the Red Army.
Stalin was not a good loser. By mid-1949 he was
faced with a Western Europe firmly bonded to the United

States, and he knew that the Soviet Union did not have themilitary strength to break up that unity by force. Realizingthat his strong-arm methods would no longer work, Stalin
turned his thoughts to an old Russian weapon of theemotions that had so successfully been wielded by him
and all the tsars before him: anti-Semitism. He wasconvinced that the hatred for Jews had deep roots in
Europe, and he wanted to turn that hatred against his new
enemy. Thus, Stalin decided to portray the United States
as a Zionist realm owned by Jewish money and run by agreedy “Council of the Elders of Zion” (Stalin’s derisive
epithet for the US Congress), whose militaristic sharks
wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish
fiefdom. At that time, Western Europe was grateful to theUnited States for restoring its freedom and economic
prosperity. Stalin, however, was convinced that could bechanged by exploiting Europe’s historical anti-Semitism
and fear of a new war.
Having thus set the strategy, Stalin started the action.
He appointed, as the Soviet Union’s minister of foreign
affairs, an expert in manipulating religion: Andrey
Vyshinsky, the undercover intelligence officer who had
long managed Stalin’s war against the Catholic Church.
Next, Stalin sent, as Soviet ambassador to Washington,another undercover intelligence officer who specialized inmanipulating religion: Aleksandr Panyushkin. (In 1953,
Panyushkin would become chief of the entire Soviet
foreign intelligence service, the PGU—Pervoye Glavnoye

Upravleniye, First Chief Directorate of the KGB—aposition he would hold until 1956.)
Vyshinsky’s main task was to unify the Soviet
Union’s diplomatic and intelligence machineries, and touse them for creating a strong West European aversion for
American Zionism and its militaristic sharks, so as toeventually force the American “occupation” troops out of
the Old World continent. Once that was accomplished,
Vyshinsky would use the same intelligence anddiplomatic apparatus to help Western Europe “decide its
own fate.” Italy and France, which had the largest
communist parties in Western Europe, would become“people’s republics” by parliamentary means.1 Greece,
the only noncommunist country in the Balkans by then,needed only a “spark” to explode.2 Twice, in 1944 and1947, the Greek communists had succeeded in setting up
their own governments in Greece, and without any
American troops in Europe they would be able to do it
again. Spain might also change soon, as the “hated
dictator,” Francisco Franco, who had crushed the Sovietsponsored Spanish Civil War, seemed to be losing his gripon that nation. The hope was that La Pasionaria (Dolores
Ibarruri, the honorary chairperson of the Spanish
Communist Party), who had been living in Moscow since
the end of the Civil War, would set that country on fireagain. A “free” Spain would then help “liberate” Portugal
as well.

Panyushkin’s main task was to persuade America’s
leftists to create peace movements in the United States.
Demonstrating for peace to promote war was nothing
new. Before World War II there had been scores of peacedemonstrations in the United States that were fueled by
Nazi sympathizers— they did not want to stop Hitler fromconquering Europe, they wanted to stop Washington fromgoing to war against Hitler.
The Cold War was born. Stalin called it World War
III, as I learned in January 1951 when I joined that war asa young officer of the far-flung Soviet bloc intelligencemachinery. General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who in 1949
created Romania’s political police, the Securitate, and was
now its chief Soviet adviser and its de facto boss,
explained to his Romanian subordinates that World War
II was not directed against the American people. It was
directed against America’s “Zionist bourgeoisie” and its
militaristic sharks, who wanted to ignite a new world war
in order to sell their weapons. The socialist camp would
eventually seize all the American arms factories from thehands of the Zionist bourgeoisie so America’s proletariat
could build cars to supply the rest of the world.
That was heady stuff. Most Romanians had neverheard of Zionism, but they all dreamed about owning acar. I also had no idea what Zionism meant, but I could
feel the monkey being dropped onto my back. I was ayoung engineer being told that I had an important job to
do for my country, and of course I was ready to serve. Atthe time, the Securitate work schedule was between 7:30
in the morning and 10:00 in the evening, but young
officers seldom left for home before midnight—and thatwas seven days a week. They really had no time to think
for themselves, nor were they supposed to. Young officers
just went along with the tide, and that is what I did—for awhile.
According to Sakharovsky, World War III wasconceived to be a war without weapons—a war the Soviet
bloc would win without firing a single bullet. It was a warof ideas. It was an intelligence war, waged with apowerful new weapon called dezinformatsiya. Its task was
to spread credible derogatory information in such a waythat the slander would convince others that the targets
were truly evil. To ensure the credibility of the lies, twothings were required. First, the fabrications had to appear
to come from respected and reputable Western sources;
and second, there had to be what Sakharovsky called “akernel of truth” behind the allegations, so that at least
some part of the story could be definitively verified—andto ensure that the calumny would never be put to rest. In
addition, the originator had to do his best to ensure thatthe story got plenty of publicity, if necessary, by having
agents or leftist sympathizers in the West publish articles
putting the desired spin on the alleged information.
The Securitate’s first major dezinformatsiya task in the
new World War III was to help Moscow reignite antiSemitism in Western Europe by spreading thousands ofcopies of an old Russian forgery, The Protocols of theElders of Zion, in that part of the world. It had to be donesecretly, so no one would know that the publications camefrom the Soviet bloc.
The Protocols, which claimed that the Jews wereplotting to take over the world, was a Russian forgery,compiled by a disinformation expert, Petr Ivanovich
Rachovsky, who worked for the Okhrana (Department forProtecting the Public Security and Order) in the days ofthe tsar. Rachovsky was assigned to France at the time of
the 1897 Zionist Congress, and he had been inspired by
the enormous wave of anti-Semitism whipped up by the
Dreyfus Affair.3
Rachovsky lifted most of his text directly from an
obscure, 1864 French satire called Dialogue aux Enfers
entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (“Dialogue in Hell
Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”) written by
Maurice Joly and accusing Emperor Napoleon III ofplotting to seize all the powers of French society. The
Okhrana officer essentially substituted the words theworld for France and the Jews for Napoleon III. During
the Russian Revolution of 1905, the Okhrana republishedits forgery in Paris under the name of a mystic Russian
priest, Sergius Nilus, as part of an antirevolutionary
propaganda campaign.
“Here is the future of the world,” Sakharovsky told the
management of the Securitate in 1951, when he brought acopy of the Nilus edition to Bucharest and ordered it to betranslated, multiplied and surreptitiously disseminatedaround Western Europe. In 1978, when I broke with
communism, the Securitate was spreading the Protocols
around in the Middle East as well.
In 1957, when I was chief of the DIE station in West
Germany, the same Sakharovsky, now head of the whole
Soviet foreign intelligence service, launched anotherdezinformatsiya operation focused on reigniting antiSemitism in West Germany, which at that time was theEuropean epicenter of NATO. “Zarathustra” was the
KGB code name for this operation, to symbolize that
German anti-Semitism was as immortal as Friedrich
Nietzsche’s aphoristic book Also Sprach Zarathustra(“Thus Spake Zarathustra”).
Operation “Zarathustra” was designed to portray
Germany as the breeding ground for a new wave of antiSemitism that was spreading throughout Western Europe.
One of the main players in the “Zarathustra” operation
was the foreign component of the East German Stasi(Stasi was the popular nickname for the Ministerium fürStaatssicherheit, Ministry for State Security, including for
its foreign intelligence arm, the Hauptverwaltung
Aufklärung, HVA, or Main Intelligence Directorate). My
DIE was also assigned to this task, because Romania had
a large ethnic German minority that could be pressed into
service. Around Christmas 1959, numerous synagogues
and Jewish memorials were simultaneously desecrated inWest Germany. This alleged recrudescence of antiSemitism was created by Soviet bloc illegal officers, mostof whom had been supplied by the East German HVA andthe Romanian DIE.
Former KGB Colonel Oleg Gordievsky, who
collaborated with the British intelligence service for many
years before defecting to Great Britain, revealed that the
KGB had first tested this operation in the Soviet Union. In
the second half of 1959, the KGB dispatched illegal
officers to a village near Moscow, where they vandalizeda Jewish cemetery and successfully shifted the blame.
Soon after that, the KGB repeated this operation in West
Germany,4 and a couple of months later in France, which
had Europe’s largest Jewish community.5
The new anti-Semitism revived by the “Zarathustra”
operation appears not only to have been spreadthroughout Western Europe, as the Kremlin intended, butalso kept alive over the years. This streak of European
anti-Semitism intensified after March 29, 2002, when
Israel began its military campaign against Palestinian
terrorists, and it reached a peak a month later, whenvarious Nazi and neo-Nazi factions celebrated the 113th
anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s birthday on April 20. A
synagogue in Marseilles, France was doused in gasoline
and burned to the ground, and one in Lyon was damaged
in a car attack; a third was firebombed in Germany, andanother was desecrated in Belgium. In Kiev, Ukraine,fifty youths chanting, “Kill the Jews” attacked asynagogue and then beat up a rabbi. In Britain, whichtakes pride in having a “multicultural” society, police
logged at least fifteen anti-Jewish episodes in the monthof April 2002 alone, prompting Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s
chief rabbi, to say that anti-Semitism was on the rise inEurope as a whole.6

Totalitarianism always requires a tangible enemy. The
Jews, who for centuries had not been protected by thepower of a state, proved a convenient enemy for both
Nazism and communism. Nowadays the generalperception is that Nazi Germany was the cradle of antiSemitism—and it is not easy to change that perception.
Nevertheless, before the words Nazi Holocaust were on
everyone’s tongue, we had the Russian word pogrom,
meaning massacre.7 To the ancient Greeks, a holocaust
was simply a burnt sacrifice. It was not until the 1930s
that the German Nazis invented the Jewish Holocaust.
Long before that, however, the Russian tsars had their
Jewish pogroms. The 1939 edition of an authoritative
Russian dictionary defines pogrom:
The government-organized mass slaughter of some elementof the population as a group, such as the Jewish pogroms intsarist Russia.8

Russia’s first major pogrom against the Jews took
place on April 15, 1881, in the Ukrainian town ofYelisavetgrad. Russia’s administration and army wereexperiencing gross corruption with associated difficulties,
and emissaries from St. Petersburg called for the people’s
wrath to be vented on the Jews. The impoverishedpeasants obliged.
A month later, Tsar Alexander II was assassinated bya band of nihilists. His successor, Alexander III, decided
to save Russia from anarchical disorder by transforming it
into a nation containing only one nationality, one
language, one religion, and one form of administration.
The new tsar began his policy by instigating more
pogroms. A wave of killings, rapes, and the pillaging ofJews spread quickly to hundreds of other towns, reachedWarsaw, and moved on to the rest of the Russian empire.
Tsarist authorities held the victims responsible for theviolence. In an 1881 memorandum to Tsar Alexander III,the chief of his political police, Count Nikolay Ignatyev,
blamed the pogroms on “the Jews’ injurious activities”
directed against the peasantry. A tsarist investigative
commission concluded: “The passion for acquisition andmoney-grabbing is inherent in the Jew from the day of hisbirth; it is characteristic of the Semitic race, manifest fromalmost the first page of the Bible.”9These anti-Semitic ideas were soon embodied in thepreviously mentioned Protocols of the Elders of Zion,

forged by Tsar Alexander III’s political police, theOkhrana.10 This forgery has proved to be the mostresilient piece of disinformation in history.11 In 1921, theTimes of London published a devastating exposure of theforgery by printing extracts from the Protocols side byside with the passages from the Joly book that had beenplagiarized.12 That did not stop the Protocols frombecoming the basis for much of Hitler’s anti-Semitic
philosophy as expressed in Mein Kampf. In fact, Nazi
Germany later translated the Protocols into many
languages and flooded the world with them, to allege that
there was an old “Jewish conspiracy” aimed at world
domination, and to demonstrate that the persecution ofJews was a necessary self-defense for Germany. In theearly years of the twenty-first century, the Protocols wasfilmed and broadcast on various Islamic television
networks. Electronic versions can still be found on theInternet.
In April 1903, another major pogrom took place inKishinev, then the capital of the Bessarabia province of
the Russian empire. The pogrom started after a boy,
Mikhail Rybachenko, was found murdered in the town ofDubossary, about twenty-five miles north of Kishinev.
Although it was clear that the boy had been murdered bya relative (who was later found), the Russian media
insinuated that he was murdered by the Jews. The pogrom
spanned three days. The New York Times described it asfollows:
The anti-Jewish riots in Kishinev, Bessarabia, are worse
than the censor will permit to publish. There was a welllaid-out plan for the general massacre of Jews on the day
following the Russian Easter. The mob was led by priests,
and the general cry, “Kill the Jews,” was taken up all overthe city. The Jews were taken wholly unaware and wereslaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120 and the
injured about 500. The scenes of horror attending thismassacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn
to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob. The local
police made no attempt to check the reign of terror. At
sunset the streets were piled with corpses and wounded.
Those who could make their escape fled in terror, and thecity is now practically deserted of Jews.13

A second Kishinev pogrom took place on October 19–
20, 1905. By the time it was over, nineteen Jews had been
killed and fifty-six injured. A large proportion of Jewish
families who have found security, prosperity, andhappiness in the United States came here as a result of
these early pogroms.
The Soviet dictators, like the tsars before them, neededa tangible enemy. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the
Bolshevik revolution, who surrounded himself with
Marxist Jews, dropped the Kremlin’s traditional antiSemitism and unleashed his wrath against the country’s
aristocracy and wealthy landowners. In 1918, a periodicalof Lenin’s Cheka called Krasnyy Terror (Red Terror) ran

an article by Martyn Ianovich Latsis, one ofDzerzhinsky’s deputies. He explained:
We are not waging war against individuals. We areexterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. … During
investigation, do not look for evidence that the accused
acted in word or deed against Soviet power. The firstquestions that you ought to put are: To what class does hebelong? What is his origin? What is his education andprofession? And it is these questions that ought todetermine the fate of the accused. In this lies thesignificance of the Red Terror.14

Stalin, who grew up in the far reaches of Georgia,
where the Jews had been serfs (until 1871, when serfdom
was abolished there), transformed his Georgian antiSemitism into a national and international policy. Fearing
the competing communists who had fought for Lenin’s
revolution, Stalin framed a few of them as agents ofZionist espionage and made the others look guilty by
association.
When Stalin wanted to get rid of his main rival, Leon
Trotsky (né Lev Davidovich Bronstein), his politicalpolice framed Trotsky as a Jewish spy of American
Zionism and had him expelled from the country. That
insinuation later allowed Stalin to have Trotsky
barbarically killed with an ice axe in Mexico City by aSoviet illegal officer (Ramón Mercader) without causing
most of Russia even to blink. Once again, the Jews werethe country’s enemies.
The first chairman of the Comintern,15 Grigory
Zinovyev, who was also born into a bourgeois Jewish
family, was framed as head of a “Terrorist Center for theAssassination of the Leaders of the Soviet Government
and CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union],”which was supposedly financed by America’s Zionism.16
He was shot on August 21, 1936. The man named by
Lenin in his testament as the most capable of the younger
generation, Georgy Pyatakov, was also framed as having
been involved in an invented Zionist conspiracy and wasshot.
Out of the seven members of Lenin’s Politburo at thetime of the October Revolution, only Stalin was still alive
when the massacre was over. The rest were framed as
Zionist spies and executed. Stalin hated competition.
After the state of Israel was constituted in 1948, theSoviet Union became one of the first countries torecognize it. As told to me by Generals Sakharovsky andPanteleymon Bondarenko (aka Pantyusha), Stalin did that
because he hoped to fill Israel with Russian Jews
recruited as Soviet spies and tasked to transform thatcountry into a springboard from which to launch a Soviet
expansion into the Middle East.
In 1948, however, Golda Meir was appointed Israel’s
minister plenipotentiary to the Soviet Union. There she
was enthusiastically greeted by tens of thousands ofRussian Jews. Therefore, Stalin’s political police, at thattime called the MGB (Ministerstvo Gosudarstvennoy
Bezopasnosti, or Ministry of State Security), organized atwo-month total mail intercept throughout Russia. The
results were presented to Stalin in December 1948, in theform of a report showing that an impressive number ofRussian Jews had started promoting the idea of
emigration to the newly created state of Israel.
Fearing that such mass requests would tarnish theimage of the “workers’ paradise” he was trying to project,
Stalin quickly reacted. He dissolved the Jewish AntiFascist Committee created during the war; closed theJewish schools, theaters, and synagogues; and arrested themost prominent Russian Jewish intellectuals.
Even the wife of Vyacheslav Molotov, Stalin’s
strongest political supporter and his prime minister since
1930, was exiled to Siberia for the sole reason that she
was a Jew. Once that was done, Stalin unleashed a violent
public campaign calling for the execution of “Jewish
speculators.” When Israel started developing strong ties
with the United States, Stalin moved his anti-Semitism
abroad. He labeled Zionism as the main tool used by theUnited States to undermine the “socialist camp,” and hecommitted unlimited Soviet political, military, andfinancial support to Israel’s historical enemies, its
neighboring Arab states.
The following year, to maintain his position as boss

over the new Communist Party stars beginning to shine in
Eastern Europe, Stalin framed a few of them as tools ofZionist espionage services. In 1949, he framed thecommunist leaders of Hungary, László Rajk and György
Palfy, as Zionist spies and had them hanged. After that,
Stalin’s political police organized a monstrous show trial
in Prague, at which the head of the Communist Party,
Rudolf Slánský, and ten other Czech leaders, most ofthem Jews, were framed as Zionist spies and hanged.
Then Stalin asserted that those countries were on theverge of falling into Zionist clutches, so he had a few
million people, mostly Jews, expelled from theircommunist parties, allegedly to preserve the “purity ofEastern European Socialism.”

14
THE VATICAN’S NEW
CRUSADEIN MARCH 1946, Winston Churchill, speaking at
Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, said: “From
Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron
Curtain has descended across the Continent.”1 Shortly
thereafter, President Harry Truman elevated the US
delegation to the Vatican to the rank of embassy, named
Myron Taylor as ambassador, and asked Pope Pius XII
for help to stop the Soviet expansion.
Truman reasoned that communism was the mortal
enemy of religion— of all religions—and he believed its
expansion could be stopped only “through a concerted
religious effort” that would place the superiority andstrength of what he called “truth and freedom” before thepeoples of the world.2 Truman also believed that the
Roman Catholic Church would be his strongest ally inthis moral battle.
As he had cooperated with the United States in
opposing the Nazis, Pius obliged.
In his book The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII,3Peter C. Kent, a professor of history at the University of
New Brunswick, documents how Pius XII openly
engaged the Vatican on the side of the United States. In
July 1949, the Holy Office issued a decree stating that“the faithful who profess the materialistic and antiChristian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly
those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso
facto excommunication.”4 This was so because:
Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian: although
the Communist leaders sometimes declare in words thatthey do not attack religion, in fact they show that they doby their doctrine and by their acts, which are hostile toGod, to the true religion and to the Church of Christ.
Therefore it is forbidden to register as a member of a
Communist party or favor it in any way.5

Pius XII’s Sanctum Officium made it clear that the
Vatican was indeed at war with communism, and heissued a series of decrees condemning the Kremlin’s
crusade against the Catholic Church, including: Decree on
usurpation of Church functions by the state, on June 29,

1950; Decree on illegitimate state-ordered ordinations ofbishops, on April 9, 1951;6 and Decree on publications
favoring totalitarianism and communism, on June 26 andJuly 22, 1955.7
The Kremlin labeled Pius “the Cold-War pope.”8Thus, Soviet leaders instructed M. M. Scheinmann, aresearcher at the Historical Institute of the Soviet
Academy of Sciences in Moscow, to produce a report
alleging a Vatican-Nazi conspiracy against the Soviet
Union.9 Scheinmann’s report contained invented details
about an alleged “Secret Pact” the Vatican had signedwith Hitler.10 Republished in 1954 in German as Der
Vatican im Zweiten Weltkrieg, that phony report became adezinformatsiya tool, but it attracted little attention from ageneration that had seen with its own eyes how
vigorously Pius XII had fought Nazism.
In 1950, President Truman approved one of the mostimportant US government documents of that time:
National Council Report 68, or NSC 68. This was a fiftyeight page top-secret report of the US National Security
Council (declassified in 1975), which set forth thestrategy of containment and became a significant weapon
in the Cold War. By 1950, the Soviet Union had
detonated an atomic bomb, installed a communist
government in China, and expanded its reign over a thirdof the world. The NSC report described the challenges
facing the United States in cataclysmic terms. “The issues

that face us are momentous,” the document stated,“involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of thisRepublic but of civilization itself.”11
NSC 68/1950, which was signed by President Trumanon September 30, 1950, contained a two-pronged politicalstrategy aimed at taking the moral high-ground in the new
East-West conflict. A few weeks after it was signed,
Truman launched his “Campaign of Truth,” which hedefined as “a struggle, above all else, for the minds ofmen.” Truman argued that the propaganda used by the“forces of imperialistic communism” could be overcome
only by the “plain, simple, unvarnished truth.”12 The
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio
Liberation (soon to become Radio Liberty) became part ofTruman’s containment offensive.13 He asked the Vaticanto enroll in this effort to stop the communists and what heviewed as their elemental godlessness.
Pius XII again obliged. At his request, the Holy See
acquired a 988-acre area at Santa Maria di Galeria, someeleven miles north of Rome, for a new broadcasting
center. In 1952 the Italian government granted the siteextraterritorial status, and in 1957 the new radio center
was put into operation. Soon after that, Vatican Radio was
broadcasting in forty-seven languages. This tool, which
had been used during World War II to help the resistance
oppose the Nazis,14 now became a powerful
anticommunist weapon. (Today it has more than two

hundred journalists in sixty-one countries, and it producessome forty-two thousand hours of simultaneous
broadcasting a day.)15
The Vatican’s role as strong enemy of Nazism and adeadly enemy of communism is one of Pope Pius XII’s
most important legacies. Vatican Radio was part of thoseefforts. Both Nazism and communism wanted to ensurethat the people of the world had no other gods but those
approved by the government. Pius XII’s endeavor to keep
the faith in the one true God was an inspiration to his
successors and played a significant role in helping theWest win the Cold War.
Unfortunately, those efforts put Pius XII and the
Vatican at the top of the Kremlin’s enemies list.

15
LIBERATION THEOLOGYKHRUSHCHEV WANTED TO GO DOWN in history as the Soviet
leader who exported communism to the American
continent. In 1959 he was able to install the Castro
brothers in Havana, and soon my foreign intelligence
service became involved in helping Cuba’s newcommunist rulers to export revolution throughout SouthAmerica. It did not work. Unlike Europe, the Latin
America of those years had not yet been bitten by the
Marxist bug. (In 1967, Castro’s pawn Che Guevara was
executed in Bolivia, after failing to ignite a guerrilla war
in that country.)
In the 1950s and 1960s, most Latin Americans werepoor, religious peasants who had accepted the status quo,and Khrushchev was confident they could be converted tocommunism through the judicious manipulation ofreligion. In 1968, the KGB was able to maneuver a groupof leftist South American bishops into holding a
conference in Medellín, Colombia. At the KGB’s request,
my DIE provided logistical assistance to the organizers.
The official task of the conference was to help eliminate
poverty in Latin America. Its undeclared goal was tolegitimize a KGB-created religious movement dubbed“liberation theology,” the secret task of which was toincite Latin America’s poor to rebel against the“institutionalized violence of poverty” generated by theUnited States.1
The KGB had a penchant for “liberation” movements.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), theNational Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), and the
National Liberation Army of Bolivia were just a few of
the “liberation” movements born at the KGB. The
Medellin Conference did indeed endorse liberation
theology, and the delegates recommended it to the WorldCouncil of Churches (WCC) for official approval. The
WCC, headquartered in Geneva and representing theRussian Orthodox Church and other smaller
denominations throughout more than 120 countries, hadalready come under the control of Soviet foreign
intelligence. It remains politically under the control oftoday’s Kremlin, through the many Orthodox priests whoare prominent in the WCC and are at the same time
Russian intelligence agents. Dissident Russian priest Gleb

Yakunin, who was a member of the Russian Duma from1990 to 1995, and was briefly given official access to
KGB archives, released a great deal of information insamizdat reports identifying the Orthodox priests who
were agents and describing their influence on WCC
matters.2 For example, in 1983 the KGB dispatched fortyseven agents to attend the WCC General Assembly in
Vancouver, and the following year the KGB took credit
for using its agents on the WCC selection committee toarrange for the right man to be elected WCC generalsecretary.3
World Council of Churches general secretary, Eugene
Carson Blake— a former president of the National
Council of Churches in the United States—endorsed
liberation theology and made it part of the WCC agenda.
In March 1970 and July 1971, the first South American
Catholic congresses devoted to liberation theology took
place in Bogotá.
Pope John Paul II, who had experienced communist
treachery firsthand, denounced liberation theology at theJanuary 1979 Conference of the Roman Catholic Bishopsof South America (CELAM), held in Pueblo, Mexico:“This conception of Christ as a political figure, arevolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does nottally with the Church’s catechism.”4 Within four hours, atwenty-page rebuttal of the pope’s speech carpeted thefloor of the Conference. Cardinal López Trujillo, theConference’s organizer, explained that the rebuttal was
the product of “some 80 Marxist liberationists fromoutside the Bishops’ Conference.”5 I recall that the
Romanian DIE had earlier been congratulated by the
KGB for having provided logistical support to suchliberationists.
In 1985, the KGB-managed World Council ofChurches elected its first general secretary who was anavowed Marxist: Emilio Castro. He had been exiled from
Uruguay because of his political extremism, but hemanaged the WCC until 1992. Castro strongly promoted
the KGB-created liberation theology, which is today
putting down strong roots in Venezuela, Bolivia,
Honduras, and Nicaragua. In those countries, the peasantshave supported the efforts of Marxist dictators Hugo
Chávez, Evo Morales, Manuel Zelaya (now exiled to
Costa Rica), and Daniel Ortega to transform theircountries into KGB-style police dictatorships. In
September 2008, Venezuela and Bolivia booted out the
US ambassadors during the same week and called for
Russian military protection.
Russian military ships and bombers are back in Cuba—for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962
—and also in Venezuela. Brazil, the world’s tenth largest
economy, also moved into the Kremlin’s fold under its
Marxist ruler, Lula da Silva. In 2011, da Silva was
succeeded by a former Marxist guerrilla, Dilma Rousseff.

During that same year, the newly elected president ofPeru, Ollanta Humala, rushed to Buenos Aires to seek
inspiration from Brazil’s Marxist guerrilla president. With
the addition of Argentina, whose current president,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, is also moving thecountry into the Marxist fold, the map of Latin America
now looks mostly red.
A few years ago a black version of liberation theology
began growing in a few radical-leftist black churches in
the United States. Black liberation theologians JamesCone, Cornel West, and Dwight Hopkins have explicitly
stated their preference for Marxism because Marxist
thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class(whites) versus victim class (blacks), and it sees just one
solution: the destruction of the enemy. James Cone
explained:Black theology will accept only the love of God which
participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What weneed is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, whichis the power of black people to destroy their oppressors
here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God isparticipating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.6

The predominantly black Trinity United Church of
Christ in Chicago is part of this new movement. Its pastor,
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who in 2008 became religious
adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator Barack
Obama, became famous for screaming out “not God blessAmerica, but God damn America!” Senator Obama’s
presidential campaign apologized for Reverend Wright’s
slip of the tongue. By June 2011, however, the sameReverend Wright was touring the United States to preach,in packed-full black churches, that “the state of Israel is
an illegal, genocidal … place,” and that “to equate
Judaism with the state of Israel is to equate Christianitywith [rapper] Flavor Flav.”7
Obama, of course, was by then in the White House.

In the 1960s, Che Guevara became a kind of icon for theliberation theology movement. At that time, the Kremlin’s
popularity stood at an all-time low. The Soviets’ brutal
suppression of the 1956 Hungarian uprising and their
instigation of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis disgusted theworld, and every Soviet bloc ruler tried to save face in his
own way. Khrushchev replaced the “immutable” MarxistLeninist theory of the world proletarian revolution with apolicy of peaceful coexistence, while pretending to be an
advocate for peace. Alexander Dubĉek gambled on a“socialism with a human face,”and Gomulka on “letPoland be Poland.” Ceauşescu announced his“independence” from Moscow and portrayed himself as a“maverick” among communist leaders.
Cuba’s Castro brothers, who feared any liberalization,

decided it would be simpler just to plaster a romantic
revolutionary façade over their communism. They chose
Che as their poster boy because he had already been
executed in Bolivia—a US ally; after having
unsuccessfully tried to ignite a guerrilla war, he could be
portrayed as a martyr of American imperialism. The KGB
immediately offered support. The Romanian DIE, whichin those days enjoyed close relations with its Cuban
counterpart, the DGI, was also ordered to lend a hand, andthat placed me squarely in the picture.8“Operation Che” was launched with the book
Revolution in the Revolution, a primer for communist
guerrilla insurrection, which praised Che to the skies. The
author, French terrorist Régis Debray, was a highly
regarded KGB agent.9 In 1970, the Castro brothers shifted
Che’s sanctification into high gear. Alberto Korda, a
Cuban intelligence officer working undercover as aphotographer with the Cuban newspaper Revolución,
produced a romanticized picture of Che. That nowfamous Che, with long, curly locks of hair, wearing a
revolutionary beret with a star on it and looking straight
into the viewer’s eyes, has since inundated the world.10
Che’s picture became the logo for Steven
Soderbergh’s Spanish-language, four-hour epic movie
Che launched in 2009, which portrays a sadistic killer
who dedicated his life to bringing Latin America into the
Kremlin’s fold as a “true revolutionary through thestations of his martyrdom.”11
Even the playwright given credit for writing the playthat slandered Pope Pius XII, The Deputy, was enlisted
for the effort to promote Che. Time magazine reported in
October 1970: “At present, Che appears each evening in a
new play, The Guerrillas, by German Playwright Rolf
Hochhuth.” In the play, “a young New York Senator who
is also leader of a Che-style US underground movement
pleads with Guevara to abandon his Bolivian battle. Che
refuses. ‘My death here—in a calculated sense—is the
only possible victory,’ he says. ‘I must leave a sign.’”12
Further advancing the KGB’s interests, the play also
charged the United States with racial and political murder.
The KGB was also instrumental in embellishing adiary Che kept during his student years and intransforming it into a propaganda book, Das Kapital
Meets Easy Rider, later renamed The Motorcycle Diary.
Today, Che is an icon of the liberation theology
movement, and of black liberation theology.
During the 2008 presidential election season, Fox’s
Houston TV station aired video of volunteers in an
Obama ‘08 campaign office in that city, the walls of
which were adorned with a large picture of Che
superimposed over a Cuban flag.13 Obama had attended
Reverend Wright’s black liberation theology church in
Chicago for some twenty years.
As Raúl Castro once bragged to me, “Che is ourgreatest public success.”

16
KHRUSHCHEV’S WAR ON
THE VATICAN

NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV WAS AN EXPERT at changing people’s
pasts in order to realize his own future. In fact, he rose to
the Kremlin by changing the past of Lavrenty Beriya, hismain rival for the Soviet throne. Khrushchev wasenormously proud of that accomplishment. According tohis own memoir, the framing of Beriya began during theJune 26, 1953, meeting of the Presidium of theCommunist Party. Khrushchev came to that meeting witha gun in his pocket, and he played the starring role in thedrama from beginning to end: “I prodded [PremierGeorgy] Malenkov with my foot and whispered: ‘Open
the session, give me the floor.’ Malenkov went white; Isaw he was incapable of opening his mouth. So I jumped
up and said: ‘There is one item on the agenda: the antiParty, divisive activity of imperialist agent Beriya.’”1
After Khrushchev had proposed that Beriya be released
from all his party and government positions, “Malenkov
was still in a state of panic. As I recall, he didn’t even put
my motion to a vote. He pressed a secret button, whichgave the signal to the generals who were waiting in thenext room.” The generals immediately arrested Beriya
and took him away.2
With Beriya securely locked up in a cell, Khrushchev
easily managed to wrest the top governmental job awayfrom his closest ally, Malenkov.
My first personal encounter with Khrushchev’spractice of rewriting people’s pasts occurred on October
26, 1959. On that day, Khrushchev landed in Bucharest
for what would become known as his six-day vacation.
Khrushchev had never before taken such a long vacation
abroad, but his stay in Bucharest was not a vacation
either. He was brought there by his new spy chief,
General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who until recently had
been the chief intelligence adviser for the Securitate,
Romania’s equivalent of the Soviet security police.
Sakharovsky wanted to introduce Khrushchev to the
Romanian ruler, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, and get his
help in a couple of German matters—Romania had thesecond-largest ethnic German minority group in the

Soviet bloc.
One of Sakharovsky’s projects was to seek Romaniancooperation in the smearing of Pius XII. The pope had
died a few months earlier, and thus could no longer
defend himself. Sakharovsky and Khrushchev wanted topull off a kind of Beriya operation. They intended tochange Pius’s past image from Jew-defender to Jew-haterso as to compromise the Vatican—the same way they hadchanged Beriya’s past from ferocious anti-imperialist toimperialist agent. Khrushchev and Sakharovsky naturally
realized that they could not put the Vatican out ofbusiness, but they did hope that by representing its headas a Jew-hater they could ignite a war between the
Catholics and the Jews that would distract both groups
from making any serious attempt to condemn
Khrushchev’s next planned move: a military blockade ofWest Berlin.
I had just been recalled from my assignment in West
Germany and appointed head of Romanian industrial
espionage (the collection of scientific and technologicalintelligence), and was still considered Romania’s“German expert.” As such, I attended most of the
discussions with Khrushchev and Sakharovsky. “Religionis the opiate of the people,” I heard Khrushchev say,quoting Marx’s famous dictum, “so let’s give them
opium.”
Changing the widely admired anti-Nazi Pius XII into apro-Nazi pope would indeed be a monumental task, but
Khrushchev and Sakharovsky had thought it throughcarefully. At that very moment, the KGB was creating theChristian Peace Conference (CPC), a new internationalreligious organization headquartered in the Sovietoccupied city of Prague, whose secret task was todiscredit both the Vatican and the world’s leading Jewish
organizations. The Romanian foreign intelligence service,
the DIE, would contribute to the CPC staff a small armyof undercover intelligence officers and co-optees. The
CPC would be subordinate to the World Peace Council(WPC), another Kremlin creation, also headquartered in
Prague. The KGB was already funding the WPC, and my
DIE also contributed to it.
Khrushchev’s plans for taking over West Berlin nevermaterialized. Overnight on August 13, 1961, he sealed off
East Berlin with a barbed wire fence, which later became
the infamous Berlin Wall, and he loudly proclaimed
victory. His Christian Peace Conference, built upon anorganization originally founded in Prague by the Czech
political police, the StB (Státní bezpeĉnost), and headedby an StB agent (Prof. Joseph Hromadka), became an
influential KGB front. The Kremlin’s dezinformatsiya
machinery introduced the CPC to the world as a global
ecumenical organization concerned with the problems ofpeace. In reality, the Christian Peace Conference wastasked to help the KGB discredit the Vatican and its mainpolitical supporter, the United States, throughout theChristian world.
The KGB appointed Metropolitan Nikodim of
Leningrad (who worked for the KGB under the codename “Adamant”) as vice president and shadow managerof the CPC,3 and gave him an advance of $210,000 tostart spreading the word around the Christian communitythat Pius XII had been a Jew-hater.4
Soon after Khrushchev left Bucharest, the chief of the
KGB disinformation department, General Ivan Agayants,
informed the management of the DIE that all employeesof the Soviet patriarchate’s External Affairs Department
and all religious servants involved in foreign religious
work were now secretly either KGB civilian employees oragents.5 The Romanian Securitate and my DIE were
tasked to ensure that those organizations had equal
representation in the country’s religious affairs.
In 1960, Khrushchev’s KGB ordered its sister services
in Eastern Europe to create a special desk tasked tocounteract the Vatican’s “poison.” Another desk charged
with producing intelligence officers able to act “under
foreign flag” inside the Vatican was formed within the
supersecret illegals department of the Romanian DIE—
which I later supervised—and in other bloc foreign
intelligence services.6
The intelligence structure needed to make the Vatican
toothless by changing Pius’s past was already in place.

The first thing to do was to have as many intelligence
assets as possible start spreading the word all around theworld that Pius had indeed been “Hitler’s Pope”—that
simple, catchy epithet launched by Radio Moscow in
1945.
The Soviet story line would be that before becoming
pope, Pius XII had served as nuncio in Germany, where
he caught the anti-Semitic virus and became a Nazi
sympathizer. The truth was the exact opposite. In fact,
while he was serving as nuncio in Germany, the future
pope had frequently condemned racism, anti-Semitism,and excessive nationalism. As early as 1921, a newspaper
article quoted him warning about a new and dangerous
political movement that was a different perspective fromthe communists. In 1923, he reported to Rome that a
militant group (“followers of Hitler and Ludendorff”)
were persecuting Catholics and Jews.7 He referred to thisgroup (not yet known as Nazis) as “right-wing radicals.”
The following year, on May 1, in a handwritten draft
report to Secretary of State Gasparri, the nuncio wrote:“Nazism is probably the most dangerous heresy of ourtime.”8 In another handwritten report dated three days
later, he wrote: “The heresy of Nazism puts state and race
above everything, above true religion, above the truth andabove the justice.”9
It was not Pius XII’s attitude toward the Nazis or the
Jews that made him a target of this Soviet disinformation

campaign. It was his attitude toward the Kremlin and its
political police. Pius was the first pope to excommunicate
communists, but John XXIII was proving just as
obstinate. On April 13, 1959, he issued a decree
reaffirming and strengthening the one released under Pius
XII.10 John forbade Catholics from voting for communists
or sanctioning them in any way.
Khrushchev decided to retaliate against the Church by“excommunicating” a pope in his own way: bycompletely changing Pope Pius XII’s past. The saintwould become a sinner.

17
PREPARATIONS FORFRAMING PIUS XIIIN FEBRUARY 1960, Khrushchev formally approved a joint
Communist Party/KGB operational plan for destroying
the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe. Since
1945, the Kremlin had fought the Vatican indirectly byframing many of its priests and top clergymen in theSoviet Union and in its new territorial acquisitions“liberated” at the end of the war, slandering them either as
Nazi war criminals or as enemies of peace. Now the
Kremlin wanted the KGB to frame the Vatican on its
home turf, using its own priests.1 Concocted by KGB
chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and by Alexei Kirichenko,
the Soviet Politburo member responsible for internationalpolicy, the new plan was constructed around Stalin’s 1945
idea of portraying Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope.”
The framing of Cardinals Mindszenty and Stepinac
had fizzled out, in the end giving the Kremlin and its
political police thugs a black eye. Both churchmen wereframed by identifiably Soviet bloc intelligence tricks andpropaganda, eventually damaging the Kremlin more thanthe Vatican. Moscow could no longer afford to apply suchheavy-handed and obvious framing procedures.
Therefore, Shelepin and Kirichenko decided that theframing of Pius XII should be based on a fictionalized
scenario, supported by genuine, slightly modified Vatican
documents (whether or not specifically related to Pius
XII), the originals of which would never be released tothe public. At that time there was an unflinching KGB
rule for handling modified and counterfeited documents:
they should be made available only in the form of retyped
documents or in specially prepared photocopies, as eventhe most perfect counterfeit by today’s standards might
become vulnerable to future detection techniques.2
The KGB knew what it had to do. It just needed a few
Vatican documents to give the operation an aura ofauthenticity—a “kernel of truth.” Romania had a fairly
large Roman Catholic community, so her people andforeign intelligence service, the DIE, were asked to help.
General Sakharovsky, who until shortly before that
had been the chief KGB adviser to the Romanian DIE andhad just been appointed to head the Soviets’ entire foreign
intelligence service (the PGU, or first chief directorate of
the KGB),3 knew I was in an excellent position to contact
the Vatican regarding approval to search its archives. The
year before, as deputy chief of the Romanian Trade
Mission in West Germany, I had negotiated a “spy swap”
with the Holy See, involving four prominent Catholics
who had been sentenced to long terms in prison on
spurious charges of espionage at the end of a 1951 trial
against the Vatican nunciature in Bucharest.4 The four
had been exchanged for two DIE officers (Col. Constantin
Horobet and Maj. Nicolae Ciuciulin) caught spying inWest Germany.5“Seat 12” was the code name for the Romanian side of
the KGB’s operation against Pius XII. The name was anallusion to the pope as occupant of the seat of Saint Peter,
and to Pius XII himself.6
In carrying out this mission against Pope Pius XII, I
was introduced to an influential member of the Vatican’s
diplomatic corps. His name was Agostino Casaroli. In
fact, Casaroli was commonly called the Vatican’s “secretagent” in communist Europe, and he was known for
dressing in civilian clothes to meet with communist
officials.7 Pope John Paul II later named him cardinal andsecretary of state for the Vatican.
Romania’s relations with the Vatican had been
severed in 1951, when Moscow staged a show trial

framing the Vatican’s nunciature in Romania as being an
undercover CIA front and closed its offices.8 The
nunciature buildings in Bucharest had been turned over tothe DIE, and they now housed a foreign language school.
I had arranged a spy exchange the year before, but
now the Soviet bloc needed a new cover story. It was
decided that if Romania were to seek a loan from the
Vatican, that would provide a possible explanation for
why that nation was changing its position vis-à-vis theHoly See.9 I was instructed to tell Casaroli that Romania
was ready to restore diplomatic relations with the HolySee in exchange for access to its archives and a $1 billiondollar, interest-free loan.10 I was also instructed to tell the
Vatican that Romania needed access to the archives inorder to find historical roots that would help the
Romanian government publicly justify its change of heart
toward the Holy See. Of course, this was simply a ploy.
Ceauşescu had no intention of restoring diplomatic
relations with the Holy See.
The loan would, of course, have been welcome, but it
was never a true aim. Moscow just wanted to open
Vatican doors for a few DIE agents. Suggesting that
Romania needed money provided a “cover” motivation
for the proposal. The Vatican did agree to discuss the loan—although it was never made—and also agreed to what
seemed a simple request: to allow three Romanian priests
to do some research in Vatican archives. With thatagreement, I had accomplished my part of the plan.
As John Koehler explained in his book Spies in the
Vatican: The Soviet Union’s Cold War against the
Catholic Church, the Vatican was not exempt from the
Kremlin’s efforts to infiltrate foreign governments. David
Alvarez made the same point in his similarly titled book,Spies in the Vatican: Espionage & Intrigue from
Napoleon to the Holocaust. Among the more notorious
infiltrations, in 1952 Father Aligheri Tondi, a professor at
the Gregorian Academy, was identified as a KGB agent.11
In 1963, Polish intelligence placed a cooperative bishop
in the Vatican.12
For the Seat 12 assignment to Rome, the DIE chose
three priests who were also co-opted agents. There they
were given access to certain Vatican archives. It is worth
noting at this point that the term “Vatican SecretArchives” is somewhat of a misnomer. It refers to thecentral repository for all of the acts promulgated by theHoly See. These archives contain the state papers,
correspondence, papal account books, and many otherdocuments that the church has accumulated over the
centuries. The word “secret” in the title does not have themodern meaning; it simply indicates that the archives are
the pope’s own, not those of a department of the Roman
Curia. Since 1881 they have been open to outside
researchers. Thus, the concession from the Vatican—
permitting Romanian priests to enter these archives—wasnot really significant. It did, however, provide an air ofauthenticity, as British author John Cornwell would
demonstrate decades later when he falsely claimed tohave had special access to them.13
The DIE agents secretly photographed some
unimportant documents, and the DIE sent the films to the
KGB via special courier.14 The documents were notincriminating; they were mainly things like press reports
and transcripts of unclassified meetings and speeches,
couched in the routine kind of diplomatic language one
would expect to find in such material. Nevertheless, theKGB kept asking for more. Even if these documents did
not actually provide any compromising information on
Pius XII, the insinuation that his new image was based on“original Vatican documents” would dramatically
improve the credibility of the whole framing operation. Of
course, the KGB also hoped it might stumble across some
obscure “kernel of truth” that could be used for
dezinformatsiya purposes.
At that time, I was managing Romania’s industrial
espionage, and I had no reason or opportunity to know thetrue identity of the DIE agents sent to the Vatican tosearch its archives.15 Those agents were handled by the
DIE’s Vatican desk. At the DIE, the identity of all
intelligence agents used abroad was extremely well
protected, known only to their handlers and to a handfulof their superiors. Any indiscretion could indeed causediplomatic nightmares.
After my account of this operation was first publishedin 2007, historians and volunteer researchers started
looking into the recently opened Securitate archives inRomania. So far, researchers have been able to identify byname only one of the three DIE agents: Fr. Francisc Iosif
Pal, SJ.16
Pal had been recruited as a Securitate agent in 1950,
when he was detained in the infamous Romanian prisonof Gherla. His task was to inform on other Catholic
priests who were also detained there. Among those hereported on were Fr. Godo Mihai, SJ, Fr. Chira, SJ, andBishop Emil Riti (1926–2006).17 Pal’s cooperation with
the Securitate in organizing the 1951 trial against the
Vatican nunciature in Bucharest was revealed in a 2008
book published by William Totok, a Romanian-born
German researcher.18 Pal’s involvement with the Vaticanarchives was first disclosed by Aurel Sergiu Marinescu ina study on the history of Romanian exiles.19 It was
confirmed by Romanian researcher Remus Mircea
Birtz.20 It is still unknown whether Pal was sent to the
Vatican using his own identity, or on a false passport— apractice frequently used by both the Securitate and theDIE.
Nothing that Pal or the other DIE agents found in
Vatican archives could be used as a basis for fabricating
believable evidence that made Pius seem sympathetic toHitler’s regime or unconcerned about the Jews.21 Moscow
expected that. The KGB just wanted to be able to claimthat it had on hand original Vatican documents, so as togive the impression that its allegation that Pius XII was“Hitler’s Pope” was based on rock-solid evidence.

18
THE DEPUTY

ON FEBRUARY 20, 1963, a play entitled Der Stellvertreter.
Ein christliches Trauerspiel (The Deputy. A Christian
Tragedy) premiered at the Theater am Kurfürstendamm inWest Berlin, under the direction of Erwin Piscator of theFreie Volksbühne (Free People’s Theatre). The playfocused on the allegation that Pope Pius XII had failed totake action, or even to speak out, against Hitler’s
Holocaust.1
The play’s author, Rolf Hochhuth, only thirty-one at
the time, was an entirely unknown West German.
Virtually everyone else involved with that play, however,had dedicated his or her life to serving Moscow, in one
way or another. Even the Freie Volksbühne, whichsponsored the play’s première, was created to be acommunist outlet in West Berlin. The most prominent tie
to Moscow was provided by Erwin Piscator himself, theplay’s director. Then sixty-nine years old, he had been amember of the Communist Party since its earliest days,
and he had spent his entire life producing plays thatreflected the Soviet communist line, including celebrating
the imminent demise of capitalist society and of
capitalism’s supposed clerical offshoot, the Catholic
Church.”2
In the late 1920s, Piscator worked in collaboration
with the great German (and communist) playwright
Bertolt Brecht at the Theater am Nollendorfplatz.
Together, they created “electrically charged productionsof, among others, Hoppla, Wir Leben and Die Abenteuer
Des Braven Soldaten Schwejk.”3
In 1929, Piscator made his first visit to the Soviet
Union, where he worked briefly with the International
Association of Workers’ Theatres (IATB). As reported in
his biography, “Communist artists came increasingly totake their cultural directives from Moscow. … it became
natural for leftist German artists not merely to visit Russia
but to take jobs there.”4 Accordingly, in 1931 Piscator
moved to the USSR, where his initial desire was to makeshort propaganda films, an emerging art form in thatnation. Lobbying to get started, he managed to obtain a
two-hour meeting with Stalin’s brother-in-law.5 Soon
Piscator was elected president of the Moscow-headquartered IATB, which then changed its name to theInternational Association of Revolutionary Theatres.6
When Romania was taken over by the Soviets afterWorld War II, advisers from the Soviet security police
and intelligence service established equivalentorganizations in Bucharest. General Panteleymon
Bondarenko, Romanianized as Gheorghe Pintilie but
known as “Pantyusha,” was the Soviet intelligence officer
assigned by Moscow as the first chief of the new
Romanian Securitate. Over the years, since I eventuallybecame his boss, I learned a great deal about Soviet
intelligence operations from the garrulous and often tipsy
Pantyusha. Several times Pantyusha reminisced about
Piscator, telling me that before becoming president of the
IATB (a Soviet intelligence front), Piscator had been
recruited as an influence agent by the Soviet foreign
intelligence service, the INO.7
The foul-mouthed Pantyusha explained: “Stalin did
not give a f-cking damn kopek for any foreign communistin Moscow who tried to get out of working with us.”
Pantyusha had reason to know, as he had worked
undercover in the Comintern, which was sponsoring the
IATB.
Piscator was born in Ulm, Germany, on December 17,
1893. He was drafted into the German army in 1915 andwas sent into battle during World War I.8 While in service
in 1917 and 1918, he worked as a director and as an actor

at a front theater in Kortrijk, Belgium. He joined theGerman Communist Party (KPD) in 1919, when it was
created.9
The following year he moved back to Germany, where
he got his start as a volunteer at the Hof Theater in
Munich, but before long he became an actor, then adirector at the Proletarisches Theater, a Marxist creation.
Piscator wrote that one “task of the Proletarian Theatre isto spread its educational influence, through propaganda,
among those of the masses who are still politicallywavering and indifferent.”10
In 1925, the KPD (the largest communist party outsideof the Soviet Union at that time) asked Piscator to
produce a political review.11 He put together a teamincluding himself, a composer nominated by the party,
and a writer/lyricist/producer. They came up with “abouta dozen sketches, introduced by a potpourri of communist
songs” that culminated in a “Victory of the Proletariat”
scene.12 It was enough of a success that the KPD soon
demanded that he stage a show for their first party
conference. Piscator used the same team and produced ashow with an “overwhelmingly documentary approach …
virtually every character being historical (and in manycases still alive).”13
The Communist Party was not completely happy withthe production. Some officials thought it was too factual,
which—of course—lessened the propaganda value of theproduction. “That may be what’s wrong, comrade director… Don’t stick so slavishly to ‘that’s the way it
happened,’” one official wrote.14
Piscator took the advice well and learned to
fictionalize history. He soon found himself working withthe leading communist playwrights in Germany.15 He also
trained young actors, though it was said that they mainly
received “courses by KPD officials; ‘one’s party card
became a certificate of competence.’”16
In at least one case, Piscator’s company refused to
produce a play because the author declined membershipin the Communist Party.17 In another case, Piscator
invited “representatives of the Soviet embassy and tradedelegation and of the KPD and its paper” to one of the
final rehearsals of a play, only to be told that he had torewrite it. He complied, though it meant that opening
night had to be delayed by two days.18 In the program to a
production from April 1930, Piscator wrote:
Never was it more essential than now to take sides: the sideof the proletariat. More than ever the theatre must nail its
flag fanatically to the mast of politics: the politics of theproletariat. More and more insistent grows the demand:
theatre is action, the action of the proletariat. The stage andthe masses, a creative unity, not in the “Zeittheater” but inthe militant theatre of the proletariat.19

In the postscript to a 1934 edition to one play

produced by Piscator, he wrote that his theater “wasalways political, that is to say political in the sense
approved by the Communist Party.”20 In 1941, he set
forth his theory of theater:[I]t will be possible to make practically every bourgeois
play, whether it expresses the decay of bourgeois society orwhether it clearly shows the capitalist principle, into an
instrument to strengthen the concept of the class struggle,
to deepen revolutionary insight into historical necessities. It
will be useful if such plays are introduced by a talk, so as toprevent misunderstandings and wrong effects. In certain
circumstances changes can be made in plays (concern for
the feelings of the author, is a conservative affair) throughcuts, through amplifying certain passages, even by adding a
prologue and epilogue in order to make the meaning of thewhole more clear. In this way a large portion of world
literature can be made to serve the cause of therevolutionary proletariat, just as the whole of world
literature can be used for the political purpose of
propagating the concept of class struggle.21

This was a recipe that he would use to perfection withThe Deputy some two decades later.
Despite Piscator’s dedication to the party, questions
were raised in high communist circles about the directionof Piscator’s work. The scale of his productions seemed
too grand for the working class. They asked whether he
was a “militant comrade or [just] a parlour communist.”22(His relationship with Nazi Germany’s propaganda

minister Joseph Goebbels, who once submitted a play to
Piscator and with whom Piscator considered doing a radio
broadcast, may also have puzzled the ossified communist
hierarchy.23) Ultimately, however, Piscator’s “record as asupporter of the October Revolution and the Soviet
regime was a good one; from the days of the Proletarian
Theatre onwards, he had been caught up in the wave ofpro-Soviet feeling.”24 His biographer wrote: “Theoverriding fact remained that he was a communist andsubject to party orders.”25
Piscator defended his ideas in his 1929 book Das
Politische Theater (“The Political Theater”). He wrote:“any artistic intention must be subordinated to therevolutionary purpose of the whole: the conscious
emphasis and propagation of the concept of the classstruggle.” Continuing:We, as revolutionary Marxists, cannot consider our taskcomplete if we produce an uncritical copy of reality,
conceiving the theatre as a mirror of the times. … The
business of revolutionary theatre is to take reality as its
point of departure and to magnify the social discrepancy,
making it an element of our indictment, our revolt, our neworder.26

Despite the minor difficulties that came up between
Piscator and Communist Party officials, he had made asignificant mark on the communist-oriented theater.
Along with other dramatists, he “stirred up a

revolutionary whirlwind in the theater. This stir followed
directly in the wake of a successful Communist revolution
in Russia.”27
In 1938, Piscator was sent to Paris by the INO on atemporary assignment with the International
Revolutionary Theater Group. There, Piscator claimed,
Wilhelm Pieck—head of the German KPD in the Soviet
Union (whom I know to have been an undercover INO
colonel)—sent word to him not to return to Moscow
because of the wave of arrests then taking place there.28
This story is usually accepted by biographers of Piscator,
but it may have been disinformation. The INO may haveplanned all along to send Piscator to the United States, theultimate target for Soviet intelligence.
Piscator did indeed take a boat for the United States,
arriving in New York on January 2, 1939. There heopened the Dramatic Workshop at The New School for
Social Research in New York City. This workshop
launched the careers of many notable students, including
Tennessee Williams, Marlon Brando, Walter Matthau,
Rod Steiger, Shelley Winters, Harry Belafonte, Elaine
Stritch, Ben Gazzara, and Tony Curtis.29
Neither the Soviet pogroms nor the move to theUnited States diminished Piscator’s desire to use the stage
to advance his communist agenda. Of him, in 1940 Timemagazine wrote:
He produced great plays frankly as propaganda, stressed allpossible class-war angles, and emphasized mass effects
rather than individual actors. Determined to get his
audiences “into” the plays, he abolished the curtain, hadactors play in the aisles, loudspeakers sound from all partsof the house. His theatre became a versatile expressive“machine,” blending plays, films, radio.30

Of course, as the United States entered the Cold War,
Piscator was more circumspect about his communist ties.
As a biographer explained: “One of the difficulties in
judging Piscator’s American achievements is that somuch of what has been written about the Dramatic
Workshop has been like an exercise in public relations.”31
The Communist Party, however, still had faith in him.32
In 1951, following extensive FBI investigations
connected with a deportation case against Piscator, he
received a summons from the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Under the pressure of aggressive
press reports, which called the Drama Workshop of the
New School for Social Research a communist
organization of “fellow travelers,” and pressure from thecommittee’s summons, Piscator abruptly went back toGermany.33 There, he was at first treated as “‘The Grand
Old Man’ who had outlived himself.”34
Piscator spent nine years floating from one theater toanother, but around 1960 he got back in touch with
Bernhard Reich, a playwright and theater director.
Piscator had worked with Reich in the Soviet Union in the1930s. (Reich claimed it was he who had warned Piscatorin 1937 not to return to the Soviet Union from France,
prompting Piscator’s eventual move to the United States.)
Reich had been unable to escape from the USSR in the
1930s. He returned to Germany only in the mid-1950s as
a “rehabilitated” Soviet critic.35 He may have played arole in having Piscator appointed manager and director of
the Freie Volksbühne in West Berlin in 1962.
The Freie Volksbühne was openly communist, along
the lines of theaters Piscator had worked with in the
1920s. The idea of a Berlin theater “of the people,” which
underlies the Freie Volksbühne, can be traced back to a
Volksbühne that was founded in 1892. (The word Freie
was added to indicate that it was located in the free, orWestern, sector of Berlin, just as the new university in theWestern sector was called the Freie Universität.) The goalof the organization was to promote the social-realist playsof the day at prices accessible to the common worker.
The Volksbühne’s slogan was “Die Kunst dem Volke”(Art for the People). The theater’s original building had
been constructed in 1913–1914 on the eastern side ofBerlin, but World War II reduced it to rubble.
Construction of the Berlin Wall began in August 1961,
dividing Berlin down the middle. Once it was completed,people from West Berlin were no longer able to crossover to see productions on the other side. East Berlin
authorities decided to sponsor a new Freie Volksbühne inthe western part of the city, to take care of that problem. It
would present communist propaganda to viewers in West
Berlin.
After several years of trying to find a permanenthome, in 1962 Piscator succeeded in becoming director ofWest Berlin’s Freie Volksbühne, which did not yet have areal stage of its own. He therefore opened the theater’s
first season with the production of Der Stellvertreter on
the stage of the Theater am Kurfürstendamm, anestablished theater that could accommodate his
requirements for dramatic theatrical effects.36 The
production, however, was selected to serve the purposesof the Communist Party.

19
THE PLAY

THE DEPUTY focuses on two main characters, Kurt Gerstein(based on a real person) and the fictional Father Riccardo
Fontana. As a prisoner of the Allies after the war, the real
Gerstein (a Nazi officer) set forth a written statement on
which the broad outline of the play was later allegedly
based. Gerstein’s story may have been true, but he was aconfused man who was found hanged in his cell (perhaps
a suicide) before his story could be confirmed. As such,
he remains an enigmatic figure.1 The Fontana character isfictional, though Hochhuth has said it was based upon Fr.
Maximilian Kolbe and Fr. Bernhard Lichtenberg (to bothof whom his play was dedicated), and upon similar selfsacrificing priests.2
The basic plot of The Deputy involves a good Nazi

(Gerstein) who tells a good priest (the fictional Fontana)
about what the Nazis are doing to the Jews. Fontana,
however, is continually thwarted in his efforts to get amessage to the pope. When he finally succeeds, Pope Pius
XII does not care about the victims. Fontana thensacrifices himself by putting on a yellow star and going toa concentration camp, thereby becoming the true deputyof Christ. Recurring themes include the idea that Hitler’s
war against the Soviet Union was a kind of papal crusade,and that Pius and the Jesuits were primarily concerned
about their investments in the armament factories.
Although Hochhuth has gone back and forth on theissue, at least once he wrote that The Deputy had no
imputation of anti-Semitism, because there was noevidence that Pius was an anti-Semite.3 Obviously, thesilence of any character cannot drive a theatrical
production, so Pius is not onstage very long. Papal
silence, however, is the subject of much dialogue in the
final version of the play. Nearly all the other characters
discuss among themselves, or at least mention, the pope’s
failure to speak out directly and forcefully against Hitler’s
treatment of the Jews, thus leading up to a directconfrontation consisting of a single pivotal scene. In someproductions it is the only scene in which the pope himself
appears onstage. In some versions, the pope’s final act is
to wash his hands, stained with ink from his editing of astatement that was never made, in a manner reminiscent

of Pontius Pilate.4
If it were produced as written, The Deputy would takeseven or eight hours to perform. Since that does not meettheatrical needs, the German producer, Erwin Piscator,
edited the script into a more manageable length, making
very substantial changes along the way.5 In fact,
considerable alterations were made to both plot andstaging in every country where the play was produced,
A synopsis of Piscator’s original play is as follows:
Act I: The Deputy opens with a discussion over whether
Pope Pius XII should have abrogated the concordat toprotest the actions of the Nazis. A cold-hearted Catholicindustrialist—played by the same actor who plays Pius—
defends his use of slave labor.
Act II: Hitler feared Pius more than any other world leader.
Pius, however, has too many commercial interests that
preclude him from condemning Hitler. A cardinal argues
that the Nazis are the last bulwark to stand against Soviet
domination of Europe.
Act III: As Jews are rounded up “under the Pope’s
windows,” Riccardo Fontana, the fictional priest
protagonist, declares, “Doing nothing is as bad as taking
part. … God can forgive a hangman for such work, but nota priest, not the Pope!” A German officer comments thatthe pope has given friendly audiences to thousands ofGerman soldiers.
Act IV: Pius, who has an “aristocratic coldness” and an“icy glint” in his eyes, expresses concern about the
Vatican’s financial assets and the Allied bombing offactories. He worries that the bombing will impoverish the
Italian workers and they will ultimately becomeanarchists/communists. Pius reiterates his commitment tohelp the Jews while keeping silent to avoid greater evil.
When angrily questioned by Fontana, Pius pontificates on
the geopolitical importance of a strong Germany vis-à-vis
the Soviet threat.
Act V: Fontana pulls open his shirt and reveals that he iswearing a yellow star out of support for the Jews. He joinsdeportees to die at Auschwitz, where the rest of the act
takes place, ending with a quotation from Germanambassador Ernst von Weizsäcker: “Since further action on
the Jewish problem is probably not to be expected here in
Rome, it may be assumed that this question, so troublesome
to German-Vatican relations, has been disposed of.”6

The Deputy was more noted for its charges against thepope than for its plot or theatric insight. The play does notdevelop Pius as a tragic figure, since he is neither
tragically indecisive nor torn by his alternatives. Not only
does he lack Christian charity, but he also lacks simple
human decency. Variety wrapped it up in its own way:
“It’s hardly picture material, of course, and doubtful forthe road or stock.”7
A play is just a play, but Hochhuth, and others
associated with The Deputy, wanted this to be something
more. According to Hochhuth, the “main thesis” of The

Deputy was “that Hitler drew back from the extermination
program as soon as high German clerics … or the Vatican… forcibly intervened.”8
In the “Sidelights” to The Deputy Hochhuth says:“Perhaps never before in history have so many humanbeings paid with their lives for the passivity of a single
statesman.”9 In an editorial, the Jesuit magazine America
responded: “perhaps never before in history have so many
vicious, tendentious and mean imputations of motives
been based on such flimsy, distorted and falsified
historical arguments. The Deputy is characterassassination.”10
The general view of Pius XII, based on what had been
widespread knowledge of him for two decades, suddenly
and spectacularly flipped from lily white to coal blackafter The Deputy saw the light, without any new evidence
being produced. That prompted America magazine to ask:
What has happened … to erase with one sweep theseinformed and unsolicited tributes to the memory of Pope
Pius XII? Why do they count for nothing when The Deputy
comes to town? By what dialectic, or through what human
fickleness, has a great benefactor of humanity and of theJews particularly, now become a criminal?11

Many students of the play have wondered where
Hochhuth got his information, particularly relating topapal motives. As one author wrote:

Where did Hochhuth get his facts? He was able to use theevidence presented at the Nuremberg trials and at theEichmann trial, and to consult US and German historical
records and contemporary documents. These provided him
with material for his descriptions of the persecution of theJews and for his concentration camp scenes. But for his
main charges—the contemptible motives he attributes toPope Pius XII for his silence—he quotes no documentary
evidence at all.12

Hochhuth said he spent three months in Rome“studying the atmosphere, talking to Swiss Guards,
Romans and Jews who had been hidden in Italianmonasteries.”13 Since he never had access to any archive,
Hochhuth claimed to rely upon answers to a series ofquestions he posed to “an elderly and experienced
German-speaking bishop,”14 but he refused to name thebishop.15 Instead, he brought unwarranted suspicion on
numerous Vatican officials.
Both my coauthor and I have visited the Vatican manytimes, armed with impressive official credentials, butneither of us has been able to push a bishop into a cornerand persuade him to reveal secret Vatican documents.
Maybe Hochhuth got lucky. Maybe he made the story up(his reputation for veracity is not good), or maybe hereferred to the Vatican documents obtained by the three
DIE agents involved in “Seat-12.” In the end, these varied
possibilities are irrelevant. The important point is that one
play alone could not have changed the world’s perception

of Pius XII from an anti-Nazi pope into a pro-Nazi one.
No single piece of literature could accomplish such atransformation. A full-blown KGB framing operation
could, however, do just that.
Some of the factual mistakes regarding the Churchthat appear in The Deputy are not the kind that highclerics or a bishop would have made. Soviet
dezinformatsiya experts might, however, make just such
mistakes. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn indentified thefollowing mistakes (and others) in his 1969 book, The
Timeless Christian:
1. Father Fontana is referred to as “Count Riccardo
Fontana, a twenty-seven-year-old Jesuit, who works as ayoung attaché in the Berlin nunciature.” First of all, thetime needed to prepare for a Jesuit priesthood prevents
anyone from becoming a Jesuit at that young age.
Additionally, at that time there were no Jesuits in the
diplomatic service. Perhaps most obviously, Jesuits do not
retain secular titles, like “Count”; they have to give themup.
2. The play mentions a concordat between the Vatican andJapan. No such agreement was ever signed.
3. The play also has Spanish court dress being worn in the
Vatican— “the somber beautiful court dress of Henry II.” Itis simply not true.
4. According to the play, Hitler forbade all measuresagainst the Church. Pastor Martin Niemoeller, president of

the World Council of Churches (1961–84), who was sent to
Dachau (1937–1945) for opposing the nazi-fication of theProtestant Church, and lots of other religious victims of
Hitler’s Nazism wish that were true!
5. Pius XII was always alone at the table because he could
not abide the sight of a human face. In actuality, Pius
followed the Vatican custom of taking most meals alone,
but he sometimes dined with guests, and he was known as awitty conversationalist.16
6. An officer of the Swiss Guard is depicted in full uniform
in the center of Rome to summon a cardinal who wasvisiting Count Fontana. Swiss Guards, however, were notpermitted to wear the uniform outside the Vatican.
7. The Society of Jesus is mistakenly referred to as the“Order of Jesus,” and in the play the “Order of Jesus”
supplied the Soviet Union with mercury from Spanish
mines. That did not happen.
8. Contrary to the play, there was no papal legate in
Washington at that time, only an apostolic delegate.
9. In the scene where Pius tried to forbid Fr. Fontana frompinning the Star of David on his cassock, the Pope says:“We forbid him to do it—forbid it ex cathedra!” This isabsurd. Ex cathedra pronouncements can be made only inrespect of dogmatic formulations.17

The historical aspects of The Deputy contain further
circumstantial evidence that the show was produced by

the KGB’s framing experts. The printed play’s appendix,
entitled “Sidelights on History,” has been described asfollows:
Forty-five pages of demonstration and proof! But thequantity is deceptive. The materials are all mixed up
higgledy-piggledy; seldom are we told precisely where thearguments and quotations come from … “Solid collectionsof sources are mentioned only in isolated instances; butevidence and witnesses of dubious value are mentioned
frequently. … The work is based on second and third-handevidence, on popular books which do not even claim toprovide a final clarification … ”18

The “Sidelights” reveals a close association withpostwar Soviet propaganda. As German scholar Michael
Feldkamp noted: “In the summer of 1963 the Vaticanpointed out ‘numerous similarities’ between Hochhuth’s
play and ‘the usual communist propaganda against the
Church and the Pope,’ among them the charge of a‘common crusade with Hitler against the Soviet Union,’and the claim that the ‘enormous economic power’ of theHoly See and the Jesuit order explained theirabandonment of Christian moral principles.”19 The West
German government even expressed its “deepest regret”
for such attacks on Pius XII, since he had protested racial
persecution by the Third Reich and had “saved as many
Jews as possible from the hands of their persecutors.”20More recently, Giovanni Maria Vian, editor of theVatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, wrote thatthe play “took up many of the ideas proposed by Mikhail
Markovich Scheinmann in his book Der Vatican in
Zweiten Weltkrieg (“The Vatican in the Second WorldWar”), first published in Russian by the Historical
Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, a
propaganda instrument of Communist ideology.”21 Vian
noted that Pius XII’s approach during the war had been“anti-Communist, and because of this, already during thewar, the Pope became the target of Soviet propaganda as
being in cahoots with Nazism and its horrors.”22
Scheinmann’s book, of course, was pure Soviet
propaganda. Historian John Conway explained:
Scheinmann’s book is notable for its assiduous culling ofsource material and the utter perversity of its conclusions.
According to Scheinmann, Pope Pius XII was obsessed by
one thought alone, the need to organize a crusade against
the Soviet Union, and he sought every possible assistancefor this purpose. In consequence the acts of any anti-Soviet
government, however criminal, were to be ignored or evenapproved. Various aspects of this “portrait” have beentaken over by Hochhuth, though he explicitly denies the
charge that the Vatican was seeking to organize a crusadeagainst Bolshevism.23

Hochhuth had an advantage not available toScheinmann. He— and his legion of promoters anddefenders— could deflect any criticism by pointing outthat it was a play; it was fiction. At the same time,
especially with the historical appendix, The Deputy had aclaim of historical honesty. It was a true highpoint for
Soviet disinformation.

20
DISINFORMATION UNDER
EVERY ROCKTHE DEPUTY ran for only a couple of weeks in Berlin,
receiving mixed reviews at best, but it caused a political
uproar.1 Its negative view of Pius XII was denied byvirtually every person who had firsthand knowledge ofthe pope’s wartime activities. German chancellor Konrad
Adenauer even apologized to the Vatican for Piscator’s
production.2
Despite its short and commercially unsuccessful
debut, however, Der Stellvertreter was quickly translated
and produced by some of the most prominent names intheater. All were Western communists or sympathizers.
The first French production of Der Stellvertreter took

place at the Théâtre de l’Athénée in Paris. The translator
was Jorge Semprún, an award-winning novelist andplaywright. He was also an active communist.3
Semprún had been a communist militant since his
youth, and he joined a communist resistance group in
France during World War II. After the war, while still inFrance, he also joined the exiled Communist Party of
Spain (PCE). For nearly a decade in the 1950s and early
1960s, Semprún organized clandestine activities for thePCE.4 In fact, at the time when he translated Hochhuth’splay, he was still an active member of the party’s top
echelon, the Politburo. Only after being expelled from the
Politburo in 1965 (over strategy differences) did Semprún
truly focus on his legitimate writing career.5
The French production was codirected by Francis
Darbon and noted British director Peter Brook. Like
Piscator, Brook was a theatrical legend. Unlike Piscator
and Semprún, there is no documented evidence that he
was a member of the Communist Party. As a young man,however, Brook wrote that his “political certainties” hadbeen shaken when the Soviets reached an accord with the
Nazis.6 Furthermore, during World War II Brook
produced a play (his first attempt at directing), with theproceeds going to the “Aid to Russia Fund.”7 In 1955, hemade a very successful tour of the Soviet Union.8
Discussing the Soviets’ attraction to his work, Brook
explained: “Above all, they kept commenting on what

they termed our simplicity, austerity and economy.
Suddenly they realized that they were using the very
words with which Khrushchev had launched his new lineof architecture.”9 Later, when Brook put together an antiVietnam play, US, the Lord Chamberlain complained that
it was “bestial, anti-American, and Communist.”10
Brook’s production of The Deputy ran for about six
months in Paris, and it went a long way toward
establishing the so-called Theatre of Fact in France.11
Brook, however, did not like the “Theatre of Fact” label.
“You can never get to the facts,” he said. “I’d rather call it
the theatre of myth.”12
In addition to working in France, Brook was one of
the three permanent directors of the new, but highly
regarded, Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) at the
Aldwych Theatre in London. This company wasestablished by Peter Hall (later, Sir Peter ReginaldFranklin Hall), another one of the most influential figuresin postwar British theater.13 He and Brook served aspermanent directors along with French director Michel St.
Denis.14 Like many young directors at the time, Hall was
deeply influenced by popular theatrical trends, and the
RSC soon came “to be regarded as an avant-garde
stronghold.”15
In his book Strategies of Political Theatre, author
Michael Patterson lists the 1961 establishment of the RSC
and its expansion into the Aldwych Theatre (whichpermitted more modern productions) in a “briefchronology” of political theatre.16 In 1962, a commentator
wrote: “At the Aldwych … Peter Hall has offered
incomparable opportunities to several dramatists of the
new school in recent months.”17 On the other hand, “someLondon visitors [were] puzzled to find a Shakespeare
company so relentlessly dedicated to introducing thenewest and fartherest-out [sic] drama.”18 (A few years
later, Emile Littler, a theatrical producer and a board
member of the RSC, expressed moral outrage at the “dirtplays” that the company was producing at the
Aldwych.19)
Der Stellvertreter received its first English productionin London by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the
Aldwych Theatre in 1963 under the title The
Representative.20 Robert David MacDonald translated theplay for the RSC.21 He had worked as a translator for theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in the 1950s. At that time,
UNESCO was perceived by many as a platform forcommunists to attack the West,22 and the KGB used it toplace agents around the world.23 (UNESCO also assistedwith the publication of the journal World Theatre, which
praised Erwin Piscator’s courage for bringing Der
Stellvertreter to the stage.)24
While working at UNESCO, MacDonald met Piscator.
Although he had no prior theatrical experience,

MacDonald “immediately became involved in theatre as adirector.”25 He worked with Piscator in Berlin, and thetwo men formed a close professional relationship. This
led to MacDonald’s translating (and reworking) Der
Stellvertreter into English.26
The period 1963–64 was the highpoint in terms ofCommunist Party membership in Great Britain, andpolitical theater was just beginning to take hold.27 “Likeshock waves expanding concentrically across all ofEurope, interest in the epic theater of [German
Communist playwright Bertolt] Brecht grew in direct
proportion as the ideology of Communism gained
respectability within Europe’s intellectual classes.”28
Several new and talented playwrights “shared a laudable
but strange conviction: that by writing plays and having
them performed, they might help to change the way
society is structured.”29 By 1978, Performing Arts
Journal would report: “In general, the hope of politicaltheatre groups is that, eventually, Britain will have a
Marxist-based socialist government representing theworking class, and that production and distribution will beworker controlled.”30
The director who handled The Representative at the
Aldwych was Clifford Williams.31 He added a new scene
at the beginning of the play and ended with a film of the
Auschwitz victims being buried by bulldozer.32
Newspaper clippings and other documents were also read

over loudspeakers at different points in the play.33 Of
Williams it was written: “Hochhuth’s play undoubtedly
spurred Williams’s interest—at a time of shifting social
and theatrical perspectives in theatre that might provoke
arguments or disturb complacency.”34 Of course,
Williams had come to the RSC from the “Left-wing andindeed almost Communist” Theatre Workshop,35 where
he had trained under the noted communist director Joan
Littlewood.36

The American publisher of Der Stellvertreter was Grove
Press in New York. Grove Press belonged to Barney
Rosset, a self-proclaimed communist, who purchased thecompany in 1951, and turned it into an influential
alternative press. Among the radical political thinkers andwriters Grove Press published in the 1960s were Malcolm
X and Erwin Piscator’s old partner, Bertolt Brecht. Grove
Press also published Che Guevara’s diaries, with an
introduction by Fidel Castro. Che’s diaries, of course,
were produced by the Kremlin’s dezinformatsiya
machinery. His KGB-enhanced diaries were serialized inEvergreen Review and then released in book form by
Grove Press. Evergreen Review, like Grove Press, wasowned by Barney Rosset. In a 2006 interview, Rosset was
asked about his religion. He replied that he never had areligion: “So I became a Communist. As a religion. And

you better believe it.”37
Evergreen Review also promoted The Deputy. In May
1964, just after the play opened on Broadway, Evergreen
Review published an article written by Hochhuth.38 In
addition, not only did the magazine run advertisements
for the book version of The Deputy; it used crossmarketing and advertised Rudolf Vrba’s I Cannot
Forgive, calling it “an eyewitness report— documenting
The Deputy—by a man who escaped from Auschwitz.”39
In actuality, Vrba’s account proved highly suspect, and helater admitted that he had taken “artistic license” inwriting it.40

Herman Shumlin was the American producer who
brought Der Stellvertreter to Broadway as The Deputy.
While he was not of the same historic importance as
Piscator or Brook, he had a long, successful career in film
and on the stage. Among his Broadway productions were
The Last Mile (1930), Grand Hotel (1930), The
Children’s Hour (1934), The Little Foxes (1939), The
Male Animal (1940), The Corn Is Green (1940), Watch on
the Rhine (1941), The Searching Wind (1944), Inherit theWind (1955), and The Deputy (1964).
Shumlin was also an active communist. According toTime magazine (February 5, 1940), Shumlin was the only
producer who advertised in the communist Daily Worker.

The article went on to note that “Mr. Shumlin had almost
no friends except Leftist Lillian Hellman.” Hellman, withwhom Shumlin had a professional and a romantic
relationship, was outspoken in her support forcommunism. The notes for a play she authored (The Little
Foxes) state that she was “known both for her mink coats
and her outspoken support of the Communist Party andcommunist-affiliated organizations.”41
Shumlin served as chairman of “the leftist Joint AntiFascist Refugee Committee” (JAFRC).42 This
organization was “originally formed by Communists to
aid Stalinist refugees from Spain.”43 Although the
JAFRC’s charter was to raise money for relief causes,
after World War II it sent funds to Yugoslavia, helping
the communists win the first postwar elections. In 1947,
JAFRC was investigated for communist infiltration by theHouse Committee on Un-American Activities. When
JAFRC refused to turn records over, a federal judge held
Shumlin and fifteen other members of JAFRC guilty ofcontempt of Congress. Shumlin was given a five-hundreddollar fine and a suspended three-month jail term.44
In 1964, Shumlin received a Tony award for bringing
The Deputy to Broadway. This was perhaps due in largepart to the perceived bravery it took to stand up against allof those who objected to the play’s characterization of
Pius. Many critics did not like Shumlin’s version of The
Deputy, but it ran on Broadway for almost a year. Thatseems not to have been as a result of the play’s theatricalquality. Discussing concern about violence fromprotestors at the opening, New York Times theater critic
Frank Rich wrote: “The only bomb was on stage, but the
publicity turned the show, now forgotten, into a quasi-hit
and earned its producer a Tony for his courage.”45
Another critic said the play was “like one of those comicstrip versions of a literary classic.”46
It is probably to be expected that Shumlin would write
a magazine article about the play. His piece appeared in
the February 1964 issue of Jewish World. Another of theearly praises of The Deputy published in the United States
was written by David Horowitz.47 As the latter has since
explained, he was at that time a practicing communist.48
Before eventually becoming a leader of the conservative(or neoconservative) political movement, Horowitz spenttime in various leadership positions at Ramparts
magazine, which made its way from its founding in theearly 1960s as a Catholic periodical to a far-Leftmagazine suspected of having Soviet funding.49
By the end of his life, syndicated columnist Max
Lerner was viewed by many as a conservative, but thatturn came late. As a younger man, he backed thecommunists in the Spanish Civil War, and he was
reluctant to denounce the Moscow purge trials.50 Prior to
the Hitler-Stalin pact that preceded World War II, Lernerand other American leftist intellectuals, including Soviet

agent I. F. Stone, signed a letter that appeared in The
Nation magazine (where Lerner served as political editor).
The letter was a “full throated defense of Stalinism,” andit criticized fellow liberals for being anticommunist.51 At
the end of the Second World War, Lerner attended a galabanquet with Red Army generals. Later he took up
permanent residence in Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Mansion.
Like so many other Americans with leftist ties, he wrote a
piece promoting The Deputy.52
Michael Harrington, originally a follower of American
Catholic Dorothy Day, “dropped Day’s anarchism,
pacifism and religion, in that order.”53 He praised The
Deputy in Midstream magazine (December 1963). At thistime, Harrington was the American Socialist Party’s
bridge to new student members. A “lifelong Socialist,”
Harrington was the chairman of Democratic Socialists ofAmerica and the leader of the American socialist
movement until his death, in 1989.54 Of course, many
communists wrote under pseudonyms, making later
identification impossible.55
In March 1964, as The Deputy was opening on
Broadway, Susan Sontag, who throughout her career was
criticized for repeating Marxist jargon,56 highly praised
The Deputy in “Book World,” a section of the New York
Herald Tribune.57 This was about two years before
Sontag emerged as an important American writer andpolitical activist who marched “under the dual banners ofmodernism and Marxism.”58 In fact, as late as 1978—
well after she recognized that Marxism was often used tosupport totalitarian regimes— she said: “I want to remain
Marxist in a certain sense.”59

Just months after The Deputy debuted in Berlin, Rowohlt
of Hamburg, the far-left German publisher of the play,came out with a paperback book titled Summa Iniuria,
oder Durfte der Papst Schweigen? (“The Height ofInjustice, or Should the Pope Have Remained Silent?”). It
contained “90 commentaries selected from more than
3,000 major articles, addresses, and brochures dealing
with the play.”60 The compiler of the essays, Fritz J.
Raddatz, was best known as a scholar of Karl Marx. He
wrote Karl Marx: A Political Biography,61 and he edited
a collection of letters between Marx and Friedrich
Engels.62
As a matter of fact, Raddatz very likely played a rolein Rowohlt’s publication of Der Stellvertreter from theoutset. In the 1950s, Raddatz was head of the foreign
department and deputy chief of the Volk und Welt (People
and World) publishing house in East Berlin—positions
that in my experience would have required him to have arelationship with the East German Stasi, and possiblywith the KGB. In 1958, Raddatz crossed over into West
Germany and settled in Hamburg, where by 1960 he hadbecome the chief reader of the Rowohlt publishing house,
as well as close associate and deputy to Heinrich Maria
Ledig-Rowohlt, the head of the firm. He remained with
Rowohlt until 1969.63
In the United States, the communist-owned Grove
Press did the same thing as Rowohlt, publishing a bookentitled The Storm over the Deputy: Essays and articles
about Hochhuth’s explosive drama just months after theplay debuted on Broadway. This book was a collection of
essays, reviews, and interviews related to the play and theissues it raised. The editor of this collection was Eric
Bentley, best known for his work on the German
communist playwright (and former Piscator collaborator)
Bertolt Brecht— “the world’s most famous
communist.”64 Bentley also edited the Grove Press
edition of Brecht’s work, and he wrote a highly personalmemoir of his years with Brecht and a play based upon
Brecht’s testimony before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities.65 Many of the reviews and essays
included in The Storm over the Deputy were penned byauthors with close ties to communism, but even thoseessays that defended Pius served the purpose of keeping
this issue alive.
The Deputy finally made it to film in 2002, in the
motion picture Amen. The screenwriter for the project was
Jorge Semprún, the former member of the Spanish
Communist Party’s Politburo who had translated the play

into French.66 The film’s accomplished director was
Constantinos Gavras, better known as Costa-Gavras.
After World War II, Gavras’s Greek father was found to
be a communist and sent to prison. Costa-Gavras wasdenied a visa to the United States over concern that he
was also a communist. Some of his later politicallycharged films seemed to confirm that suspicion, but healso made films critical of totalitarian (Soviet) regimes.
There is no proof that he was a member of the Communist
Party.67

21
KGB FINGERPRINTSA FEW MONTHS AFTER THE DEPUTY was launched on
Broadway, an American journalistic icon, who is stillcompared to the likes of H. L. Mencken and William F.
Buckley, published a powerful piece faulting the Catholic
Church for its role in the rise of Fascism. Writing in his
own influential weekly, I. F. Stone stated:
Pius XII, in being friendly to Hitler [and to Mussolini] wasonly following in the footsteps of Pius XI. … More than thesin of silence lies on the consciences of God’s “deputies.”
They were accessories in the creation of these criminal
regimes. … It helps to heal our hearts that a young German
should have written The Deputy. It is also a good sign thatthe play should have aroused such animosity—like apainful memory dragged unwillingly from the subconscious

of a whole generation.1

Later that year, Stone wrote another piece, insinuatingthat Pius XII had feared Hitler.2 Recently published KGB
documents in the Vassiliev Archive show that I. F. Stone(né Isidor Feinstein) was a paid Soviet spy. He hadoriginally been recruited by the NKVD in 1936 on
ideological grounds and given the codename “Blin”(Russian for “pancake”).3 Venona intercepts of highlyclassified, Soviet-intelligence-enciphered communicationfrom l944 show that Stone then had a new NKVD
handler, Vladimir Pravdin, whom he agreed to meet
regularly and to whom he indicated that he would not beaverse to having a “supplementary income.”
In a cable sent to Moscow, Pravdin recommended to
NKVD headquarters that if this “business” relationshipwere agreed upon, then Stone would have to do his partand really produce. Subsequent Venona intercepts showthat by December 1944 the business relationship had
worked out, and Stone was being secretly paid by the
NKVD for producing articles on subjects recommended
to him by Moscow. Throughout his career, Stone’s
articles indicate he continued to be used by Soviet
intelligence as a dezinformatsiya outlet.4
Changing minds is what Soviet communism was allabout. Changing minds was also Stone’s main task as
Soviet spy. He was prominent in his day, and he wascertainly a prize asset for the NKVD/KGB. It is now
known to be more than coincidental that his articles
expressed the position of the Soviet Union on so many
issues: demonizing the Korean policies of John Foster
Dulles, General MacArthur, and President Truman;condemning US efforts to prevent communist expansion
in Vietnam; belittling the FBI and embarrassing J. Edgar
Hoover; maligning Pope Pius XII and faulting theCatholic Church—the KGB’s archenemy—for the Nazi
persecution of Jews; supporting the Kremlin’s efforts topersuade the world that there was no Soviet involvementin the JFK assassination; and many, many similar issues.
Even some of the issues for which he might be hailed
today, including opposition to racial discrimination and
McCarthyism, were right in line with the Soviet positionat the time.
Stone’s prominence and his caustic style played animmense role in calling attention to The Deputy andmaking it a cause célèbre. In addition, Stone’s sister,leftist theater critic Judy Stone, contributed a friendly
interview with Hochhuth, which was published in
Ramparts magazine in the spring of 1964.5
In 1963, as The Deputy was beginning to create a stirin Berlin and cause a rift between Catholics and Jews, a
KGB-sponsored publisher in the United States, theLiberty-Prometheus Book Club, republished an old bookthat mirrored the charges raised by The Deputy. The bookwas Shylock: The History of a Character, authored byHermann Sinsheimer, and it focused on the mistreatmentof Jews by popes and other Christians.6 As the KGB had
hoped, this book found its way into major media outlets,
where authors sympathetic to The Deputy continued theplay’s promotion.7
Liberty-Prometheus Book Club was co-owned by Carl
Aldo Marzani, an Italian-born American communist andvery active Soviet dezinformatsiya agent, probably
recruited before World War II.8 After the war, he served
thirty-two months in prison for concealing his
membership in the Communist Party while working for
the State Department. Upon his release he went into
various leftist publishing ventures, for which he received
KGB subsidies.9
Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive show that over
the years Marzani (KGB codenamed “Nord,” German for
north), received substantial sums of money for having his
Liberty Book Club publishing company (codenamed“Sever,” Russian for north) produce pro-Soviet material.
Marzani was also given an annual ten thousand dollars toadvertise those books aggressively.10 (Years ago, Soviet
intelligence often used German words to designate its
agents abroad, probably because many of its undercoverhandlers were from Central Europe and spoke that
language. The fact that Marzani had a German codename
supports the suggestion that he may have been a prewar

recruit.)
In early 1960, the KGB station in New York, which
was handling Marzani, sent an enciphered cable to
Moscow recommending that he be given an additional six
thousand to seven thousand dollars, in order to enable
Liberty Book Club to continue publishing pro-Sovietmaterial. The cable justified its request as follows:
NORD is an extremely energetic person and is quite
devoted to his task. Despite his financial difficulties, he isstruggling to keep SEVER afloat. SEVER, together with its
commercial bookselling network, the Prometheus Book
Club, has been in existence for fourteen years. During thistime it has published and distributed more than 200 titles ofa progressive nature, by both American and foreignauthors. The catalogue of the SEVER publishing firm lists
around fifty titles, and the Prometheus Book Club has
7,000 members. Books are also sent to 8,000 addresses on
an individual basis.

In May 1960, the International Department of theSoviet Communist Party’s Central Committee, which was
responsible for supplying the dezinformatsiya funds inthis instance, approved a secret grant of fifteen thousand
dollars, more than twice what the New York KGB station
had requested.11
It was entirely unusual for the Communist Party’s
International Department to have been brought into theplans for what at first blush seems to have been a generaland fairly routine disinformation operation that had beenaround for years. Moreover, although the New Yorkstation’s cable was sent to KGB headquarters in Moscow,from the overblown wording of the request for funds it isclear in retrospect that the cable was actually addressed to
the International Department—KGB headquarters had
been funding Marzani for many years and did not need to
be told what he did and how good he was at it. It is also
particularly remarkable that more than double therequested amount was quickly approved.
The significance of the above cable exchange lies inwhen it took place— early 1960. It was in February 1960
that Khrushchev approved an all-out, very secret
operational plan designed to destroy the Vatican’s moral
authority and at the same time to tarnish the reputation of
the United States. The plan had been dreamt up by KGB
chairman Aleksandr Shelepin together with Alexei
Kirichenko, the Politburo member responsible forinternational policy. The operation was to be carried out
jointly by the KGB and the Communist Party, i.e., thelatter’s International Department. The cable exchange isevidence that the KGB immediately tasked its stations
abroad to contribute in whatever way they could to thisoffensive, just as my DIE was given the assignment toprocure any and all possible Vatican documents.
In 1963, the first book about the Kennedy
assassination to appear in the United States, Oswald:

Assassin or Fall Guy?, was published by Marzani.12 Thatbook, written by a documented KGB agent, Joachim
Joesten, alleged that the CIA had killed President
Kennedy, but, as with The Deputy, it did not produce any
evidence to support the charge.
The first review of Joesten’s book was signed by an
American journalist also paid by the KGB, Victor Perlo(identified as a Soviet agent by Elisabeth Bentley andWhittaker Chambers, and in the Venona electronicintercepts). Perlo’s endorsing review was published in
New Times (a KGB front, at one time secretly printed in
Romania), which published nine more articles on theassassination, all accusing elements in the United Statesof the crime.
Perlo also wrote one of the first laudatory reviews of
The Deputy, for the same KGB front, New Times.13 Many
people in the United States and around the world are still
convinced, even today, that the CIA was behind President
Kennedy’s assassination. Many people around the world
also continue to believe another of the Kremlin’s lies: that
Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.”
M. S. (Max) Arnoni, a Holocaust survivor, onetime editorof the Encyclopedia Britannica, and publisher of A
Minority of One, a highbrow magazine for the liberal
American elite, also jumped in to promote The Deputy.
According to former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, now an

American citizen, Arnoni received money from the KGB
for promoting the Soviet line in the American media.
Kalugin spent years spying in the United States for the
KGB under the cover of a journalist.14 One of his tasks
was to recruit agents in American left-leaning magazinesand newspapers.15 Kalugin would even, on occasion,
finance these magazines and newspapers and then plantstories reflecting the Soviet line, hoping that other news
outlets would repeat them. Kalugin wrote: “I had no
qualms about stirring up as much trouble as possible. …
”16 American communists were happy to help with suchprojects. As a recent commentator noted: “However
loathsome and psychotic” J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI may
have been, it “got one thing right: The [Communist Partyof the United States] was an arm of Soviet foreign policy,
no more, no less.”17
Kalugin developed close ties with Arnoni. At first,
Kalugin simply relied on his friendship with the publisherof A Minority of One to place KGB-written articles into
his magazine. As Arnoni’s financial situation worsened,
Kalugin first funded the publication of some letter/ads(often signed by several leftist journalists) in the New
York Times. Eventually, Kalugin gave Arnoni ten
thousand from the KGB. Arnoni hid the source of thefunds. “Thus did the KGB infiltrate a small yet influential
American publication.”18 Arnoni “unwittingly did thebidding of the KGB.”19

Arnoni became a strong supporter of The Deputy. Not
only did he write in support of the play in his own journal;
he also wrote an article for another periodical, American
Dialog.20 Beyond discussing Hochhuth’s drama, he madeinflammatory “factual” assertions that are demonstrably
false.21 For instance, Arnoni wrote that “the man who wasto become Pius XII was deeply involved in the politics ofultra-rightist German parties.”22
The US Communist Party, secretly financed by the
KGB, also joined in. When the New York Times Book
Review decided to do a major, front-page article on The
Deputy, it explained that it had turned to a Catholic
scholar (George N. Shuster) and a non-Catholic scholar(Robert Gorham Davis).23 It did not explain that Davishad been a member of the Communist Party, who had
testified before, and “named names” to, the US House
Committee on Un-American Activities.24

By early 1964, when The Deputy was about to open on
Broadway, so many religious leaders, politicians,
diplomats, and others had spoken against it that it was
somewhat of an international scandal. New York’s
Cardinal Spellman called The Deputy“an outrageous
desecration of the honor of a great and good man.”25 The
National Council of Catholic Men and the American
Jewish Committee tried to talk the television networks out

of promoting the play.26 Jewish War Veterans evenmarched on the play’s opening day to boycott it anddefend the pope’s honor.27
With the play’s ability to open in serious jeopardy, alittle magazine from San Francisco, with Catholic roots
and a communist future, took the lead in defending it. In
fact, without Ramparts magazine, The Deputy might
never have played on Broadway. (A few years later,
similar concerns about the historical honesty of
Hochhuth’s next play, Soldiers, kept it from opening at
the National Theatre in London.) Hochhuth repaid
Ramparts by granting the magazine one of the very few
interviews he gave in those days. It was conducted by
Judy Stone, sister of “investigative journalist” and spy I.
F. Stone.
Ramparts was founded in 1962 by Edward Keating as
a liberal Catholic quarterly. Very quickly, however,Keating became disillusioned with the institutional
Church.28 After just a few issues he changed direction,saying: “From now on, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy.”29
Keating started by soliciting an article from a
Louisiana priest who had been critical of the Church’s
record on race relations. After the article was written, but
before it went to press, the priest and his bishop both tried
to recall it. Keating ignored their requests and publishedthe piece anyway.30 In the next issue, Ramparts called fora liberalization in the Church’s teaching on contraception.

Ramparts soon explored the “natural” connection
between Catholics and the John Birch Society. As
Ramparts Editor Warren Hinckle explained, Keating wentfrom a “respectfully orthodox convert to a brazen anticleric who would make jokes in public and even in thepresence of nuns about ‘taking a bite out of the Pope’s
ass.’”31
Of course, Ramparts found it handy to hold onto its“Catholic” image as long as it could. Hinckle said hetalked Keating into defending The Deputy by telling himthat “he could become famous overnight if he, a Catholic
publisher, headed a committee to defend the Pope-baiting
play.” Keating agreed—with a vengeance.
In early 1964, Keating wrote articles supporting The
Deputy for three different publications: Ramparts, ThisWorld magazine, and the San Francisco Chronicle.32 He
also made an important appearance on the WABC
television program New York, New York. Keating’s
biggest contribution, however, came when he released awartime letter that had been written by a prominent
member of the Roman Curia, Eugene Cardinal Tisserant,
to Emanuel Cardinal Suhard, the archbishop of Paris. In
it, Tisserant wrote: “I fear that history will reproach theHoly See for having followed a policy of comfort andconvenience, and not much else.”33
As soon as Keating released the letter, Tisserant issued
a statement explaining that it was not about Pope Pius XII

or the Jews. Tisserant had written it in a fit of anger on the
day after Italy joined the war, and he was mad that otherclergy did not make calls for peace similar to thosefrequently made by Pius XII. “The pope’s attitude wasbeyond discussion,” he explained. “My remarks did not
involve his person, but certain members of the Curia. In
the dramatic period of the War, and what a period thatwas, Pius XII was able to guide the Church withinvincible strength.” Tisserant told the New York Times:“It seems evident to me that the principles, reaffirmed byPope Pacelli in his first encyclical, and repeated forcefullyat every circumstance, above all in the Christmas
messages of the war years, constitute the most concretecondemnation of the Hitlerian type of absolutism.”34 In
fact, the Times published excerpts from an address that
Tisserant had given during the war in which he praised
Pius XII’s wartime conduct. Nevertheless, the timing of
Keating’s release garnered significant attention.
Tisserant’s letter apparently had been seized from
Cardinal Suhard’s files by the Gestapo when the Nazis
took Paris late in World War II. Precisely how it got fromthe Gestapo archives to Keating is unclear. It may havefallen into Soviet hands after the war and from there madeits way to the magazine’s headquarters. Throughout the
1960s, Ramparts came up with many documents andstories that cast the Soviet Union in a good light or its
enemies in a bad one, and the sources of information were
often hard to uncover. In his memoirs, editor Warren

Hinckle acknowledged his own suspicion about thesource of some of the information he received, suggestingthat it was either the KGB or a rogue operation frominside of the CIA. He eventually took to setting up secretmeetings and using coded language.35
Beyond convincing Keating to adopt The Deputy as acause, Hinckle played a big role in seeing that theBroadway curtain went up on the play. By his own
account, he invented an “ecumenical conspiracy” insupport of the play. He formed a committee with a Sovietsounding name: the Ad Hoc Committee to Defend theRight of The Deputy to be Heard. He found “a few
prominent Protestants,” like social activist John C.
Bennett, to join the committee, but he had trouble finding
any Catholic leaders who would do so.36 Hinckle spoke to
one auxiliary bishop, “highly regarded for his liberalism,
who told me he would rather endorse a company that put
the picture of Jesus Christ on packages of contraceptives
than get involved on the side of the author of The
Deputy.” In desperation, he signed up some laymen hecalled “Catholic window dressing.” The laymen, Gordon
Zahn and John Howard Griffin, were rewarded by later
being named associate editors of Ramparts.37
Hinckle also drafted two Jews: Rabbi Abraham
Heschel of the Jewish Theological Seminary and Maxwell
Geismar, a critic and literary historian. Of Geismar,
Hinckle wrote: “a wonderful man about whom I cannot

marshal enough superlatives, who, from our chancemeeting during the white-heat controversy over The
Deputy, was to become almost instantly my closest friend,confidant, foster father, and soul mate, and the mostimportant intellectual influence on the developing
Ramparts.” This “most important intellectual influence”
on Hinckle and Ramparts was an avowed Marxist who
wrote the introduction to Eldridge Cleaver’s book, Soulon Ice, a collection of essays written while Cleaver was inprison, serving time for drug dealing and rape. (Cleaver
later became a senior editor at Ramparts. He also joined
the Black Panthers, was arrested following a shootout,
fled to various communist nations, became disenchantedwith communism, and returned to face charges.)
Hinckle later admitted that his Ad Hoc Committee toDefend the Right of The Deputy to be Heard was “in thefinest tradition of Potemkin villages.” It “barely had as
many members as words in its cumbersome title.” It did,
however, serve his purpose. As he later wrote: “Armedwith press release, we marched out to do murder in theCathedral.”Hinckle, who had never been to New York before,
sent out provocative press releases and threw a cateredpress conference (likened by many to a party) in New
York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel. He sent long (andexpensive) telegram invitations and followed up withtelegram reminders to “everyone in New York City inpossession of a pencil or camera.” In length, according toHinckle, the telegrams were “somewhere between the
Gettysburg Address and the Declaration of Independence,and kept the Western Union lady on the telephone fornearly three hours, as I dictated to her the names andaddresses of an eclectic group of invitees drawn at whim
and whimsy from the Yellow Pages.” Among therecipients of the telegrams were not only the major
publications, but also The American Organist, Bedside
Nurse, Casket and Sunnyside, Detergent Age, Elementary
Electronics, Floor Covering Weekly, and dozens ofsimilar trade and industry publications.38
It took far more money than a magazine like Ramparts
would logically be able to devote to such a project to pull
this off, but Hinckle attracted a huge crowd. One
photographer said it was the biggest press conference he’dseen since Adlai Stevenson conceded in the presidential
race. When a reporter questioned why no other membersof the “blue ribbon committee” had shown up besides
Hinckle and Keating, they said that the “room was too
crowded.”Ramparts’ defense of The Deputy overshadowed mostof the news critical of the play in the final days before
opening night and made sure the curtain went up. It wasnever really clear why the California-based Ramparts
decided to promote the New York play or how it could
justify the cost, but subsequent history sheds some lighton the matter.

Ramparts dropped most of its Catholic identity shortly
after The Deputy episode. In October 1964, Keating said
Ramparts “more or less” came from a Catholic viewpoint,
adding that the magazine could be described as catholicwith a small c.39 It soon, and routinely, published “noholds barred” criticisms of members of the Catholichierarchy—unprecedented in the Catholic press at thattime. In 1965, the president of the Catholic Press
Association denounced the magazine as “unethical.” In
December of that year, the magazine described itself as“New Left,” not Catholic. Hinckle explained: “there
weren’t enough Catholic laymen to write for and to buy
the magazine. Besides, we got bored with just the
church.”40
In 1967, Time magazine editorialized: “no other leftwing publication in the United States pursues shock more
recklessly or plays around more with facts.”41 As former
Ramparts insider Sol Stern explained, “Ramparts would
stretch or deny the truth to sell our counter narrative about
America and the world.” He also said: “The passions thatmoved us were not those that moved the Founders. We
were not liberals. We were socialists and antiimperialists….”42
Ramparts made a deal with the Cuban government topublish Che Guevara’s diaries, with an introduction by
Fidel Castro. According to former editor Sol Stern, theagreement “required us to publish a Fidel Castro rant,filled with Communist propaganda and denunciations ofAmerican ‘barbarism.’” Stern explained:
We believed that the revolution was a great leap forward
for the socialist cause. We followed the lead of one of ourintellectual heroes, Columbia University sociologist C.
Wright Mills, in arguing that Fidel Castro was a new breedof revolutionary leader—more humanist, more open, evenmore hip than old-style bureaucratic Communists. In fact,
we imagined Fidel and Che as fellow New Leftists.”43

Earlier, Ramparts managing editor Robert Scheer hadcoauthored a book defending Castro’s Cuban revolution.
Ramparts was an early opponent of the Vietnam War.
One of the magazine’s best-known covers showed thehands of four of its editors burning their draft cards.
Explaining the magazine’s position in favor ofwithdrawing from Vietnam, Stern said:
I suppose you might say that such a withdrawal would have
let the Vietnamese people “make their own history.” But
the real reason that Ramparts was for total withdrawal of
American troops was that we wanted the Communists to
win and were sure that they would. In the view of most of
the editors, the Communists were Vietnam’s rightfulrulers.44

Moreover, it was not just America’s involvement in
Vietnam that drew criticism from the magazine. “Insteadof urging Americans to take pride in the founding ideals

of the Republic, Ramparts’ editors and writers werepreoccupied with attacking America’s liberal
institutions.”45
While it no longer claimed a Catholic identity, until atleast 1969 Ramparts devoted special attention to the
Catholic Church. According to former communist andonetime Ramparts editor Peter Collier, Hinckle
encouraged articles on “the new spirit of dissent within
the Catholic Church being.” Articles from this era
opposed Church teaching on sexuality (especially PopePaul VI’s teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae),complained about abuse of authority by the Catholichierarchy, and promoted leftist “liberation” theology.
Ramparts religion editor James F. Colaianni identifiedpriestly celibacy, authoritarianism, suppression of sociallyaware priests, lack of communication, absence ofgrievance procedures, and summary disciplinary actions
as some of the greatest structural problems with the
Church.46
Ramparts eventually adopted a communist operationalmodel, but that proved unsustainable. David Horowitz,
who was a communist when he edited the magazine latein the 1960s, later explained:
Without a formal hierarchy at Ramparts, every issue thatcame up had to be debated. The need to justify decisions
was not only time-consuming for us, but at times cruel toothers, as I discovered when we attempted to reduce themailroom budget at Ramparts and were met with a politicalrevolt. The mailroom was staffed by members of Newsreel,a “collective” of radicals who had made promotional films
for the Black Panthers and the Vietcong. They had norespect for our publication. The revolution’s pecking order
had again shifted to the left, and we could not overcome theview that Ramparts was part of the power structure thatneeded to be overthrown.47

When Ramparts collapsed once and for all in 1975,
three of its principals formed the leftist magazine Mother
Jones. They were supported in this effort by the Institutefor Policy Studies, which has been linked to KGB
disinformation campaigns.48
CIA documents released under the Freedom ofInformation Act confirm that by 1966, Ramparts was areliable outlet for Soviet propaganda. The CIA eventually
devoted twelve full-time or part-time officers toinvestigating Ramparts. They identified and investigated
127 writers and researchers, as well as nearly two hundred
other people with some link to the magazine who weresuspected of advancing the Soviet cause.49 Many of those
who were investigated have since admitted they wereusing Ramparts to advance communism. That is exactly
what they were doing when they used the magazine topromote The Deputy.

22
THE DEPUTY’S ANTISEMITISM

WHEN THE DEPUTY DEBUTED, many reviewers andcommentators noted its distinct anti-Semitic flavor.1
Trude Weiss-Rosmarin noted that the “play has not one
Jewish character of strength and nobility.”2 She
continued: “Jews have as strong a case against The
Deputy as the Vatican. … Mr. Hochhuth has placed uponstage ‘negative Jews’ exclusively, Jews who conform to
the Nazi stereotype.”3 Time magazine reported:“Hochhuth, a Protestant who once belonged to Hitler’s
youth corps, has been denounced as a pro-Communist andan anti-Semite.”4 Ramparts, a friendly outlet with afavorable review, observed that Hochhuth had been

“damned variously as a Nazi, a Communist and an antiSemite.”5 One of Hochhuth’s biographers noted that hehad difficulty portraying Jews.6
The Broadway producer of The Deputy, Herman
Shumlin, cut out scenes of Jewish collaboration andcertain Jewish characters from the American production.7
Of Hochhuth’s depiction of Jews, Shumlin said: “Why, hedoesn’t even know what a Jew looks like. … He has astereotype of them as short men with eyeglasses.”8 WeissRosmarin said: “Mr. Hochhuth’s ignorance of Jews showsin his choice of those whom he regards as ‘typical’victims of the Nazis. ‘The Manufacturer,’ who spits in theface of a Jew to prove that he has nothing in common
with Jews, is in fact the Jew-hater’s image—and so are
the other thoroughly unsavory Jews who appear in The
Deputy.”9 Jewish war veterans even marched on theplay’s Broadway opening, though they reportedly weremore concerned about the depiction of Pius than that ofJews.10
Jewish actor and director Otto Preminger, who had
directed films dealing with Catholics and Jews,11 was sooutraged at Hochhuth that he accused the playwright not
only of having been a Nazi, but of having been aparticularly vicious one. Hochhuth responded bydemanding a retraction and threatening to sue if one were
not forthcoming.12 Rather than retracting, Preminger
reasserted his charge. Hochhuth eventually filed suit forfive hundred thousand dollars in the Southern District of
New York, but he allowed the case to be dismissed before
depositions or any other discovery took place.
Some have tried to find elements of anti-Semitism in
the works of the famous nineteenth-century satirist
Wilhelm Busch that Hochhuth edited in the late 1950s.
Busch’s satires did sometimes make fun of Jews—but
also of clerics and schoolmasters and just about everyoneelse. Hochhuth argued that Busch was not actually antiSemitic, citing one occasion on which he wrote about an
innocent Jew hanged for a crime committed by Christians.
Moreover, in an edition of Busch that he knew would beread by children, Hochhuth said that he omitted
depictions of Jews, “so that German children would not
mock the Jews.”13
Hochhuth’s usual response to charges of antiSemitism was: “Whoever reads my play and still
maintains the opinion that I am an anti-Semite, or Nazi, orCommunist, that person cannot be answered.”14 He hasrecalled “with grief” the visit to his parents’ house during
the war of a Jewish woman married to a cousin. “She wasvery sweet to us and grateful,” but when she returned
home she committed suicide upon being called in by the
Gestapo.15 In fact, Hochhuth has described the main
thesis of The Deputy as an accusation of Pius XII and the
Church for not having done what they could have for the
Jews.16

How then does one account for the anti-Semitism of
The Deputy? The most logical conclusion is that it was
introduced by the strongly anti-Semitic KGB. AntiSemitism permeated the Kremlin in those years, and theplay fit perfectly into the spirit of West German andSoviet policy at that time.
Given the Jewish backgrounds of both Marx andLenin, as well as the claimed equality with which a
communist society would treat all people, many Jews
were attracted to both communist ideology and to theSoviet Union, and many prospered there—for a while.
When Stalin took over and sought to solidify his power byengaging in political necrophagy, fostering anti-Semitism
suited his needs. Perhaps this was an honest reflection of
his beliefs—after all, he was perfectly willing to throw inwith Hitler, and he continued persecuting Jews throughout
his reign—but it also served his political needs. AntiSemitism has continued to be a feature of Russian society,though there are occasional ebbs and flows.
Just months before The Deputy was allegedly born, I
ended my assignment as acting chief of Romania’s Trade
Mission to West Germany and head of Romania’s
intelligence station in that country. There was no longer
much open or official anti-Semitism there. The last of thethirteen Nuremberg Trials (“The High Command Trial”)
had ended a couple of years earlier, but the hunt for Jewhaters continued with ferocity, and even unrepentant antiSemites no longer dared to express their hatred for Jews

in the Western sphere.
Assigned as a diplomat to West Germany, I was privy
to various tales about violence directed at anti-Semites.
One case was later documented by Benjamin B. Ferencz,
the chief prosecutor for the United States Army at the
Einsatzgruppen Trial in West Germany.17 In a 2005
interview, Ferencz revealed that during the early postwar
years, the US Army used to deliver low-ranking Nazi
suspects to Displaced Persons Camps for the purpose of
having the suspects executed by the so-called Displaced
Persons (DPs). According to Ferencz:
I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to thesteel gurney of the crematorium. They slid him in the oven,turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again,
and put him back in until he was burned alive.18

It seems most unlikely for Hochhuth, a sane, young,and entirely unknown playwright who lived in that postNazi Germany, and who was only fourteen when the war
came to an end, to have openly expressed the kind of antiSemitic elements that are found in the original version of
The Deputy. Far more likely is it that those anti-Semitic
touches were inserted by Soviet intelligence operatives
who truly felt that way.
In 1960, when I returned from Germany, there was astrong anti-Semitic attitude both in the Kremlin and at the
top of the KGB’s intelligence community. Jews werebeing removed from the KGB. The Romanian DIE and its
mother organization, the Securitate, were also in theprocess of quietly removing them.
Khrushchev loathed Jews even more than Stalin did.
“It’s in my blood—my serf’s blood!” I heard Khrushchev
say during his six-day vacation in Romania.19 On thatoccasion, Romanian ruler Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej
informed Khrushchev that the Israeli foreign intelligence
service was prepared to pay Bucharest secretly in dollars
for each Jew that would be allowed to emigrate. As far as
Dej knew, that was a first in the Soviet bloc, and he did
not have the courage to approve such a delicate operation
all by himself.
Initially, Khrushchev exploded in a deluge of
invectives against the “swindler jidani usurers” whobelieved “they could buy us the way they bought
America.” (Jidan was the worst Romanian pejorative for aJew, and Khrushchev relished using it.) During dinner,
however, the Soviet ruler changed his mind. He insisted
that Dej take products, not cash, from the jidani, so thateven if the operation eventually leaked out, it would notlook like a sale of slaves. Khrushchev’s choice of quidpro-quo barter object was livestock farms, as heconsidered himself an expert in the agricultural field.
“Pigs for pigs,” was the conclusion of General
Sakharovsky— the head of the all-powerful Soviet
espionage service, who had accompanied Khrushchev toBucharest. So Romania started getting pig farms from
Israel in exchange for exit visas for Romanian Jews.20
In the early 1970s, when I became the deputy head of
the DIE, General Sakharovsky—still my de facto boss—
took me on a tour of the infamous KGB interrogation
complex in Moscow, called Lefortovo, to see a secretexhibit entitled “A Hundred Years of War against
Zionism.” There, in that forbidding-looking prison built in
1881, I was shown the torture chamber used to extort
confessions from the “Jewish anarchists” seized by the
Okhrana (predecessor of the KGB) after Tsar Alexander
II was assassinated in 1882. I set foot into the officewhere Martyn Latsis, one of Feliks Dzerzhinsky’s
deputies, signed the documents authorizing the Cheka toshoot tens of thousands of “bourgeois Jews” who were“sabotaging the people’s revolution.” I saw the cell where
in 1938, the Cheka, now upgraded to GPU(Gosudarstvennoye Politicheskoye Upravleniye, or State
Political Directorate, a revealing name change), forced
the founder of the Third International (an international
communist organization), Nikolai Bukharin, to write aconfession of “dastardly crimes” committed on behalf ofAmerican Zionism.21
I also saw the cell where Swedish diplomat Raoul
Wallenberg, who had saved thousands of Jews from thegas chambers during World War II, had been secretly held
—and killed—by the KGB, after being kidnapped from

Hungary in 1945.
Over the years, the Russian/Soviet/Russian politicalpolice changed its name many times, from Oprichnina to
Preobrazhenskiy Prikaz, to Okhrana to Cheka, to GPU, to
OGPU, to NKVD, to NKGB, to MGB, to MVD, to KGB,
to MSB, to FSK, to today’s FSB. All the while, Lefortovo
prison remained unchanged, as a monument to theorganization’s unchanging hatred of the Jews.
In 1992, the “new” KGB of the post-Soviet Russia
arrested two Russian scientists of Jewish descent, Vil
Mirzayanov and Dr. Vladimir Uglev. They were sent to
Lefortovo. The charge related to their simultaneous
publication of articles in the Russian Moscow News andthe American press asserting that Russia was secretly
working to develop a nerve gas, in violation of nationallaws and international commitments.22 To help the “new”
KGB prosecute the case against these two “Jewish spies,”
Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin (a longtime communist and former Soviet official), signed a
retroactive decree in May 1993 that made the revelationsof the two scientists a crime.23
In May 1993, Will Englund, an Americancorrespondent in Moscow, was summoned by the same“new” KGB to be interrogated about his connections withthe two scientists. The Western world was astonishedwhen it learned that Englund was called to the infamous
Lefortovo, which for seventy-five years had been thegateway to communist firing squads and gulags. Even
more telling was the communist seal with hammer andsickle that still adorned the interrogation room.24

23
THE DEPUTY’SIDEOLOGICAL ROOTS

THE DEPUTY is just another Potemkin village. Its producer,
Erwin Piscator, matured politically and professionally inthe service of the Soviet Union, where all forms of thearts, including theater, were supposed to dish up the
Kremlin’s dezinformatsiya needs. Soviet composer Dmitri
Shostakovich explained: “By the late 1920s thehoneymoon with the Soviet government was over for
genuine artists. … In order to be in favor, to receive
commissions and live peacefully, one had to get into state
harness and plug away.”1 To be branded as one who did
not conform to the Soviet line could be lethal.2 “For many
years, the most gifted and sensitive of the Soviet poets,novelists and dramatists either were silent or wrote ‘forthe drawer’—secretly, or only for the intimacy of family
and trusted friends.”3
In April 1932, the Soviet government and theCommunist Party issued an epic decree for Soviet artists:“On the Reorganization of Art and Literary
Organizations.”
This decree placed artistic control into the hands of
two new groups: the Union of Soviet Writers and theUnion of Soviet Composers.4 Through these unions,
Stalin secured an unprecedented degree of control over
the arts and the artists.
Stalin strengthened and perfected the system of “creative
unions.” Within the framework of this system, the right towork (and therefore to live as an artist) comes only to those
officially registered and approved. The creative unions ofwriter, composers, artists, et al. were formed, beginning in
1923, as bureaucratic organizations with strictly definedranks and with equally strong accountability and constantcross-checking. Every organization had a branch of“security services,” or secret police, as well as innumerable
unofficial informers. … Any attempt to circumvent one’s
union ended badly: various forms of pressure andrepression were always ready. Moreover, obedience was
rewarded. Behind this well-oiled and smoothly runningmechanism stood the figure of Stalin, an inevitable
presence that often gave events a grotesque, tragicomiccoloration.5

That same year, on October 26, Stalin also coined theterm “socialist realism.”6 As described by a Soviet author:“Socialist realism implies an art imbued with communist
ideology, that is to say, its very core is a deliberate
purposeful struggle for the victory of communism, anevaluation of life in the light of communist ideals.”7 An
American scholar explained: “Socialist realism became an
officially imposed esthetic standard which every art in the
USSR, without a single exception, was forced to follow.”8
In order for a literary work to pass the test of socialist
realism, it had to coincide with the Kremlin’s interests
and to portray Soviet life in an optimistic manner,“showing ‘positive heroes’—miners overfilling theirproduction quotas, military heroes, or stalwart Soviet
women heroically and literally laying the brick and mortarof a new society.”9 Inappropriate poetry could lead to thepoet’s arrest.10 Stalin even had several painters shot.11
Ballet was required to embody the ideals of heroism,
duty, honor, comradeship, and other virtues of the new
Soviet citizen.12 The Soviets even took control over thedevelopment of circus performers.13
In early 1936, the Central Executive Committee andthe Council of People’s Commissars established an AllUnion Committee for Affairs of the Arts in the Council of
People’s Commissars. All theatrical productions, thecinema industry, and all institutions fostering music,
painting, sculpture, or any other form of art came underthe authority of this group. At each venue, the theatricaldirector and the artistic director had to prepare a yearlyrepertoire plan of all productions and submit it to thecommittee for approval. The committee also evaluatedeach new production after dress rehearsal.14
Stalin and Andrey Zhdanov, the party ideologue forcultural matters, determined the official attitude towardvarious plays, ballets, literature, and other art forms.
Zhdanov announced, “The central committee ofBolsheviks demands beauty and refinement frommusic.”15 Zhdanov argued that “the Soviet Army is
victorious, we are advancing on Europe, and Soviet
literature must be an aid in this, it must attack bourgeois
culture, which is in a state of confusion and decay.”
Zhdanov wanted to strike a blow at “harmful influences”
such as “the spirit of negative criticism, despair, andnonbelief.”16
Grigory Yevseyevich Zinovyev, chairman of thePetrograd City Soviet, ordered all the opera houses in thecity (today’s St. Petersburg) to be closed. He explainedthat the proletariat did not need opera houses. “They are aheavy burden for the proletariat. We Bolsheviks can’t
carry the heavy burden any more.”17 Stalin also shut
down at least one other opera house.18
One “typical episode” of the regime’s approach tothose who dared to defy it involved a popular
director/actor/composer named Vsevolod Emilyevich

Meyerhold. In 1938, his theater was shut down on Stalin’s
personal command, and “an anti-Meyerhold campaign
was smeared all over the pages of the press.”19 Later,
Meyerhold “disappeared without a trace in the years ofthe ‘great terror.’”20
Like everything else, radio was also heavily censoredin the Soviet Union. “Everyone knows that you can’t
appear on radio if your text hasn’t been passed by the
censor. Not one, but almost ten censors, each of whomsigns. If the papers aren’t signed, no one will let you neara microphone. Who knows what you might say to thewhole country?”21
Under this regime, many Soviet theatrical productions
intentionally promoted anticlericalism.22 For instance,
when originally produced, the ballet Paganini depicted atormented artist who sold himself to the devil in exchange
for perfection in the ability to play the violin. When
produced later, the choreographer purposely shiftedemphasis, “to make the true forces of evil in the plot to be
the Catholic Church, represented by black-clad hooded
figures who pierce Paganini with their violin bows while
a cardinal stands in the background, wielding a hugecross.”23 As author Mary Grace Swift explained:
Closely linked with this element, an antireligious strain
appears which tries to make religion look either silly orsinister, whether dealing with Moslems or Christians.
Figures representing religion—knights, monks, orcharacters enforcing Moslem customs—are depicted as
instruments of oppression against a heroine who stands for
all the bright, patriotic virtues of her particular nationalgroup.24

If the art in question did not serve the party’s interests,
it was banned. “Beginning in 1946, one Party resolution
after another was proclaimed, containing attacks onbooks, plays.”25 Moreover, reproduction of forbidden
books was made virtually impossible, because all theprinting presses were taken over by the state.26
Tikhon Khrennikov was appointed by Stalin toadminister Soviet music. In 1948, at the first Composers’
Congress, he proclaimed: “armed with clear Party
directives, we will put a final end to any manifestations ofanti-People formalism and decadence, no matter what
defensive coloration they may take on.”27 The congressunanimously condemned several leading composers forbeing “formalists.”28 This, of course, led to many
compositions praising Stalin and the Soviet Union. As
one composer said: “They sang about Stalin the eagle …;
I think there must have been some twenty thousand[songs], maybe more. It would be interesting to work out
how much money our leader paid out for songs about ourleader.”29“Stalin, who had a superlative appreciation of the
propaganda potential of art, paid special attention to film.
He saw the Soviet movies had a powerful emotionaleffect.”30 Stalin “wanted our film industry to put out only
masterpieces. He was convinced that under his brilliant
leadership and personal guidance it would do so.”31 He
did not hesitate to use his authority. “If he ordered a film
made, they’d make it. If he ordered them to stop shooting,they stopped shooting. That happened many times. If
Stalin ordered a finished film destroyed, they’d destroy it.
That happened more than once too.”32
The Soviets were also happy to use American art
forms to advance their cause in the United States. By the
1940s, American communists had fully embraced andsignificantly co-opted folk music. The American
Communist Party was essentially an agency of the Soviet
government. “Folk singers had become a ceremonial partof Communist Party meetings.”33 The effect that theywanted with the music was “national in form andrevolutionary in content.”34
Folk singers in the Soviet Union did not fare as well.
Native art was considered counterrevolutionary because,
like most ancient art, it was religious in nature. As such it
was rooted out in the 1920s and 1930s.35 In some cases,
this was done with great ruthlessness.
Since time immemorial, folk singers have wandered along
the roads of the Ukraine. They’re called lirniki andbanduristy there. They were almost always blind…. anddefenseless people, but no one ever touched or hurt them.
Hurting a blind man—what could be lower?

And then in the mid thirties the First All-UkrainianCongress of Lirniki and Banduristy was announced, and all
the folk singers had to gather and discuss what to do in the
future. “Life is better, life is merrier,” Stalin had said. The
blind men believed it. They came to the Congress from allover the Ukraine, from tiny, forgotten villages. There wereseveral hundred of them at the Congress, they say. It was aliving museum, the country’s living history. All its songs,
all its music and poetry. And they were almost all shot,
almost all those pathetic blind men killed.36

The folk singers were killed because collectivization
was under way, the Soviets had wiped out the kulaks as aclass, and these singers were singing songs of dubious
content. The songs weren’t approved by the censors; they
really could not even be submitted for approval. They
were not written down. “You can’t hand a blind man acorrected and approved text and you can’t write him anorder either. You have to tell everything to a blind man.
That takes too long. And you can’t file away a piece of
paper, and there’s not time anyway. Collectivization.
Mechanization. It was easier to shoot them.”37
Of course, by eliminating these bearers of oral
tradition, the Soviet leadership also wiped out asignificant part of their culture. “When they shoot a folk
singer or a wandering storyteller, hundreds of greatmusical works die with him. Works that had never been
written down. They die forever, irrevocably, because
another singer represents other songs.”38

Eventually, the Soviet leaders wanted to show theworld that they had native culture, so they invented a new
folk singer/poet. Dzhambul Dzhabayev’s poetry was
supposedly written in Kazakh and then translated into
Russian. Children studied his work in school. The only
thing was Dzhabayev did not write songs, and thetranslators did not read Kazakh. “The so-called
translations of the nonexistent poems were written by
Russian poets and they didn’t even ask our great folk
singer for permission.”39 Real oral tradition was replaced
by stories and songs that served the party’s needs, much
as false histories of Catholic leaders would replace thetruth about them.
In the 1950s, after Stalin’s death, Soviet artists were
often sent overseas to spread the Communist Party’s
message. In 1954, several well-known Russian performers
put on a series of concerts in England to inaugurate“British–Soviet Friendship Month.” Their performanceswere “reminiscent of the old prerevolutionary ‘meetings,’
for the spectators were urged to buy certain newspapers;
to begin certain societies; and the dancers performed
against a background of British and Soviet flags, sharing
the stage with various officials and members of the
diplomatic corps, including … the Soviet Ambassador.”40“To Marx, religion was an opiate of the people, andthe USSR theatrical world has stressed this concept.
Certain ballet productions have purposely made religion

appear both stupid and vile.”41 Of course, the choice of
productions was political, not artistic.
It is somewhat amazing that artists of the nation which
produced Swan Lake or Firebird would voluntarily produce
Native Fields or Tatiana without official urging. The
example has been cited where the Ministry of Cultureordered in 1958 that each opera and ballet theatre should
produce one contemporary ballet a year. If a theatre shouldhave other plans, the Party chief is on hand, in the theatre,
to see that such directives are enforced.42

There was no such thing as an independent journal in
the Soviet Union. As the Anti-Defamation League
explained in 1961, “Everything published in the USSR for
popular consumption is rigidly controlled by the state, andevery opinion expressed in a newspaper is equivalent toan official opinion.”43 One Soviet author complained:“tsarist censorship practices pale in comparison with thepolicy of the Soviet government.”44
Erwin Piscator and his framing of Pius XII in The
Deputy were products of this society.

24
ROLF HOCHHUTH

IN 1966, Erwin Piscator, who had transformed
Hochhuth’s eight-hour script about the Vatican into the
explosive play called Der Stellvertreter, departed thisworld. Rolf Hochhuth needed a new researcher, andDavid Irving came into his life. Irving was an English
writer who specialized in the military history of WorldWar II, and he became Hochhuth’s closest collaborator
and lifelong friend.
In 1969, during a visit to Germany, Irving met RobertKempner, one of the American prosecutors at Nuremberg.
Later, in a letter submitted to FBI director J. Edgar
Hoover, Kempner said Irving was a “young man, who
made a nervous and rather mentally dilapidated
impression,” and who expressed many “anti-Americanand anti-Jewish statements.”1 In a speech delivered in
Canada, Irving did indeed make a mentally dilapidated
impression, vociferously articulating his contempt andhatred for people who spoke about the Holocaust:
Ridicule alone isn’t enough; you’ve got to be tastelessabout it. You’ve got to say things like “More women diedon the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at
Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”
Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m
forming an association especially dedicated to all theseliars, the ones who try and kid people that they were inthese concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz
Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and Other Liars, AS-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but
you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve ourcontempt.2

Later Irving published Hitler’s War, a book he said
was aimed at cleaning away the “years of grime anddiscoloration from the façade of a silent and forbiddingmonument,” to reveal the real Hitler, whose reputation,
Irving claimed, had been slandered.3 Irving portrayed
Hitler as a rational, intelligent politician whose only goal
was to increase Germany’s prosperity.4 Irving faulted
Winston Churchill for the escalation of war,5 claimed that
Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust, and offered£1,000 to anyone who could find any written commandfrom Hitler ordering the Holocaust.6

In a footnote, Irving introduced the thesis that a letter
sent by the president of the World Zionist Organization,
Chaim Weizmann, to Neville Chamberlain on September
3, 1939, pledging to support the Allied war effort
represented in fact a “Jewish declaration of war against
Germany,” which therefore justified the German“internment” of European Jews.7 Irving’s anti-Semitism
went so far as to denounce The Diary of Anne Frank as aforgery.8
In 1967, a year after Hochhuth and Irving joined
together, they produced a new show titled Soldiers,
Necrology on Geneva. Like The Deputy, Soldiers also
dealt with dead people unable to defend themselves (or so
Hochhuth and Irving believed). The focal character wasanother strong anticommunist, Polish general Wladyslaw
Sikorski. During World War II, Sikorski took refuge in
London, joined the Allied forces, and became prime
minister in exile of Soviet-occupied Poland, commander
in chief of the Polish Armed Forces, and a staunch
advocate of the Polish cause. He was killed on July 4,1943, when his plane crashed into the sea immediately
upon takeoff from Gibraltar.
People around the world speculated that he had been
killed by Moscow, which considered Sikorski an enemy
because he had requested the International Red Cross toinvestigate the slaughter of thousands of Polish prisoners
at the Katyn massacre during the war. Stalin claimed thatthe Katyn atrocity had been committed by the Germans,
but Sikorski refused to accept Stalin’s explanation.
Therefore, on April 16, 1943, Moscow broke relations
with Sikorski’s government-in-exile, and Stalin labeled
Sikorski a traitor.9
According to Soldiers, however, Sikorski wasmurdered by British agents on the orders of Winston
Churchill. The play claimed that the agents entered theplane Sikorski was on and killed him (and others,
including his daughter, two members of Parliament, and adozen other innocent people) prior to takeoff. The alleged
reason was that Sikorski’s war with Moscow was creatinga problem for the Anglo-American-Soviet alliance. The
assassins then abandoned the plane. The pilot, who wasallegedly in cahoots with the killers, intentionally crashedthe plane (after taking special precautions for his personalsafety), making it look as though Sikorski had been killedby the impact. Hochhuth claimed that British agents later
killed the pilot to keep him quiet.
Time magazine called this theory “a tenuous personal
speculation indicative only of a common European
fascination with conspiratorial-plot theories of history.”10
A leading Polish literary critic called the allegations“insane.”11
At a press conference taking place at the Berlin
première of Soldiers, Hochhuth was asked to expand on
the “sources of his secret knowledge” about Sikorski’sassassination. Hochhuth claimed to have a wealth of
information, but he was evasive when asked about where
it came from. Sometimes it was from a retired British
intelligence man; other times it was from a Polish lady.
Central to Hochhuth’s case, of course, was that thesurviving pilot, Edward Prchal, had been in on theassassination. Hochhuth claimed that after five years of
painstaking research, he had “conclusive evidence” thatthe pilot had survived the crash but died at the hands ofthe “Old Firm” (meaning a front organization for British
intelligence) in a staged knife fight in Chicago. His theory
was that Prchal, although in on the plans, had been killedby the “Old Firm” to ensure that he would not reveal theplot.
In December 1968, Sir David Frost, the famous British
journalist, organized a television interview with the
producers of Soldiers, which had recently opened in
London. Frost had been hosting serious interviews withmajor political figures, the most notable being the one
with Richard Nixon, which was the basis for the 2006
play and 2008 film Frost/Nixon. Hochhuth declined toappear in Frost’s interview, citing his inability to speak
English (despite Frost’s offer of a translator), but David
Irving and theater critic Kenneth Tynan were there as partof what Frost called “the Hochhuth contingent.”
With persistence, Frost had located the pilot Prchal,
still very much alive in the United States. Much to thechagrin of the Hochhuth contingent, Prchal appeared in
the flesh on Frost’s stage during the television interview.
He said, “Mr. Hochhuth is producing a slander of the
century.”
According to Frost, “the credibility of the HochhuthTynan-Irving case went from bad to worse.” The
Hochhuth contingent maintained that the man who
appeared on the stage was an imposter. Frost proved that
he was indeed the surviving pilot portrayed in Soldiers.
After the show, Frost asked the guests to return for asecond show. Taping went so poorly for the Hochhuth
contingent that they tried to stop the second show frombeing broadcast. Eventually Prchal won a £50,000 lawsuit
against the playwright,12 and later investigation would
prove there was no substance to any of the wild claims in
Soldiers. Hochhuth’s biographer noted: “Hochhuth’s …
accusation resulted in a libel action brought by thesurviving pilot of the crashed aircraft which involved theauthor [Hochhuth] and the producers of the play in
London in a costly financial settlement.”13
A few perceptive people noted a similarity between
The Deputy and Soldiers, in that both plays slanderedfamous heroic figures who happened to be already dead.
Both plays also calumniated men who had been staunch
anticommunists.
Soldiers, like The Deputy, caused quite a controversy.
It was initially banned in England. It also led actor Carlos

Thompson—who had admired Hochhuth and was at firstinterested in helping bring the play to the stage andperhaps film—to write a book exposing the shoddy
research and ridiculous theories Hochhuth had set forth.
After concluding his research, Thompson summed up
how his attitude toward Hochhuth had changed. Sitting at
his desk and looking out the window at the Swiss Alps,
Thompson says he was:
… jolted to the final realization that my pin-up boy ofyesterday, the enlightened “conscience of our society” inwhom I had believed and who had shed light on theunimportance of my own writing—he, the “good” German
Geist, the spokesman of the new Germany, was dead. From
the ashes rose a man who asked me to stand before theworld press and perjure myself on his behalf.14

Thompson’s research showed Hochhuth as “semiparanoid” and all-too-eager to believe anything he wastold. Describing what he called a “sad example of
Hochhuth’s methods,” Thompson wrote about the“tangled gyrations of Hochhuth’s thinking,” adding thatthe playwright’s mind “worked along dangerously
greased rails.” Hochhuth was very quick to rewrite
sections of his play and even to eliminate characters, andhe would shift his premise based upon nothing more than(and often less than) a rumor.15
After a discussion with the British actor Laurence
Olivier and others about suggested changes to Soldiers,

including eliminating characters, Hochhuth readily
agreed. Olivier’s wife, Joan Plowright, who was present,
remarked: “There is one thing we all agree on, I’m sure.
We have never seen an author so little married to hiswords.”16 She was unaware that they may not have been
his words to start with.
Hochhuth originally claimed that Churchill had caused
Sikorski to be killed owing to the latter’s strong stanceagainst the Soviets, which was endangering Churchill’s
new alliance with Stalin. When an article in the Moscow
New Times (an undercover KGB magazine published in
English for Western consumption) made a different
argument, he immediately adopted the Soviet line andsuggested that Churchill had had Sikorski killed owing to
his pro-Soviet policies. Hochhuth did another flip-flop
when discussing the British government’s desire to
implicate a certain participant in the plane crash. He gaveinconsistent answers not only about his theories and thesource of his information, but even about why he wasliving in Switzerland instead of Germany. (Evidently he
was afraid of being sued in West Germany, although hehad been quick to sue others he believed had libeled him.)
Hochhuth’s research for Soldiers was sloppy at best,and his analysis was even worse. Julius Firt, one of many
witnesses interviewed by Carlos Thompson, said: “I find
it difficult to understand what Hochhuth is really after.
His play on the Pope was tendentious enough, but this

one, marshalling non-existent evidence to prove that
Britain killed Sikorski, is one big step further.”17 Polish
Prince Lubomirski, another witness, said: “Hochhuth had
nothing, and construes everything to his advantage.”18
Yugoslavian dissident Milovan Djilas (whom Hochhuth
tried to invoke when questions arose about his honesty)
said: “Hochhuth’s quotation of me is a complete
distortion.”19 Stanislaw Lepinowski said: “The Sunday
Times quoted Mr. Hochhuth and through him, quoted me.
What I had said to him was totally misrepresented.”20
Lepinowski went on to say that “after reading his play, I
find that it is the exact opposite of what he told me.”21
One witness said: “I have begun to ask myself if
Hochhuth does not suffer from delusions. He remembers
visiting me in my home, which he never did, andconversations between us that never took place.”22
Thompson wrote: “It was becoming difficult to follow
Rolf’s gyrations of theory-within-theory.”23 Another time
he wrote: “Rolf was beginning to tire. He was forgetting
his own invention.”24 When a witness came forth tocontradict his theory, Hochhuth attributed it to British
disinformation.25 Another time he suggested thatwitnesses were faking amnesia.26 Yet another witness
said that Hochhuth simply refused to consider the theory
that the Soviets were behind the general’s death.27
Responding to allegations from Sikorski’s countrymen
that undercut his thesis, Hochhuth said: “all the Poles inLondon lie.”28
When pressed on his sources, Hochhuth always
dodged the issue. Rather than providing witnesses ordocuments, he claimed to have deposited his proof in abank vault to be opened fifty years later. He said: “I knowthat in fifty years my play will be unassailable.” Those
fifty years will soon be up, but there is surely no one alive
today who expects Hochhuth to produce any newrevelations anytime in the future.
Anyone who carefully reviews Hochhuth’s allegedjustifications for the accusations that he has made must
conclude that he simply does not care about the truth.
Time magazine wrote of him:
One cut above a crank and several cuts below a thinker,
Hochhuth seems very much like those dedicated slaphappy
few who insist that Bacon wrote Shakespeare.29

Of course, perhaps he kept shifting his story andmisremembering facts because he did not write all theparts of his play. Moreover, there is no apparent reason to
suppose that Hochhuth behaved any differently whenwriting Soldiers than he did when writing The Deputy or
anything else.
In 1978, Hochhuth published Eine Liebe in
Deutschland (“A Love in Germany”), a novel about anaffair between a Polish prisoner of war and a German
woman in World War II, which became the play Juristen(“Judges”) and the film Ein Furchtbarer Jurist (“ATerrible Judge”). The novel stirred up a debate about theNazi past of Hans Filbinger, a high-ranking member ofWest Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic
Union and the sitting minister president of BadenWürttemberg.
Filbinger, Hochhuth’s target, was a lifelong Catholicand a strong anti-communist. He campaigned under theslogan “Freedom instead of Socialism.” Filbinger had
been a German Navy lawyer and judge during World War
II. Hochhuth’s writings asserted that Filbinger was
responsible for the death sentence given to the German
sailor Walter Gröger in a British prisoner-of-war campwhen the war was already over. According to Hochhuth,
Filbinger sentenced Gröger to death and then borrowed
twelve guns from the British for the execution. On thesepoints Hochhuth was demonstrably wrong.
The military records at the German Federal Archive,
Kornelimünster bei Aachen, document the following facts
relating to the Gröger case. The German sailor Walter
Gröger was serving in Nazi-occupied Oslo, Norway when
he tried to desert in December 1943. He was immediately
caught and consigned to various military prisons as hiscase dragged out. In early 1944, the German Navyplanned to sentence him to eight years imprisonment, but
superior officers in the German Navy, including thecommander, demanded the death penalty for him, after
reviewing his file. It was at this point that Filbingerentered the case as a Navy judge, but only to process thedecision that had already been made. On March 16, 1945,
still during the war, Gröger was sentenced to death fordesertion, and the sentence was carried out two hours
later.30
The storm over Hochhuth’s accusation forced
Filbinger to resign from office, but the debate dragged on
for the rest of Filbinger’s life. When he finally passed
away in 2007, Baden-Württemberg minister president
Günther Oettinger said:
There is no legal decision given by Hans Filbinger thatcaused a person to lose his life. And in the case of thoselegal decisions that are held against him, he either did nothave the authority to make the decision, or else he was notfree to make the decision that many people now allege hedid.

In response to this, Hochhuth called Filbinger a“sadistic Nazi” who long after the capitulation had
personally sentenced the sailor Gröger to death.
Two German newspapers said Hochhuth had lied. In
his response, which appeared on April 13, 2007, in the
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Hochhuth characterized theirstatements as “pure invention” and complained about theundermining of the “tragedy of the sailor Walter Gröger”
whom Hans Filbinger “personally ordered to be killed
while a British prisoner of war.” The online version of
Hochhuth’s article, entitled “The Liar,” was deleted by

the Süddeutsche Zeitung one day after it appeared, withthe following comment:
The writer Rolf Hochhuth’s claim that appeared in the
Süddeutsche Zeitung of April 13, 2007 (“The Liar”)—that
Filbinger had sentenced Gröger to be killed while he was a
British prisoner-of-war—is false. Hochhuth’s well-known
statement of 1978 that “even in a British prison camp
[Filbinger] went after a German sailor with Nazi laws,”
actually is based on the Petzold case… Hochhuth could not
be reached for comment.31

Hochhuth seems to have “confused” the Gröger casewith that of an artillerist named Petzold, but even he wassentenced to only six months prison, not death. Filbinger
was but one more victim of Hochhuth’s imagination.
The Deputy, Soldiers, and Eine Liebe in Deutschland
all became movies, making Hochhuth a very wealthyman. In Basel, Switzerland, he and his first wife,
Marianne, bought and lived in the famous house that had
belonged to the nineteenth-century German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche. When his career obliged him to moveto Vienna, Hochhuth lived a few hundred yards from theimperial Burgtheater, in an apartment on Burggasse in thehouse that had once been Sigmund Freud’s.32
Hochhuth has lived a life of extravagant luxury, but heseems to have remained “noticeably paranoid andnervous.” According to his friend and researcher, David
Irving:

Early in July 1966 … he came to England for what was toprove his one and only visit. I wrote a whole page profile ofhim for the Evening Standard. He stayed with us in
Paddington. Since my father was … occupying the guest
room … we bedded Rolf down in our drawing room for a
few days. At two o’clock one morning I had occasion to go
down and look for a file—Rolf jack-knifed bolt upright inbed, terrified and shouting with fear at this unexpected
intruder. “What is it? Who are you? What do you want?”
He was pathologically fearful for his own safety.33

Hochhuth was constantly worried that he, Irving, andThompson (while he was still working with Hochhuth)
would be targeted by British intelligence agents fromwhat he called “the Old Firm.” He said: “The men who
killed Sikorski still sit at the Old Firm. I am constantly
worried.”34 Thompson thought to himself, “And well you
must be, if you go about life in this fashion. How manylies had he told me already?”35

What do we really know about The Deputy’s purported
playwright, who set off an enormous storm of controversy
and was suddenly catapulted onto the world stage of fameand fortune? Rolf Hochhuth is generally described as avery leftist writer, but his statements about his beliefs areoften completely contradictory.
Hochhuth was born on April Fools Day, 1931, inEschwege, a small city in Hessen, which after World War
II would lie on the western side of the border dividing
West and East Germany. His father owned a small shoe
factory, and the family was middle-class and Protestant.
Rolf had been in a Nazi children’s organization(Jungvolk), but that was what all children did, and there isno indication that the family was particularly pro- or antiNazi during the war. He graduated from secondary school(Mittlere Reife) in 1948 but did not go on to complete theacademic Abitur (high school graduation).
Hochhuth reports that he attended a trade school tolearn the book business, but that he essentially educatedhimself as he went along. He eventually came to consider
himself something of an authority on postwar German
literature. As a young man he began writing poetry andshort stories. Between 1950 and 1955 he held jobs as an
assistant in various book-related businesses in several
West German cities, while auditing courses at nearby
universities and starting to write poems and stories.
Hochhuth has been generally disdainful of professorial
writers—those with an Abitur degree—but he developed ataste for exciting, well-written literature. In 1955 he got a
job with the very large Bertelsmann publishing house,working as a reader in their Lesering department (a sort ofbook-of-the-month club). He edited several books andstory collections, including a collection of the popular
Wilhelm Busch. Hochhuth claims that in 1959 his Buschedition sold more than a million copies, so the publisher

gave him a special three-month leave of absence, during
which time he worked on some of his own writing andtook his wife (the first of four) on a trip to Rome. It wason that trip that he claims to have met a secret, unnamed
bishop who gave him the information that inspired The
Deputy.
Hochhuth has said that as a young man he wasextremely upset when stories of the Nazi killings began tocome out, and he could not understand why so many good
Germans had done nothing about it. Nevertheless,
Hochhuth made a long partnership with, and did
everything in his power to protect, David Irving, afanatical denier of Hitler’s Holocaust.
Irving raised again his profile as a Holocaust denier in
2000, when he sued Deborah Lipstadt of Emory
University and Penguin Books over Lipstadt’s book
Denying the Holocaust. Irving complained that the bookaccused him of being “a Nazi apologist and an admirer of
Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of facts and tothe manipulation of documents in support of his
contention that the Holocaust did not take place.” Irving
said this was part of a “concerted attempt to ruin his
reputation as an historian.”
At trial, Irving invoked his correspondence with
Hochhuth (who called to lend moral support) as evidenceof his broadmindedness. The defense, however, rested on
the “truth of the matter asserted.” Legally, that more orless means “yes, we said it, but it’s true.”
Specifically, the defense argued that, “Irving is
discredited as an historian by reason of his denial of the
Holocaust and by reason of his persistent distortion of thehistorical record so as to depict Hitler in a favourable
light.” The British judge sided with the defendants:
I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his
falsification of the historical record is the product ofinnocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his
part. … [I]t appears to me that the correct and inevitable
inference must be that for the most part the falsification of
the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was
motivated by a desire to present events in a mannerconsistent with his own ideological beliefs even if thatinvolved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.

The New York Times proclaimed: “The verdict puts an
end to the pretense that Mr. Irving is anything but a selfpromoting apologist for Hitler.”
Irving was again in the news and in court when he wasarrested by Austrian authorities in 2005. According to theBBC, Irving was in Austria to “give a lecture to a far-rightstudent fraternity” when he was picked up on charges
stemming from talks he had given there in 1989. Other
sources also noted that at the time of the arrest, Irving was
returning from visiting Rolf Hochhuth.
Hochhuth defended Irving as he faced the charges. In
a newspaper interview he called Irving “an honorable

man,” a “fabulous pioneer of contemporary history,” and“much more serious than many German historians.” Hesaid descriptions of Irving as a Holocaust-denier were“idiotic.” This caused German newspapers and Jewish
groups to label Hochhuth an anti-Semite. In fact, theGerman publishing house Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt
cancelled publication of Hochhuth’s autobiography overthis matter. (Irving, by the way, pleaded guilty andreceived a three-year sentence.)
This was not the only time Hochhuth had defended
Irving. The playwright spoke very highly of him in his
memoirs. When critics asked how anyone could write
words of praise for someone like Irving, his answer was,
“Because I am Hochhuth.”
It is not easy to pin down where Hochhuth stands onanything. For many years he carried on an intensive
correspondence with the historian Golo Mann, who had
initially supported leftist politicians and wrote a favorable
review of The Deputy. In later life, Mann turned
politically conservative, and on September 22, 1978, hesent Hochhuth an insightful letter—in effect a farewell
letter, the break being caused by Hochhuth’s defense of
his anti-Semitic researcher David Irving. Mann explainedthat he did not have a clear grasp on Hochhuth’s politics,
but he noted a sympathy towards communism:I have never considered you a Communist, at least not in
the usual meaning of the word. What I have wonderedabout for a long time is that the thrust of your dramas andplays has constantly gone in one direction, which would atleast not be unwelcome to the Communists.36

Mann was perceptive.

25
A NEW LOOK AT THE
DEPUTYROLF HOCHHUTH’S CARELESS HANDLING of the facts in his
Soldiers show raised serious questions about thecredibility of his first play, The Deputy. Those doubts
further deepened in 1971, when General Karl Otto Wolff,
chief of staff to SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler andSS leader of German-occupied Italy, was released fromprison and rattled the whole premise of The Deputy. In no
way had Pius XII been “Hitler’s Pope.” In fact, Hitler had
regarded Pius XII as one of his main enemies.1
As Wolff finally revealed, in the fall of 1943 the
Führer had ordered him to abduct Pius XII from the
Vatican. Hitler blamed the pope for sabotaging his racialpurification of Germany and for overthrowing Mussolini.
He wanted the kidnapping carried out immediately. Wolff
informed Hitler, however, that the order would take atleast six weeks to carry out. Eventually, Wolff persuaded
Hitler that there would be a huge negative response if theplan were implemented, and the Führer dropped it.2
Documents later found in the Vatican’s Secret Archive
show that Wolff also managed to tip off the Holy See
about Hitler’s plan. Upon learning about it, Pius told his
senior bishops that, should he be captured by the Nazis,
his resignation would become effective immediately,
paving the way for a successor who would continue hisfight against the Nazis.3
A few months after Wolff’s revelation, KGB chairman
Yuri Andropov conceded to the Romanian DIE: “Had we
known then what we know today, we would never havegone after Pius.” By that, of course, he meant that, had theSoviets realized Hitler’s hatred of Pius would be so easy
to establish, they would not have framed Pius as “Hitler’sPope.”How did Moscow react to Wolff’s revelation?
Essentially by ignoring it, and by stepping up its efforts toframe Pius XII. Books and articles inspired by The
Deputy continued to make headlines in the West, trying toconvince readers that Pius XII was indeed “Hitler’sPope.” In fact, the slander against Pius XII continues torear its ugly head.

Today, however, a closer examination of The Deputy
through the magnifying lens supplied by Wolff’s
revelation and by documents and firsthand testimonies
leads to the inescapable conclusion that The Deputy was a
product of dezinformatsiya. One such proof can be foundin The Deputy’s treatment of the Katyn forest massacre.
In 1940 the Soviets, using German weapons andammunition, executed some twenty-two thousand Polishmilitary officers, policemen, intellectuals, and civilian
prisoners of war in and around the Russian town of
Katyn, near the city of Smolensk. The victims were thenburied in mass graves. During the Khrushchev years,
when Gen. Ivan Serov was the KGB chairman, theKremlin’s publicly proclaimed version of this incident
was that German soldiers had committed the murders.4
For a long time Germany and the Soviet Union
blamed each other for the Katyn massacre. In March
1946, at the Nuremberg trials, Goering’s defense tried tobring up Katyn, but the Soviet commission, led by thatmaster of Kremlin framings, Andrey Vyshinsky, protested
forcibly. Katyn was not discussed.5
Between 1939 and 1941, the brutal General Serov wasin charge of deportations in the Soviet-controlled Baltic
countries and Poland. He was the political police
commissar for Ukraine, and he was in charge of theexecution of thousands of Polish prisoners of war. At thattime, the party boss in Ukraine was Khrushchev, who wasresponsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Ukrainian peasants. He earned a nickname as “theButcher of Ukraine.”6
When Khrushchev ascended to the Kremlin, he
appointed Serov to head the KGB, and together they built
a deception operation to divert attention away from thebelief that the Soviets were responsible for the Katyn
massacre. Khrushchev ordered that a large memorial bebuilt in a small village named Khatyn (chosen for thesimilar spelling of its name), located near Minsk inBelorussia (now Belarus), in order to commemorate some
Soviets who had allegedly been killed there by theGermans.
Khrushchev fell from grace several years before the
Khatyn memorial could be completed, but it did
eventually become a pilgrimage shrine. Leonid Brezhnev
solemnly escorted President Richard Nixon to the
Belorussian Khatyn in 1974, but it was all in furtheranceof another framing.7 The British Daily Telegraph (July 3,1974) explained in an article entitled “Khatyn— AnotherHoax”:
President Nixon’s visit to the memorial in the Byelorussianvillage of Khatyn has caused a mistaken impression that
Russia has erected a memorial to the victims of the wartime
massacre of Polish officers in the Katyn forest. In fact,
Khatyn and Katyn are two entirely different places; Khatyn,in which the ‘kh’ is pronounced as the English ‘h’ is asmall village some 30 miles to the north-east of Minsk, thecapital of Byelorussia. Katyn, which is pronounced as
written, is a town about 15 miles west of Smolensk, aprovincial city in Russia proper. Khatyn is about 160 miles
west of Katyn. … The Russians have tried to erase Katyn
from maps and history books. The reference to it in the1953 edition of the Soviet Encyclopedia was dropped. …
No visitors are allowed to the area, and no memorial has
been erected. It was not until 1969 that the Russians
announced the unveiling of a “memorial complex” on thesite of the village of Khatyn. It was one of 9,200
Byelorussian villages destroyed by the Germans, and oneof 136 of which all the inhabitants were killed.

Soviet lying went on until October 13, 1990, when
Mikhail Gorbachev officially acknowledged Soviet guilt
for the Katyn murders.8
In 1963, when The Deputy was first published, theKGB was still struggling to persuade the rest of the worldthat the Soviets had not been involved in the Katyn
massacre. Hochhuth himself was certainly not in aposition to know anything about the KGB’s secret efforts
to cover up the massacre. The KGB framing experts
working on The Deputy would not, however, have misseda chance to score a point for their side in the text, and they
didn’t.
In the play, a Christianized Italian Jewish familyliving within sight of the pope’s residence is packing in
preparation for seeking asylum at a monastery. The father
and grandfather argue about the Katyn massacre, whichhas been in the news. The older man claims: “I know theGermans better than you … Stalin killed them.” The son
insists that the Germans did it, pointing out that “German
ammunition was found in their bodies.” Just then aGerman SS officer and two Italian Fascist militiamen
burst in and haul the family off to a labor camp.9 The
message intended by this scene, which is entirely
irrelevant to the play’s action, seems to be that you cannever trust the Germans and that they caused the Katyn
massacre. This message was surely of no particularinterest to Hochhuth, but Moscow would indeed havecared.
The historical aspects of The Deputy contain further
circumstantial evidence that the show was produced bydezinformatsiya experts. The “Sidelights on History”
published with the play seem to anticipate every anti-Pius
XII argument that would be made for the next forty years.
That fact, as much as anything else, seems to indicate acollective hand in authoring it. Moreover, one item in the“Sidelights” clearly betrays the Soviet hand and perfectly
illustrates how to construct effective dezinformatsiya:
Pius XII, a cold skeptic, also did not “believe” in history, as
we know from a conversation he had with Adolf vonHarnack. No doubt for this very reason he calculated in all
sobriety that he had a good chance to be canonized,
provided he helped the process along. Which he did. Not
only his unpopularity in the Vatican was to blame for the
sarcasms of Roman monsignori, who went so far as to saythat he had canonized Pius X and instituted proceedings
toward the canonization of Pius IX in order to establish
precedents for his own elevation.10

In the above paragraph, not only is the reader
gratuitously informed that Pius was “a cold skeptic,” but
we are also told that he was disliked by high-ranking
priests at the Vatican, and that he schemed to get himself
canonized. All of those allegations are not only
slanderous and completely unsourced, but they are
artfully clustered around the very respectable name of
Adolf von Harnack, a leading Protestant German
theologian who lived in Berlin after 1890, including from
1925 to 1929, when Pacelli was the nuncio there. Whether
factually verifiable or not, it is entirely plausible that thetwo religious leaders might have met at the time when
they were both living in Berlin. Harnack thus becomes the“kernel of truth” holding up the dezinformatsiya in this“Sidelights” paragraph.
In that pre-Internet era, Hochhuth was unlikely to have
had access to any private statements made by Adolf vonHarnack, who was a member of a prominent Berlin family
and who died before Hochhuth was born. General
Agayants’s researchers would, however, undoubtedly
have come across Harnack’s name when combing KGB
secret archives for ideas on how to smear Pacelli inconnection with his days in Berlin.
The one place from which the dezinformatsiya officers

would have started their research surely would have been
the voluminous reports from Arvid Harnack, whom the
KGB considered to have been its most important German
agent during World War II. Arvid lived in Berlin and was
Adolf von Harnack’s nephew. Originally recruited in the
1930s, Arvid lost touch with the Soviets during theirpurges, but he was reactivated on September 17, 1940, by
the newly arrived deputy station chief of Soviet
intelligence in Berlin, Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Korotkov,
who gave him the new code name of “Korsikanets.”
Arvid handled a loose network of some sixty agents
providing valuable economic and political intelligence.11
On September 7, 1942, Arvid was arrested by the
Gestapo, sentenced to death and executed three months
later.12
It is entirely unlikely that any private comments madeby Adolf von Harnack (who died in 1930) would havebeen available to Hochhuth. There might, however, havebeen reports in KGB archives from Arvid when he was
first recruited, naming for his Soviet handlers all his
family members and other people he knew—the kind ofroutine information new recruits are asked to supply tohelp their handlers direct their intelligence activities. The
Harnack family dinner table was known for its interestingguests and conversations, and Arvid might even haveboasted to the Soviets that his uncle had once met thepapal nuncio—or not; it would not have mattered for thepurposes of dezinformatsiya. The point is that Arvid’s
reports could very well have inspired General Agayants tocreate an “Adolf von Harnack” item for the “Sidelights.”
Almost any kind of slander could be tossed into such anitem, which would be read as conversational reportingthat needed no documentary sourcing.
In fact, the whole subject of precisely how Pius XII
became the focus of The Deputy is still intriguingly
nebulous. In an interview with Patricia Marx, firstbroadcast over the radio in New York in February 1964
and then printed in Partisan Review (Spring 1964),
Hochhuth enlarged on the genesis of his play. He started
with a disclaimer: “It all happened a long time ago, and it
is very hard for me to reconstruct exactly how it all
began.” He then said that he took some notes on Kurt
Gerstein, a Nazi officer who claimed to have tried to warnothers about the Nazi extermination plan for the Jews.
“My idea was to write a short story about him—quite along time ago,” said the playwright. He continued:
Later, however, in 1956, I met a man in Austria, who had
helped with the gassing in Auschwitz … and I readaccounts which referred back to this old subject. Then it
first became clear to me what the form of the play must be.
Also, at that time, the book The Third Reich and theJews, which contained the Gerstein report, was published.
And then, in 1958, a book appeared containing the
documents concerning the Vatican’s attitude toward thedeportation of Jews from Rome. … I cannot say more than

this. It is seven years ago. It all fitted itself together like amosaic.13

Hochhuth has never identified this “man in Austria,”
who was so important in the development of the play, justas he never identified a chatty “bishop” at the Vatican
who he would later claim gave him material on the pope.
(Nor, for that matter, did he ever identify the “retired
British Intelligence man” and/or the “Polish lady” whoallegedly gave him information for his second play,
Soldiers.14)
Hochhuth said he suddenly realized that this material
had the dramatic stuff of a play: “the argument of the playhardly had to be invented by me, but could be taken
directly from actual events—I mean, Gerstein bursting inupon the Papal Nuncio, had to be the dramatic climax of aplay.” The Marx interview continued with the following
exchange:
Miss M: In the beginning, then, the Pope wasn’t in the playat all?
Mr. H: Well, there had appeared, as I said, some documents
about the attitude of the Vatican, which already have avoice in the play. It simply developed in such a way thatthe most meaningful antagonist to [fictional Father]
Riccardo [Fontana] could be none other than the highest
moral authority—precisely because he makes a demand
which only the highest moral authority can make.15

“A fish starts smelling from the head” had been the
Kremlin’s slogan during the Cold War years, and its
propaganda machinery did everything it could to attack
the leaders of its main enemy, the United States. Moscow
portrayed President Harry Truman as the “butcher ofHiroshima,” painted President Dwight Eisenhower as a“shark” of the warmongering military-industrial complex,
and described President John F. Kennedy as an arrogant
millionaire who acted as if he owned the world. It was
clear that “the highest moral authority,” the pope himself,
not only had to appear on the stage; he had to be theplay’s main protagonist. In fact, Hochhuth repeated thephrase “the highest moral authority” three times in his
brief exchange with Patricia Marx, almost as if it were amantra that had been hammered into his head: The play’s
main protagonist had to be Pope Pius XII. The evidence,
however, suggests that this decision was made not by
Hochhuth, but by the play’s first producer, KGB influence
agent Erwin Piscator.

How an unknown, uneducated writer like Rolf Hochhuth
induced a famous producer like Erwin Piscator even tolook at his play is a question in and of itself. Hochhuth
claims to have shown his manuscript around his office.
His boss, business manager Karl Ludwig Leonhardt, wasimpressed enough to set it in galley proofs, but he wasalso a good enough businessman to check first with hisboss at Bertelsmann headquarters in Gütersloh. The latter
supposedly told Leonhardt that the book was too
provocative for them (they were very much a familyoriented publishing house). Leonhardt sent the galleys
over to Rowohlt, a far-left publishing house with strong
communist ties.16
Here is where one of the legends surrounding The
Deputy says that Piscator got his hands on Hochhuth’s
play. According to one of Hochhuth’s biographers, inFebruary 1962 “an unknown thirty-year old author called
on Piscator to discuss a play which their common
publisher thought might be of interest. This was Rolf
Hochhuth and the play Der Stellvertreter or The
Representative.”17 That would be a fairly straightforward
story.
Piscator, however, gives a more interesting version of
how they first met:
When in the spring of 1962 I was chosen as the artistic
director of the Freie Volksbühne in Berlin … a telephone
call reached me from Mr. Ledig-Rowohlt: he had received
a play from his friend, Karl Ludwig Leonhardt, acting as
intermediary, the first work of a young German author,
which was really more than “just” a play. … The play wassent to me, not in manuscript as usual, but in galley proofs,
set not by Rowohlt publishers [the eventual German
publisher of the play] but by a publisher who had to
acknowledge, after typesetting, that he lacked the courage

for publication.”18

Piscator also said: “No one had any idea how the play
could be staged, since it went beyond any and all
dimensions.”19
Piscator accepted the script presented to him. First, he
had to reduce the mammoth dimensions of Hochhuth’s
play from eight hours to two. Piscator wrote:
Of course, it is difficult to make a stage version of this“total” play, to cut a play out of the play. … In any event, I
have agreed with the Rowohlt publishing house that thebook will reach the public at the same time as the initial
Berlin production, as necessary underpinning andsupplement.20

Note that Piscator promised that he would have thebook ready for the public at the play’s opening,apparently including the “documentary supplement,”
meaning the lengthy background material published as S
idelights on History.21 According to a biography of
Piscator:
There was an entire year between the first contact with thetext, which Piscator received in the spring of 1962, and the
production. Piscator’s careful and hands-on staging led to
the fact that the feared scandal— at least in Berlin—did notcome about. … The producer of the Berlin opening had cut
the play in half, reduced the number of actors by half, andconcentrated the dramatically multi-faceted work entirely

on the attitude of Pope Pius XII toward the persecution of
the Jews.22

As he had promised, Piscator delivered the script—
including the Sidelights—to the Rowohlt publishinghouse in time for the book to be released together with theplay’s opening.
Hochhuth was “quite convinced that if Piscator had
not staged the play at the Freie Volksbühne, he would
never have had any of his works performed in the German
theatre.”23 Hochhuth said: “The Deputy is politics,”24 andin that play Piscator found his perfect vehicle for politicaltheater, a school of drama that credits Piscator for its very
name.
“Thanks to this play,’” Piscator said of The Deputy,“there is some point in working in the theatre.”25 It ended
as the kind of “epic, political, theatre such as I have beenfighting [for] for thirty years and more.”26 “I don’t think I
am devaluing those authors who worked with me in the
1920s if I say that the type of play I ideally had in mind atthat time is only now being written. … ”27
Of course, if this were truly an artistic endeavor, andnot a political operation, it should have bothered Piscator
that—as Hochhuth said— The Deputy violated the tenetsof its own theatrical genre.28 The presentation of Pius
focused on his personality rather than on history.29 The
play tried to make the case that Pius, if not necessarilypro-Nazi during the war, at least feared communism morethan he feared Hitler.30 There was, of course, nodocumentary evidence to back up such claims.31
Piscator’s play even introduced an allegorical figure, anameless doctor (likened by some to Mengele) who
played an important role in the dramatic action.32 That
was certainly outside the bounds of documentary theater.
In a letter Piscator wrote in August 1962, he told theset and lighting designer: “While the scenic elements
must be accurate in every detail, the setting must assist me
to go beyond documented reality.”33 As such, Piscatorand Hochhuth were not true to their own theatrical format.
Instead they simply used the play to further a politicalend.34
Piscator ultimately focused the play on Khrushchev’s
archenemy, Pius XII. He was framed as—what else?—aNazi collaborator. That is how all religious servants
disliked by the Kremlin were being framed during thosedays. The play ran in Berlin for only a couple of weeks,
receiving mixed reviews at best,35 and its view of Pius
XII was denied by virtually every person who had
firsthand knowledge of the pope’s wartime activities. But,
as previously seen, the Soviet dezinformatsiya machinery
further improved The Deputy, translated it into several
languages, gave it spectacular stage productions, andreproduced it as a popular film, all the while ensuring
huge publicity every step of the way.

Once again, Piscator had triumphed, while serving
Moscow’s purpose.36

26
KHRUSHCHEV’S POLITICAL
NECROPHAGY

KHRUSHCHEV’S POSTHUMOUS FRAMING of Pius XII as“Hitler’s Pope” grew out of a very secret Soviet“science,” which within the sanctum sanctorum of theSoviet bloc was known as political necrophagy. That
“science,” aimed at consolidating the seat of a newpolitical ruler, has become a way of life for the Kremlin.
Of course, the political heads of other countries also try to
blame their predecessors for anything that goes wrong,but in Russia the blame has a tendency to get ugly, evenlethal.
Khrushchev’s political necrophagy evolved from theSoviet tradition of sanctifying the “supreme” ruler.

Although the communists publicly proclaimed thedecisive role of “the people” in history, the Kremlin—and
its KGB—believed that only the leader counted. Change
the public image of the leader, and you change history, I
heard over and over from Khrushchev’s lips.
Once Khrushchev was enthroned in the Kremlin, hechanged Stalin’s posthumous image from a Russian saintinto a ruthless butcher. That changed Russia’s history.
Next, he changed the posthumous image of Pope Pius
XII, and that changed the history of the Judeo-Christianworld.
The “science” of political necrophagy was officiallyborn on February 26, 1956, when Khrushchev exposed
Stalin’s crimes in a four-hour “secret speech” at theTwentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist Party.1 The
world press was taken in by this “new honesty.” The New
York Times veteran correspondent Harry Schwartz wrote:“Mr. Khrushchev opened the doors and windows of apetrified structure. He let in fresh air and fresh ideas,
producing changes which time already has shown are
irreversible and fundamental.”2
Actually, Khrushchev’s “secret speech” was just acheap show intended to distract attention away from his
own image as a callous political killer who had approved
the infamous carnage at Katyn (where some fourteen
thousand Polish prisoners had been shot), and who had
become known as “the butcher of the Ukraine” because ofthe many hundreds of thousands of people executed there
while he was Stalin’s viceroy in Kiev.
A few days after Khrushchev had delivered his “secretspeech,” his new spy chief, General Aleksandr
Sakharovsky (former chief Soviet intelligence adviser toRomania), slipped the text of it to my foreign intelligence
service, the DIE. “This is the most secret document I haveever held in my hand,” Sakharovsky said—with a wink.
He asked the management of the DIE to pass the “secretspeech” to the Israeli Mossad, which had just begun
discussing a secret barter arrangement with the DIE toallow Romanian Jews to emigrate to Israel in exchange
for US dollars. The DIE obediently leaked the secretspeech to the Mossad, which at that time was closelycooperating with the American CIA.
In June 1956, Khrushchev’s “secret speech” waspublished by the New York Times, which acknowledgedthat it had gotten it from the CIA. There are many public
versions about how that speech ended up at the Times. I
knew Sakharovsky well, and there is no doubt in my mind
that he had also tried other ways to see that the speech
was published. The Mossad is famous for obfuscating its
operations. A few months later, however, Sakharovsky
thanked DIE management—he had certainly thanked
others as well—for having helped him to introduce
Khrushchev’s new “communism with a human face” tothe world. Soon after that, Khrushchev’s “secret speech”
was debated in all Communist Party organizations andmedia throughout the Soviet bloc.

The framing of Pius XII was Khrushchev’s second
political necrophagy operation. Not only did it accomplish
its original goal, but it also helped a suddenly crippled
Khrushchev to survive in the Kremlin—for a while. In
1962, the West German Supreme Court publicly tried
Bogdan Stashinsky, a KGB illegal officer, for killing two
Russian émigrés in West Germany. After being heard
initially with skepticism, Stashinsky convinced the court
and the German public of his sincerity and remorse. What
had started out as Stashinsky’s trial was soon transformed
into one against Khrushchev, who had decorated
Stashinsky for his work, as the world learned in great
detail what kind of man and mentality were running the
Kremlin.
The sanctified ruler, whose secret speech unmasking
Stalin’s crimes was fresh in everybody’s memory,
appeared to the Karlsruhe courtroom and the Free World
to be just another butcher—and a flat-out liar. It was not
at all true that after the Twentieth Party Congress
Khrushchev had stopped the KGB’s killings—he had
merely turned its cutting edge abroad. It was not true that
he wanted peaceful coexistence with the West—politicalassassination had clearly become a main tool of his
foreign policy. It was not true that Khrushchev wasinnocent—he had ordered the killings committed by
Stashinsky, and he had signed the decree rewarding theperpetrator with the highest Soviet medal.
At the end of his seven-day trial, Stashinsky stated, “I
wanted to give worldwide publicity to the way in which[Khrushchev’s] ‘peaceful coexistence’ really works inpractice.”3
Stashinsky did just that. He received the relatively
light sentence of eight years, since the West German court
declared him only an “accomplice to murder” andemphasized that the guilt of those from whom he hadreceived his orders was far greater. “Murder is now
carried out on express government orders,” the judge
explained. “Political murder has, so to speak, now
become institutionalized.”4
The flamboyant Khrushchev became a crippled ruler
gasping for air. The first pages of most Westernnewspapers were now dedicated to his crimes and lies. A
few months later, however, The Deputy came out.
Suddenly, the Western media turned their attention awayfrom Khrushchev’s crimes, focusing instead on Pius XII’s“crimes.”
Khrushchev may have been booted out, but his
political necrophagy survived. When Gorbachev camealong, he accused Brezhnev of having milked the country
for personal gain. Gorbachev even had some of his
predecessor’s relatives arrested, in an obvious attempt to

prove that the Soviet Union had been devastated byindividuals, not by Marxism. For his part Yeltsin accused
Gorbachev of “leading the country to ruin,” and Putin
blamed Yeltsin for the “demise of the Soviet Union, thegreatest catastrophe of the century.”
Political necrophagy—blaming and condemning one’s
predecessor in office—is a dangerous game. It hurts thecountry’s national pride, and it usually turns against its
own user. When Khrushchev died, Brezhnev decreed thathis predecessor had badly harmed the country’s historicalrespect for the Kremlin, and that he was not worthy of
being buried in the Kremlin Wall next to the other former
leaders. The Soviet government even refused to pay for
Khrushchev’s gravestone.
In 1972, when I visited Khrushchev’s grave in the
Novodevichy Cemetery, there was only a small,insignificant marker identifying it. In 1989, when
Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceauşescu was executed, theCourt that sentenced him to death decided that hisoutrageous cult of personality and his politicalnecrophagy had dishonored Romania’s traditional respect
for its leaders, and that he did not even deserve a coffin
and grave. Ceauşescu’s corpse was therefore dumped into
a bag and tossed away at a soccer stadium.

27
HITLER’S POPE, THE BOOKSTALIN HAD LONG SINCE DEPARTED from the battlefield;
Khrushchev was hors de combat for a few years and thenhe also died. His political necrophagy disappeared into
the fog of history, and the slanderous battle cry accusing
Pius XII of being “Hitler’s Pope” slowly faded into themists of time. The Kremlin—correctly, as it turned out—
was consumed with worry about problems that lay closer
to home, such as the rise of the Solidarity movement in
Poland.
On October 16, 1978, Cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyla —a Pole!—became Pope John Paul II. Andropov, the power
behind the Soviet throne, must have asked himself: Whatwould Stalin or Khrushchev do? An operation was
eventually mounted by Soviet military intelligence—defending the Soviet bloc was a military assignment—
through its friends in Bulgaria (as was established by an
official Italian investigation).1
On May 13, 1981, a young Turk named Mehmet Ali
Ağca—who proved to be a Bulgarian agent—shot andcritically wounded the pope as he was entering St. Peter’s
Square. The pope was struck four times and suffered
severe blood loss. Ağca was apprehended and later
sentenced to life in prison. Later, the pope famously
forgave Ağca for the assassination attempt. Italianpresident Carlo Azeglio Ciampi later pardoned the wouldbe assassin at the pope’s request and deported him toTurkey, in June 2000.
Several investigations pointed to the Soviets,2 but the
Kremlin avoided most blame for the shooting, so theydecided to take another run at the pope. This time theyturned to a dezinformatsiya operation not far removed
from the earlier effort to frame Pius XII with a phonyhistory. In his book The End and the Beginning: PopeJohn Paul II—The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years,
the Legacy, author George Weigel drew on newly opened
archives pertaining to the intelligence departments ofcommunist countries and revealed a fascinating story
about an effort to smear the new pope’s reputation.3
Using their counterfeiting experts, in 1983 Polishintelligence agents crafted a phony diary purportedly

written by a former lover of Cardinal Wojtyla. They used
the identity of a woman he would have known but who
was now, of course, dead. The plan was to leave the diaryhidden in an apartment where it would be found during a
police raid. Western reporters would assume it was
legitimate and report on it as such.
As it turned out, however, the agent assigned to plantthe fake diary got drunk and was involved in an
automobile accident. In an effort to avoid arrest anddetention, he explained who he was and exposed the plan.
One can only wonder what would have happened had thepope’s credibility been damaged early in his pontificate
by a disinformation scheme like this. Of course, thephony diary was only a variation on The Deputy and its“Sidelights on History” section.
Soviet bloc intelligence agents also conducted phonyletter-writing campaigns against the pope. These hatchetjobs were often complemented with threats and blackmailoperations directed against him. Pope John Paul’s bodyand his reputation survived these attacks. The Soviet bloc
did not survive, thanks in part to John Paul’s support for
Solidarity. The Kremlin’s war on the Vatican again
melted into the background.
In 1999, the fairly dormant question of Pope Pius
XII’s alleged support for Hitler’s persecution of the Jews
suddenly generated renewed interest with the publicationof John Cornwell’s book, Hitler’s Pope: The SecretHistory of Pius XII. The thesis of Cornwell’s book wasthat Eugenio Pacelli was a single-minded Vatican lawyer
and diplomat who, from the earliest part of his career, set
out to establish the absolute authority of Rome over
Europe’s Catholic populations.
There is no hard evidence that Cornwell wasconnected with the Russian intelligence services; theirarchives are still sealed—some 29 billion pages are
hidden away in them. Nevertheless, Cornwell resorted topolitical necrophagy. He used Khrushchev-style tactics offraming and dezinformatsiya to distort the historical truth
about Pius XII. The flyleaf to the cover of the American
edition boldly declares a hard-hitting new war on thememory of Pius XII:
Hitler’s Pope is the previously untold story of the man who
was arguably the most dangerous churchman in modern
history: Eugenio Pacelli, Pius XII, Pontiff from 1939 to
1958 and long controversial as the Pope who failed to
speak out against Hitler’s Final Solution. Here is the fullstory of how Pacelli in fact prompted events in the 1920sand ‘30s that helped sweep the Nazis to unhindered power.
… In 1930 he negotiated a treaty with Hitler, the Reich
Concordat, which ensured that the Nazis would rise
unopposed by the most powerful Catholic community inthe world—sealing, by Hitler’s own admission, the fate of
the Jews in Europe.

There we have it. In Cornwell’s view, Pius not only
failed to speak up for the Jews; he was in fact responsiblefor Hitler’s rise to power and for the whole Holocaust.
The flyleaf continues, claiming that Cornwell provides“striking new evidence” that Pius XII “had a personal
antipathy toward the Jews,” and stating that Cornwelldraws “on research from secret Vatican and Jesuitarchives made available only to the author.”
The Vatican has examined and refuted the outrageous
claims Cornwell makes, as my coauthor (Rychlak) has
scrupulously documented and discussed in his book,
Hitler, the War, and the Pope. Thus, the reader’s attention
in this book is called to only a few significant points.
Those points demonstrate how Cornwell tried to revive
the Kremlin’s war on Pius XII by using typical KGB
disinformation means and methods.
To support his conclusion that Pius was “Hitler’sPope,” Cornwell selectively edited quotes from Western
publications, a technique widely used by the “science” ofdisinformation. By this method, a clever writer can turn aquotation into the exact opposite of what was originallyintended. To see how this works, let us take a look at aremarkable statement quoted in the introductory materials
to Hitler’s Pope. Cornwell offers a supposed quotationfrom Thomas Merton, a well-known contemplative monk
whose writings have inspired many people. In Cornwell’shands, the quotation reads:
Pius XII and the Jews … The whole thing is too sad andtoo serious for bitterness … a silence which is deeply andcompletely in complicity with all the forces which carry out
oppression, injustice, aggression, exploitation, war.

This seems to be a shocking condemnation of the popefrom an esteemed Catholic thinker. If Merton had written
this, it would indeed give one pause. But Cornwellmanipulated a text by Merton to create this quotation.
(The Sulners, who fabricated the documents used to frame
Cardinal Mindszenty, would have been proud!) Since
Cornwell gives no citation for this Merton quote(although he did give references for the other two lesscontroversial quotations used on the same page), it was
not easy to document his trick.4
Below is the complete statement, which was written
by Merton in his personal journal, and which is acomplaint that he himself had been ordered not to publish
his essay on nuclear war. The “silence” about which hecomplained was the “silence” that had been imposed uponhim. It was unrelated to Pius XII. Here is Merton’scomplete text, with the parts extracted by Cornwellhighlighted in italics:
A grim insight into the stupor of the Church, in spite of allthat has been attempted, all efforts to wake her up! It all
falls into place. Pope Pius XII and the Jews, the Church inSouth America, the treatment of Negroes in the US, theCatholics on the French right in the Algerian affair, theGerman Catholics under Hitler. All this fits into one big
picture and our contemplative recollection is not very

impressive when it is seen only as another little piece fitted
into the puzzle. The whole thing is too sad and too serious
for bitterness. I have the impression that my education is
beginning—only just beginning and that I have a lot moreterrible things to learn before I can know the real meaningof hope.
There is no consolation, only futility, in the idea that one
is a kind of martyr for a cause. I am not a martyr foranything, I am afraid. I wanted to act like a reasonable,
civilized, responsible Christian of my time. I am notallowed to do this, and I am told I have renounced this—fine. In favor of what? In favor of a silence which is deeply
and completely in complicity with all the forces that carryout oppression, injustice, aggression, exploitation, war. In
other words silent complicity is presented as a “greater
good” than “honest, conscientious protest.” It is supposed
to be part of my vowed life, it is for the “Glory of God.”
Certainly I refuse complicity. My silence itself is a protest
and those who know me are aware of this fact. I have atleast been able to write enough to make that clear. Also I
cannot leave here in order to protest since the meaning ofany protest depends on my staying here.5

Cornwell selected the phrases that are italicized above,and linked them with ellipses. This is more than academic
fraud. This is disinformation at its best.
Another KGB disinformation technique used in
Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope is revealed by the book’s cover.
The dust jacket of the original British edition represents adeliberate and nasty deception. The cover is a photographshowing Nuncio Pacelli leaving a reception given forGerman President Hindenburg in 1927. The caption givenon the inside of the dust jacket of the British edition,
however, dates the photograph as having been taken in
March 1939.
This is not an honest mistake. This is intentional
deception for a purpose. By March 1939 Hitler was
Führer, and Pacelli had been elected pope on March 2,
1939. A naïve reader who had fallen for Cornwell’sslander could easily conclude that Pius XII rushed off tovisit Hitler as soon as he was elected. That never
happened—neither Pacelli nor Pius XII ever met Hitler.
This dramatic photograph shows Nuncio Pacelli,
dressed in formal diplomatic regalia (which could easily
be confused with papal garments), as he exits a building.
In front of him stands a chauffeur saluting and holding
open the square-looking door typical of old-fashioned,
ceremonial automobiles from the 1920s. On either side of
the nuncio stand soldiers of the Weimar Republic. Those
who do not recognize the differences in uniform details
could easily confuse the Weimar soldiers with Nazi
soldiers because of their distinctive helmets widely
associated with Nazi-era German soldiers.
The American edition of Hitler’s Pope (and its later
paperback version) has the correct date—1927—for thecover photograph, but the picture is cropped to eliminate
two important points of reference: the soldier nearest thecamera and the square door of the automobile. Both of
those images provide clues to the true date of this photo,which Cornwell apparently wanted to avoid—he has
admitted that he approved the photo.6 In the American
edition, the photo’s background has also beensignificantly darkened and blurred, making it unlikely forthe observer to notice that the remaining soldier iswearing a Weimar uniform, not a Nazi one. The
chauffeur, with the cropping of the car door and theblurring, takes on the appearance of a saluting SS officer.
It all helped Cornwell establish his thesis.
The Soviet political police always had a large
component that did nothing but manipulate photographs,
as counterfeited photos were a favorite means of framing
people—both for demotion and for promotion. During
Stalin’s reign, unwanted people were not only killed but
also removed from photographs where their presence wasno longer desired. In the early 1920s, the Soviet media
abounded with pictures showing Lenin together with
Trotsky—Lenin’s closest collaborator. After Lenin died,however, the image of Trotsky was replaced in all thesepictures by that of Stalin. Nikolai Yezhov, at one time thechief of the Soviet political police, suffered a similar fate.
A very popular figure during the great purge, he was often
seen in pictures together with Stalin. After Yezhov
disappeared from the political scene, however, thepictures were doctored to show Stalin without Yezhov.

After I was granted political asylum in the UnitedStates, Ceauşescu sentenced me to death both by firingsquad and in public opinion. In March and April 1978,
during Ceauşescu’s last visits to the United States and to
Great Britain, the Romanian media were full of pictures
showing me together with Ceauşescu and his wife at theWhite House and at Buckingham Palace. After I defecteda few months later, my image disappeared from the copiesof all those pictures. An example can be seen in my book
Red Horizons, which reproduces the same photograph as
it was published first before and then after being
doctored.7
The dezinformatsiya continues. In the preface to hisbook, Cornwell says that the idea of writing a book on
Pius XII occurred to him “several years ago … at a dinnerwith a group of postgraduate students,” where there was a
discussion on how “he had not done enough to save theJews from the death camps.” Claiming that his original
intention was to portray the pope as a strong spiritualleader, Cornwell set off for Rome to conduct somebackground research.
While Cornwell was granted access only to the
Vatican’s open archives, he claimed that his book was
based on “previously unseen material.” He also said hespent “months on end” in a “windowless dungeon beneaththe Borgia Tower,” while a “silent factotum brought him

Pacelli’s files, which had been hidden from view for
decades.”
In fact, the files were simply in an undergroundstorage vault; moreover, they were not secret, and they
covered the years 1912–1922, before Hitler was running
Germany and while Pacelli was nuncio to the Kingdom of
Bavaria. Vatican records show that Cornwell visited thosearchives only from May 12 to June 2, 1997, that he did
not come every day, and that he often stayed for very
brief periods of time. Like Hochhuth, Cornwellapparently needed the Vatican merely as window-dressing
for his own story. He later admitted that he was there only
three weeks and that the files were not secret—but by
then the damage was done.8
In his preface, Cornwell claimed that by mid-1997,“nearing the end of my research, I found myself in a state
I can only describe as moral shock” over the evidence that
Pacelli had an “undeniable antipathy toward the Jews”
and that his “diplomacy in Germany in the 1930s”
betrayed groups that “might have challenged Hitler’s
regime and thwarted the Final Solution.” Inevitably one
recalls Hochhuth’s elusive bishop at the Vatican, who
supposedly opened Hochhuth’s eyes with gossip about
Pius’s failings.
Hochhuth’s criticism of Pius is chamomile tea,
however, compared to Cornwell’s knockout slug ofwhiskey. Cornwell’s mention of the Borgia Tower is alsoa nice—and irrelevant—touch, bringing to mind all theevils of the Borgia popes. One is again reminded of
Hochhuth, in this instance with his mention of the Katyn
massacres. Such touches are typical of KGB
dezinformatsiya operations. As for Cornwell’s research,his book relies mainly on secondary sources, such as
Carlo Falconi’s The Silence of Pius XII, which was basedon documents counterfeited by the communist
government of Croatia. When he does use original
documents, he misrepresents them.9
In his books Hitler, the War and the Pope andRighteous Gentiles, Rychlak shows how Cornwell cited“original documents” to build his credibility, even though
they did not actually support his case. This is the same
technique used by the KGB, and it explains why my DIE
was asked to keep producing documents, even though
they were not incriminating.
In his original preface to Hitler’s Pope, Cornwellmakes a point of saying that, as a Catholic who had
returned to the fold after an absence of twenty years, heoriginally wanted to write the full story of Pius XII so thathis “pontificate would be vindicated.” In the preface tothe 2008 edition, Cornwell expands on this statement,saying he “embarked on this biography of Pius XII with
an open mind, in fact with a large measure of sympathy.”
After all his research, however, he became convinced that
Pius XII “was not a saintly exemplar for futuregenerations.”
The KGB’s dezinformatsiya specialists in framing
were experts at this old rhetorical device: If you reallywant to slander someone, just pretend you werecompletely impartial, even sympathetic, when you started
your investigation into his character, and then proclaim
your deep regret over being forced to admit his faults. Or
vice versa. Almost all books on Ceauşescu published in
the West—with money from my Romanian DIE—started
with the author’s supposed “belief” that he was a Sovietstyle communist, and ended by presenting him as auniquely Westernized one. Hochhuth used the samedevice in The Deputy, when he said in an interview after
his play opened that he had originally simply intended towrite a sympathetic story about Kurt Gerstein and his
difficulties in getting the papal nuncio in Berlin to listen
to his tales about the Nazi killings. It was only later that
Hochhuth (or Piscator) introduced a coldly cynical pope
into his play.10
A good example of Cornwell’s research can be foundin his discussion of a concordat signed by the Vatican andSerbia in 1914. Cornwell alleges that a power-driven
Pacelli insisted on the concordat, despite the risk of war
and over Vienna’s objections, and that the concordat infact led to World War I. Cornwell cites leftist newspapers
and writers as the sources for his conclusions, but in fact,
historians agree that the concordat had no effect on theoutbreak of war whatsoever. In discussing this concordat,
Cornwell ominously mentions that all the various
materials were “once in the keeping of Eugenio Pacelli.”
There was, however, nothing sinister in that, because as a
junior member of the Vatican team handling thenegotiations it was Pacelli’s job to take notes and keep the
papers.
The most revealing insight into Cornwell’s researchmethods lies in the fact that, citing a secondary source, hewrote that the papal nuncio in Vienna had warned Pacelli
about the risks posed by the concordat. Remarkably,
Cornwell made no mention of the original document fromthe Vienna nuncio, which Cornwell is shown to havesigned out while doing research in the Vatican archives,
and which directly contradicts the statement in his book.11
Eventually Cornwell qualified his criticism of Pius
XII’s handling of the roundup of Roman Jews in October
1943, and he also acknowledged the reality of the threatof an invasion of the Vatican, which he had previously
downplayed. In 2008, however, Penguin Press released anew, paperback edition of Hitler’s Pope. The only
apparent change was a new preface in which Cornwell
tried to withdraw many of these qualifications.
In the new edition, Cornwell still argues that Pacelli
was “an ideal church leader” for Hitler to exploit, saying:“I am not inclined to alter this view despite the manycitations of Pacelli’s alleged deeds of mercy toward Jews

and others, or his private criticism of Hitler, or his
cautious, even-handed reproaches against both the Axis
and the Allied powers.”12 According to Cornwell, Pacelli
was a vain, beady-eyed, overwhelmingly ambitious
careerist who dominated Vatican policy long before he
was elected pope. The author tries to focus on the early
1930s, when Secretary of State Pacelli “entered into a
series of negotiations with Hitler’s government,
culminating in the Reich Concordat.”13 He also says that
Pacelli’s postwar claim to have “on various occasions”
condemned the “fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the
Hebrew people,” is “a blatant lie.”14This shifting from one argument (after it has been
proven weak) to another, and continuing to do thatwithout ever fully backing away from the original
argument, is typical of a KGB dezinformatsiya operation.
Promoters and supporters of The Deputy did the same.
That does not necessarily mean Cornwell was an agent of
the Kremlin, but it does mean that in addition to using
their moniker for Pius XII, he employed the same
methods that they did.

28
ANDROPOV’S COCAINE“[DEZINFORMATSIYA] WORKS LIKE COCAINE,” KGB chief
Yuri Andropov used to preach. “If you sniff it once or
twice, it may not change your life. If you use it every day,though, it will make you into an addict—a different man.”Turning the communist leader of Romania, NicolaeCeauşescu, into the West’s most favorite tyrant was basedon Andropov’s cocaine theory. “We should plant theimage of the new Ceauşescu in the West like opium poppy
seeds, one by one by one. And we should water theseseeds day after day, until they bear fruit,” Andropov told
me in 1972, when the KGB boss had decided to makeCeauşescu a box-office success in the West, in a test run
preparatory to trying the same trick with the ruler in the

Kremlin. (Does anyone still remember the frenzy thatgreeted Mikhail Gorbachev on his trips to the West?)
Eventually, a “new” Ceauşescu emerged from theseeds planted in the West by the DIE and the KGB, just as
a “new” Pius XII had emerged from The Deputy. Nobody
in the West knew the real Ceauşescu, just as the West’s
new Cold War generation was entirely unaware of Pius
XII’s heroic struggle against the Nazis before and during
World War II. Moreover, most public officials in theWest were unfamiliar with the Kremlin’s highly secretdezinformatsiya and framing operations.
On Christmas Day 1989, however, Ceauşescu and hiswife were executed for genocide. Few looked back to
speculate about how they had been so misled. By thattime, piles of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika: New
Thinking for Our Country and the World, whichapparently not many people read with care, had taken theplace of Ceauşescu’s memoirs in the bookstore windows.
Gorbachev’s book proposed a new utopia. The Soviet
Union would now be a “Marxist society of free people.”
Life would be materially rich and spiritually uplifting.
The people would attain their “democratic rights” and betreated with “trust and respect,” and there would be“equal rights for all.” Now the new man in the Kremlin,“Gorby,” was touted as a nascent democrat and politicalvisionary. So much for institutional memory.

The framing of Pius XII was the framing of Ceauşescu
and Gorbachev in reverse. Over the years, the pro-Nazi
image of Pius XII, which had been seeded in the West by
the Kremlin and watered by KGB agents and Westerncommunists, generated a flurry of books, movies, andarticles denigrating the heroic pontiff and helping theframing to succeed.
Authors, including Garry Wills,1 James Carroll,2Susan Zuccotti,3 Michael Phayer,4 David Kertzer,5 andRobert Wistrich,6 swallowed the Kremlin’s framing andwrote highly distorted books about Pius XII. John
Cornwell, who published the utterly defamatory Hitler’sPope, came back with a second book touching on the
topic.7 Robert Katz, author of two books promoting the
Kremlin’s lies about Pius XII back in the 1960s, authoreda new book that largely combines his earlier laments.8
Daniel Goldhagen combined the worst accusations madein all the other books and launched a broad-based attack
on Christianity itself.9
Like Cornwell, many of these authors selectively
edited real quotations in order to transform positive
information about Pius XII into negative. Here is one
example from Suzan Zuccotti’s book Under His VeryWindows. Pursuant to Pope Pius XII’s request, Luigi
Cardinal Maglione, the Vatican’s secretary of state, met tolodge a protest with German ambassador Weizsäcker after
the notorious October 16, 1943, roundup of Jews inRome.10 Weizsäcker was known to be a friendly voice
within the German leadership in Rome, and he was
embarrassed about the Nazi treatment of the Jews.11
Cardinal Maglione began his memo about the meeting by
writing:
Having learned that this morning the Germans made a raid
on the Jews, I asked the Ambassador of Germany to cometo me and I asked him to try to intervene on behalf of theseunfortunates. I talked to him as well as I could in the nameof humanity, in Christian charity. The Ambassador, whoalready knew of the arrests, but doubted whether it dealt
specifically with the Jews, said to me in a sincere andmoved voice: I am always expecting to be asked: Why do
you remain in your position?

Zuccotti deleted the nonitalicized clauses above,
thereby eliminating the cardinal’s first two express
references to the victims being Jewish. She also omitted
the entire concluding paragraph, which recounted
Maglione’s last words to Weizsäcker:
In the meantime, I repeat: Your Excellency has told me thatyou [Weizsäcker] will attempt to do something for theunfortunate Jews. I thank you for that. As for the rest, I
leave it to your judgment. If you think it is more opportune
not to mention our conversation [to the German highcommand due to fear of retaliation], so be it.12

So, even though Cardinal Maglione referred explicitly

to “Jews” three times, Zuccotti’s readers never saw thosereferences. Similarly, Zuccotti quoted a report written by
Nuncio Valerio Valeri to Cardinal Maglione, dated
August 7, 1942. This report related to the deportation ofJews from France to unknown areas, probably in Poland.
In her quote, Zuccotti deleted the crucial first line ofValeri’s report, where he mentions that he had used his
position to intervene frequently for Jews in the name ofthe pope.13 This testimony, which would be hard to rebut,
was simply omitted.
Zuccotti even mischaracterized Pius XII’s firstencyclical, Summi Pontificatus, saying that it “nevermentioned Jews. Indeed, despite references to the unity of
the human race, it seemed to single out Christians, or
perhaps Catholics, for special consideration.”14 In fact,
Pius did expressly use the word “Jew” in the context of
explaining that there is no room for racial distinctions in
the Church.15
This flurry of new lies supporting the originalframing’s lies about Pius XII has generated new
allegations, many of which are hilariously inconsistenteven with the earlier insinuations. Eventually, theargument reached beyond the pope and the Catholic
Church, challenging the very foundation of Christianity,
the New Testament itself.16 Of course, as Rabbi David
Dalin has noted, many of the critics are not honestly
seeking the truth; they are instead distorting the truth inorder to influence the future of the Catholic Church.17
Too many stories about Pius XII have not been
properly traced back to the original source—just as
nobody ever bothered to check out Ceauşescu’s sudden
love affair with democracy. In his book Constantine’s
Sword, for instance, excommunicated former priest James
Carroll advanced a supposed deathbed condemnation of
Pius XII by Pope John XXIII.18 This is another repeated
lie that has become the truth. No eyewitness has evercome forward to support Carroll’s story. The Postulator ofJohn XXIII’s Cause for Canonization, Fr. Luca De Rosa,
OFM, stated that Pope John was, in fact, “full ofadmiration and devotion” for Pius XII.19 Archbishop
Loris Capovilla, formerly private secretary to Pope John,
called the Carroll story “a lie.”20
In reality, John XXIII had a photograph of Pius XII on
his desk, with a prayer on the back asking for Pius’s
canonization as a saint. The prayer called Pius “a fearlessdefender of the Faith, a courageous struggler for justiceand peace … a shining model of charity and of every
virtue.”21 A million of these prayer cards were put incirculation by John XXIII’s staff, and John (who prayedmonthly before the tomb of Pius XII)22 said in an
audience that surely one day Pius would be raised to the
Catholic altars.23
John XXIII even considered taking the name “PiusXIII.”24 In his first Christmas broadcast to the world after
his election, John paid the high honor of saying that Pius
XII’s doctrinal and pastoral teachings “assure a place inposterity for the name of Pius XII. Even apart from any
official declaration, which would be premature, the triple
title of ‘Most excellent Doctor, Light of Holy Church,
Lover of the divine law’ evokes the sacred memory of thispontiff in whom our times were blessed indeed.”25 Of
course, only a saint can be declared a Doctor of the
Church. Yet Constantine’s Sword is at least the third
publication in which Carroll has advanced the fabricateddeathbed story, and he did so twice in that book!
The often-overlooked truth about why Carroll,
Cornwell, and so many other post-Hochhuth liberal
Westerners have fallen into the KGB trap and watered the
poppy seeds of its framing of Pius XII, is that their works
were ultimately not about Pius. They were part of a newoffensive aimed at further dividing the Judeo-Christianworld by discrediting the Vatican. They saw the end ofJohn Paul II’s anticommunist papacy coming, and they
tried to help elect a leftist pope, by making people believethat Pius XII and John Paul II had led the Church in a baddirection.
According to these writers, John Paul and Pius wereoverly authoritarian, and just as Pius XII’s leadershipsupposedly led to the Holocaust, John Paul’s leadershipwas supposedly heading for another catastrophe. The only

hope was to elect a very different kind of pope. The lastchapter of Hitler’s Pope was entitled “Pius XII
Redivivus.” In it, Cornwell argued that John Paul II
represented a return to a highly centralized, autocratic
papacy, as opposed to a more diversified Church.
Cornwell wrote that there were early signs of a titanic
struggle between the progressives and the traditionalists,
with the potential for a cataclysmic schism, especially inNorth America.
Cornwell felt that John Paul II was leading the
traditionalists as the Church moved toward this struggle,
and he argued that “canonization of Pius XII is a key
move in the attempts to restore a reactionary papal
absolutism.”26 Any doubt about Cornwell’s intent was
resolved in March 2000, when Pope John Paul II made an
unprecedented and historic trip to the Holy Land. At thattime, as Christians and Jews were coming closer together,
Cornwell described the Pontiff as “aging, ailing, anddesperately frail as he presides over a Vatican that isdriven by cliques, engulfed in scandal, and subject toideological power struggles.”27
To Cornwell, the Vatican was “a nest of nepotism andcorruption, sexual depravity, gangsterism, and evenmurder.” That is exactly how Khrushchev andSakharovsky also depicted it—and the United States aswell. Much like Hochhuth before him, Cornwell quoted
an unidentified “Vatican insider,” who described theVatican as “a place of gossipy eunuchs. … The wholeplace floats on a sea of bitchery.”28
In his 2001 book, Breaking Faith, Cornwell madecharges against Pope John Paul II similar to those hemade against Pius XII in Hitler’s Pope. He argued that
centralization of power under John Paul’s authoritarianrule had brought about a fundamental breakdown incommunications between hierarchy and laity. “Bullying
oppression,” Cornwell wrote, was driving people awayfrom the Catholic Church. He blamed virtually all of the
Church’s modern problems on “the harsh centralized rulesof Wojtyla’s Church.” He called John Paul a “stumbling
block” for “a vast, marginalized faithful” and said thepope had “encouraged an oppressive intellectual culture.”
Most of the world credited John Paul II with being
instrumental in bringing down communism in Eastern
Europe, by being the spiritual inspiration behind its
downfall and a catalyst for “a peaceful revolution” in
Poland. Despite having no armies under his command andno weapons to deploy, Pope John Paul II played a pivotal
role in one of the twentieth century’s greatest geopoliticaldramas—the struggle against the Soviet Union’s forcefuldominance in Asia and Eastern Europe.29 Cornwell,
however, despised John Paul. He warned that if aconservative pope were to succeed John Paul II, theChurch would “deteriorate” and push “greater numbers of
Catholics toward antagonism, despair and mass

apostasy.”30 It is safe to say that at the time, Cornwell wasdesperately trying to prevent a Ratzinger-style papacy.
Cornwell’s book The Pontiff in Winter was his final
shot at Pope John Paul II. The title of the American
version of this book is The Pontiff in Winter: Triumph andConflict in the Reign of John Paul II, but the British title
is more telling about Cornwell’s intent: The Pope in
Winter: The Dark Face of John Paul II’s Papacy. In thisbook, Cornwell argued that John Paul had “taken a bit of
the Iron Curtain with him” to the Vatican to mold a rigid,
authoritarian papacy. Cornwell not only blamed John Paulfor the spread of AIDS and global terrorism (just as the
Kremlin had blamed the United States); he also said thatJohn Paul had developed a “medieval patriarchalism”
towards women, and that his “major and abiding legacy… is to be seen and felt in various forms of oppression
and exclusion.” Cornwell criticized the pope’s positions
on the September 11 attacks, the clash between Islam andChristianity, and statements regarding Mel Gibson’s
motion picture The Passion of the Christ. Cornwellcharged that the Catholic teachings voiced by the pontiff
had “alienated generations of the faithful,” and that “JohnPaul’s successor will inherit a dysfunctional Church
fraught with problems.”31
Cornwell’s clear intent was to prevent anotherconservative from becoming pope.32 His continuingtheme was that the Church needed to decentralize its

authority. Mainly, however, he advanced the typicallaundry list of liberal Catholic demands, including
married clergy, women priests, a bigger role for the laity
in running the Church, and inclusive language in theMass.33 He clearly was deeply offended by the Church’s
teachings on sexuality. Cornwell preached that
contraception, homosexuality, divorce, and essentially all
extramarital sex are matters to be decided by consenting
adults, and he would like the Church to change its
position on these matters. Instead of offering consistentarguments, Cornwell reviewed opinion surveys
suggesting that most Catholics have difficulty with
Church teachings on contraception, abortion, divorce, andhomosexuality. He interpreted this as resistance to papal
authority, and the only solution that made sense to him
was to weaken the papacy and change the Church
teachings. That, it seems, is the real motivation behind his
writing, not the pursuit of the truth.
In other words, Cornwell recited the dezinformatsiya’slaundry list of accusations against the Catholic Church,
and used dezinformatsiya techniques to further denigrate
it.
Pope John Paul II, perhaps better than anyone else,
recognized the parallels between his efforts and those of
Pius XII. John Paul, of course, did not have a horrible
world war to contend with, nor was he threatened with thepossible invasion of Vatican City, but given thosedifferences, the approach each leader took was similar. As
John Paul II explained, “Anyone who does not limit
himself to cheap polemics knows very well what Pius XII
thought of the Nazi regime and how much he did to help
countless people persecuted by the regime.”34

No smoking gun has yet been found to prove theKremlin’s hand in this new war against the JudeoChristian world, because the KGB archives are still,
unfortunately, sealed. But swaying the Vatican into
electing anti-American popes sympathetic to the Kremlin
and its historical anti-Semitism has long been Moscow’s
dream. According to the New York Times:… the forty-nine cardinals gathered in Rome [in October
1958] to elect Pius XII’s successor were indignant over a
Soviet attempt to influence their choice of the next Pope.
The alleged attempt was made in a broadcast by the
Moscow radio, entitled “Events in the Vatican” and beamed
to Rome in Italian.35

Radio Moscow charged that under Pius XII’s
pontificate, the Vatican followed a policy of open supportof “the most reactionary and aggressive imperialistic
circles.” That was, of course, “Zionist America” and its
main ally, Israel. The Moscow broadcast also charged that
Pope Pius XII had meddled in politics and so had

“destroyed the principle of the universality of the
Church’s mission in the world.” Echoing criticisms ofPius XII leveled by the Nazis, Radio Moscow concluded:“The hope has been expressed that the new pope mayinterest himself more in religious problems and less inpolitical problems.”36
In 1939 Hitler made a similar attempt before theenclave of the Sacred College of Cardinals. The thenGerman ambassador to the Holy See called on Eugenio
Pacelli, cardinal secretary of state and camerlengo, or
chamberlain, and made known to him the wishes of theGerman Reichskanzler. But Cardinal Pacelli, the moststrongly anti-Fascist of the cardinals, was elected pope
anyway.37
The hopes of Cornwell and company were also
thwarted in 2005, when the theologically conservative
Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger became Pope Benedict
XVI. Not only did he continue policies in line with his
predecessors; he also signed the papers to permit thesainthood cause of Pope Pius XII to advance, and heoversaw the beatification of John Paul II.
On October 9, 2008, Benedict affirmed that Pius
“often acted in secret and in silence” to defend Jews
during the Holocaust. Celebrating a Masscommemorating fifty years since Pius’s death, Benedict
said: “In light of the concrete situations of that complex
historical moment, he sensed that this was the only way toavoid the worst and save the greatest possible number ofJews.” Benedict said he prayed that the process ofbeatification “can proceed happily.”38

PART III
FRAMING THE US
GOVERNMENT AS A PACKOF ASSASSINS*

29
THE END OF AMERICA’SINNOCENCE

THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY fifty
years ago, at first seen by Americans as a random act ofviolence, sent the whole country into shock. The Camelot
fairytale of youth and beauty came to an abrupt andviolent end, graphically compounded two days later when
Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald,
Kennedy’s accused assassin, on live television. The
Dallas police and FBI quickly identified Oswald as thelone assassin of the president, but there was little evidence
to support that conclusion.
There was, however, irrefutable proof that, just before
killing President Kennedy, Oswald had traveled toMexico under a false identity and there had secretly met
with “Comrade Kostin,” aka Valery Kostikov, adiplomatic official assigned to the Soviet Embassy.
Kostikov has been identified by the CIA as an officer ofthe KGB’s Thirteenth Department (assassinations
abroad), which became known in KGB jargon as the
Department for Wet Affairs (wet meaning bloody). Thereis also irrefutable evidence that Oswald’s Soviet wife,
Marina, had been in touch with the Soviet Embassy in the
United States and that she concealed evidence from US
authorities confirming her husband’s secret trip to Mexicoand meeting there with the KGB officer Valery Kostikov.
Lyndon Johnson, who had just been sworn in aspresident, looked upon the assassination as a criminalcase for the police to solve. On November 25, 1963, hetold J. Edgar Hoover it would be enough for the Texas
attorney general to produce a report and for the FBI towork with Texas authorities and put together its summary
report. Hoover agreed.1 Johnson also pointed out toAmerican journalist Joseph Alsop that the FBI thought it
could do the “wisest, quickest and most effective” study.2
But then, Johnson heard that the US Senate and House
wanted to start their own investigations due to emerging
international aspects to the case. He became afraid thatany official suggestion of Soviet involvement in theassassination could lead to a nuclear threat from Moscow.
On November 29, Johnson was briefed by Dr. GlennSeaborg, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. As
Max Holland documented in The Kennedy Assassination
Tapes, “With chilling precision Dr. Seaborg tells Johnson
about the consequences of an all-out nuclear exchangewith Moscow. The cost in American lives from a firststrike alone is breathtaking: 39 to 40 million American
casualties, not to mention untold dislocation anddevastation that will take decades to overcome.”3
Therefore, on that same day, Johnson, who was facing
elections in a few months, created “a very high caliber,
top-flight, blue-ribbon group” whose purpose was not toinvestigate the assassination, but primarily to invoke thecollective integrity of its distinguished members and toissue a public report that would dispel all rumors of“foreign complications” stemming from Oswald’s known
connections with the Soviet intelligence and with
communist Cuba. This group came to be called the
Warren Commission after its chairman, Chief Justice Earl
Warren.
The Warren Commission did not actually begin its
field investigation until March 18, 1964, after the end ofJack Ruby’s trial. Norman Redlich, the Warren
Commission staff lawyer in charge of preparing thequestioning of Oswald’s Soviet widow, Marina, wrote ina memorandum that she had “lied to the Secret Service,
the FBI and this commission repeatedly on matters which
are of vital concern to the people of this country and theworld.” Chief Justice Warren, however, ruled out any
attempt to test Marina’s sincerity by using a lie detector or
cross-examination, because, as he explained to his staff, itwould make little sense for the commission to impugn thecredibility of its chief witness on Oswald’s character.
On June 15, the commission announced it hadcompleted its investigation. The final report was writtenby three lawyers—Norman Redlich, Alfred Goldberg, and
Lee Rankin—who had no experience in foreigncounterintelligence, and who worked under “constantpressure from the commission ‘to close doors rather thanopen them’ because of the time pressure to complete thereport before the coming presidential election.”
The Warren Commission report was published by theGovernment Printing Office on September 24, 1964—six
weeks before the elections. It consists of twenty-six
volumes of haphazardly assembled testimonies to thecommission and documents obtained primarily fromfederal and state authorities and from the Soviet
government, plus one volume containing the summary
report. The summary report is a disorganized hodgepodgeof material assembled by various staff members, to which
is attached an unsatisfactory index. Nevertheless, thetwenty-six published volumes contain a wealth of factual
but essentially raw information clearly showing the Soviet
hand to an informed analyst with inside knowledge ofSoviet intelligence operations and methods.

The commission’s conclusion was that JFK was killed
on November 22, 1963, by shots fired from the Texas
School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that
Oswald was killed two days later at the Dallas Police
Department by Jack Ruby. The commission “found noevidence to indicate that either Lee Harvey Oswald orJack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or
foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy”; it further
resolved that “there is no credible evidence that Oswald
was an agent of the Soviet government,” and that “he did
not receive unusually favorable treatment in entering or
leaving the Soviet Union or in returning to the UnitedStates.” The commission “could not make any definitive
determination of Oswald’s motives,” although it did
discuss some of his asocial and anti-American character
traits that might have contributed to his motivation.
In the late 1970s, the House of Representatives formed
the Select Committee on Assassinations and conducted its
own investigations. In 1979 it published twelve volumesof documents and hearings and one summary volume on
the JFK assassination (Government Printing Office, withthe summary reissued by Bantam). The committee’sreport does contain some important new and relevant
factual material in the form of documents that had cometo light after 1964 and interviews conducted by thecommittee pointing even more suggestively toward
Moscow than the Warren Commission’s materials. Again,
however, because it lacked inside knowledge of Sovietintelligence, the House committee could not properly
evaluate what it had uncovered.
In its final report, the committee excluded thepossibility of a Soviet hand in the assassination by simply
stating:
In fact the reaction of the Soviet Government as well as theSoviet people seemed to be one of genuine shock andsincere grief. The committee believed, therefore, on thebasis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet
Government was not involved in the assassination.4

Such credulity showed that the House committee, likethe Warren Commission, understood nothing about thedegree to which the Soviet government had always relied
on disinformation and deception, to the point of evenfalsifying the Moscow street maps and telephone books.
Evidently no one remembered that Khrushchev hadboldly lied to President Kennedy in denying that theSoviets were putting nuclear missiles on Cuba.

During the years when I was the chief of Romania’s
espionage station in West Germany, I became involved ina joint Soviet KGB-Romanian DIE operation that would,
eventually, crack open the dark window concealing thesupersecret web of connections between Oswald and theKGB. In 1958, I was unexpectedly called to East Berlinfor an emergency meeting. General Nicolae Doicaru, atthat time acting chief of the DIE, and KGB Colonel
Rudenko, the DIE’s Soviet adviser for intelligence on
military technology, were waiting for me at our embassy.
“We’ve gotten a brand new task for you from
Moscow,” Rudenko explained. He did most of the talking.
On the table before me, the KGB colonel plunked down
the Romanian translation of an American document. It
was a press release (dated April 30, 1956) that had been
distributed by the US National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA)—the forerunner of NASA (theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration). The
document reported that NACA had received a new type of
airplane, the Lockheed U-2, that would make it possible
to obtain the meteorological data needed for the jet
transports of tomorrow, which would be flying at altitudes
far higher than those then used by all but a few military
aircraft.
“Even the American media knew it was a lie,”
Rudenko added, handing me a newspaper clipping. It wasan article (from the Los Angeles Times of April 14, 1957)
concerning the same Lockheed U-2 plane that the US
government was claiming would be used to conduct
scientific research. According to the article, the U-2 wasactually a spy plane, which was then flying out of Europe
and Japan under top-secret classification. The fact that theU-2 planes themselves were heavily guarded day andnight was hard proof that they were highly classified andwere being used for extremely secret missions.
“CIA’s latest tool,” Rudenko concluded, handing me a
Russian document and its Romanian translation. It was arequirement issued by the Soviet military intelligence
service, the GRU (Gosudarstvennoye Razvedyvatelnoye
Upravleniye), which asked for data on the U-2 plane.
After listing what the GRU had already learned about the
U-2, the order asked for “everything,” including rumors
about the flight altitude of this “black lady of espionage.”
According to that requirement, the Soviet Defense
Ministry knew that U-2 planes had flown over the Soviet
Union several times, but its Air Defense Command (theVoyska protivovozdushnoy oborony, or V-PVO) had notbeen able to track them for certain because of theirultrahigh altitude.
Acknowledging that the flight altitude of the U-2
should be a highly classified secret known to very few
people, the GRU indicated an indirect way to obtain thisinformation, and that was by learning the maximum
operating range of the American radar gear used tomonitor the flights of the U-2. The GRU requirement
indicated that most of the U-2 flights over the Soviet
Union originated at the US Air Force bases in Wiesbaden,West Germany and Atsugi, Japan, both manned by the
Marine Corps, and it asked for any kind of information on
the radar gear existing at those airports.
In the summer of 1959, I got a new directive from DIE

headquarters. According to the requirement, it was
believed, based on “unconfirmed” information justobtained by the KGB, that the U-2 spy plane could fly ataltitudes of “about 30,000 meters” (roughly 90,000 feet).
My station was asked to make a special effort to checkout that information and expedite to headquarters any
confirmation or expansion of it.
I had already sent headquarters data obtained from the
US base in Wies-baden, which clearly showed that the U2’s flight altitude was one of the most highly classified
American military secrets, known only to persons directly
involved in its flights and to a few specially cleared air
traffic controllers and radar operators at that base. Unlessan unexpected miracle occurred, I was sure that mystation could produce nothing more on the subject. From
the new request, I realized that the KGB must have been
luckier. Evidently, one of its other stations had been able
to get its hands on a traffic controller or radar operator
assigned to the Marine Air Force base in Wiesbaden or in
Atsugi.
It would not take long for me to learn that that wastrue. On June 19, 1960, Nikita Khrushchev landed in
Bucharest as head of a large party delegation to attend theThird Congress of the Romanian Communist Party (atthat time called the Workers Party), and he remained there
for eight days. Khrushchev’s spy chief and expert on
Romanian matters, General Sakharovsky, had come withhim, although he was not formally included in the party

delegation. The Congress was dedicated to Romania’s
rapid industrialization, and as I was by then head of
Romania’s technological espionage department, I became
the liaison officer with General Sakharovsky.
Khrushchev spent most of the evenings sipping vodka
and telling stories about the downing of the first U-2 spy
plane on May 1, 1960, and about the subsequent Parissummit meeting, where he had just finished “humiliating”
Eisenhower. According to what I learned during thoseeight days when I was in Sakharovsky’s company, theSoviets had been able to shoot down the U-2 only because
the KGB had obtained reliable information on the plane’s
flight altitude. I understood that the intelligence had been
received somewhere toward the end of the previous year,
but that the Soviet Air Defense Command (V-PVO) had
for some time found no opportunity to verify it, because
there had been no more U-2 flights until April 9, 1960.
Observing that flight, the V-PVO became convinced that
the KGB intelligence was accurate, and it therefore
adjusted its radar and missiles so as to be prepared when
the next flight came over. That happened on May 1, 1960.
“The most valuable May Day present we’ve evergiven the Comrade,” Sakharovsky said. He told me thatfrom the moment the U-2 had entered the Soviet airspace
until it had been shot down, he had been in constantcontact with the V-PVO commander, Marshal Sergey
Semyonovich Biryuzov. That evening Sakharovsky had
dined with the Comrade, and a couple of weeks later hereceived the Order of Lenin.
Naturally, I toasted Sakharovsky on his success.
“Bottoms up to the serzhant, too!” I ventured.
In those days, serzhant was the broken record being
played by our Soviet razvedka (foreign intelligence)advisers, who placed a high priority on recruiting
American servicemen. Of course the KGB wanted us to
recruit high-ranking American officers, but in Soviet
experience it had proved true that sergeants were mucheasier to approach and recruit. They might never becolonels or even captains, but some were extremely
productive intelligence agents. That was why Sergeant
Robert Lee Johnson, who had been stationed in West
Germany in the 1950s, was secretly awarded the rank of
Red Army major and received written congratulations
from the Soviet Council of Ministers and from
Khrushchev himself.5 (Years later, Vitaly Yurchenko, ahigh-ranking KGB officer who defected to the CIA in
1985—and soon redefected—reported that the KGB
regarded the case of Chief Warrant Officer John Anthony
Walker—another serzhant—as the greatest success in
KGB history, “surpassing in importance even the Soviet
theft of the Anglo-American blueprints for the first atomicbomb” and causing “devastating consequences for theUnited States” in the event of war. John F. Lehman, who
was the US secretary of the Navy when Walker wasarrested, agreed.6)

“Well, he wasn’t even a serzhant,” Sakharovsky said.
As was normal, the Soviet general did not elaborate on
the details of the operation that had ended with thedowning of the U-2 and the capture of its pilot, Francis
Gary Powers. A few weeks after the U-2 plane had been
shot down, however, the DIE’s razvedka advisers added a
new wrinkle to their constant refrain about our need torecruit a serzhant—now we were also told to start looking
for a “defector.”
At that time we were not interested in the razvedka
advisers’ demand— what American serzhant would
defect to Romania anyway? Soon after President Kennedy
was shot, however, we began focusing on the advisers’
recommendation about a defector. To our surprise welearned that before defecting to Moscow Lee Harvey
Oswald had been stationed as a radar operator at thesupersecret Atsugi Air Base outside of Tokyo, and thatsome of the U-2 planes that flew over the Soviet Union
took off from that Marine base.
At about that same time, in the United States thewriter Edward Jay Epstein was conducting his own
investigation of the Kennedy assassination, published as
Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald(Reader’s Digest/McGraw-Hill, 1978). This bookintroduced new and useful material on Oswald, which
Epstein had managed to dig up and carefully document.
Epstein claimed to have interviewed over four hundredpersons who had been, in one way or another, associatedwith Oswald. Among them were “about seventy Marines
Oswald had served with in Japan and the Far East,” mostof whom “had never been previously interviewed by the
FBI or Warren Commission.”
Zack Stout, one of the Marines who was stationed at
Atsugi Air Base with Oswald, stated that Oswald had
gotten involved with an attractive Japanese girl who“worked” as a hostess at the Queen Bee, one of the threemost expensive nightclubs in Tokyo and one that catered
to American senior officers and U-2 pilots. Stout andother enlisted Marines marveled that such a high-classhostess would go out with Oswald at all. They also
wondered how he could afford her, since an evening withsuch a girl should have cost Oswald roughly theequivalent of a month’s pay.7 Such an expense was also
totally out of character for Oswald, who had consistently
been described as a penny pincher throughout his wholelife.
Who would have paid for Oswald’s girl from the
Queen Bee? Epstein’s book is centered around suspicionsthat Oswald had ties to Soviet intelligence, and it provides
significant information indicating that the KGB must havebeen financing and manipulating that Queen Bee hostesswho began spending her days and nights with Oswald.
Sometime after returning to the United States from theSoviet Union, Oswald would claim in a radio debate on

the subject of Cuba that, as later reported by theorganizer, New Orleans journalist William Stuckey, “It
was in Japan that [Oswald] made up his mind to go to
Russia and see for himself how a revolutionary society
operates, a Marxist society.”8 Oswald is said to haveconfided to his new American friend George deMohrenschildt that, “I met some Communists in Japanand they got me excited and interested, and that was oneof my inducements in going to Soviet Russia, to see whatgoes on there.”9
On October 18, 1957, Oswald learned that his unit was
to be shipped out to the South China Sea and thePhilippines because the civil war in Indonesia was heating
up. According to Stout, Oswald seemed unhappy about
having to leave Japan. According to George Wilkins,another Marine serving with Oswald at Atsugi, on
October 27, just before departure, Oswald shot himself in
the arm with a derringer pistol he had ordered, in
violation of Army regulations, from a mail-order house in
the United States. The wound did not appear to be serious,and several of the Marines believed that Oswald haddeliberately shot himself in order to remain in Japan. He
stayed in the hospital for almost three weeks but was
released just in time to board the USS Terrell County with
his unit on November 20 and head for the Philippines.10
After three months at sea, Oswald and his unit
returned to Atsugi, where he was court-martialed forhaving had an unregistered weapon, the derringer withwhich he had shot himself. He was sentenced to twenty
days at hard labor, forfeiture of $50 in pay, and reduction
to the rank of private (thus nullifying his having passed
the examination for corporal). Although Oswald received
a suspended sentence, he was put on mess duty instead ofbeing returned to radar duty. Immediately he put in for ahardship discharge, hoping, according to the other
Marines, to be discharged in Japan, where he had madefriends. His request was turned down, whereupon hepicked a fight with the sergeant who had put him on messduty, and that landed Oswald in the brig for nearly amonth. When he was finally released on August 13, 1958,
several of the Marines found him to be a changed man:cold, withdrawn, and bitter.
According to Joseph Macedo, a fellow radar operator,
Oswald complained: “I’ve seen enough of a democraticsociety here in MACS-1. When I get out I’m going to try
something else.” After that Oswald seemed to associateless than ever with the other Marines, often disappearing
on passes to Tokyo.11
Oswald finally left Japan on November 2, 1958, on
board the USS Barrett. Upon arrival in San Francisco, hetook thirty days’ leave to visit his mother and go squirrel
hunting with his brother. Then on December 22, 1958, hereported for radar duty at the Marine Air Control
Squadron No. 9 (MACS-9) at El Toro Air Base in SantaAna, California.12 John Donovan, the officer in commandof Oswald’s radar crew, described him as “competent,
very competent” in any job he saw him handle. Like theother Marines assigned there, Oswald had a much higher
than average IQ, but Oswald was different in that he wasalmost solely interested in international affairs, not in
women and sports the way the others were. He liked to
ask a passing officer about some matter of foreign affairs,
then afterwards remark to Donovan: “If men like that areleading us, there is something wrong—when I obviously
have more intelligence and more knowledge than thatman.” He knew the names of many philosophers, but his
knowledge did not go much beyond the names. He
expressed particular interest in Hegel and the subject ofsocial revolutions. When he talked with people, however,
he did not seem to be seeking information but rather
wanting to show how much he knew—“He had his mind
made up and was willing to discuss that point of view
with anyone.”13
According to the Marines in his unit, the work at El
Toro was not demanding, and Oswald spent much of his
spare time studying Russian. He subscribed to a Russianlanguage newspaper and would answer with da and nyet
when his fellow Marines teased him about his interest in
the Russian language and in communism. He seemed toenjoy having the nickname “Oswaldovich” and being
jokingly called a “Russian spy.” On February 25, 1959, hetook a test in the Russian language and received an
overall grade of “poor,” which while low did show he hadachieved some proficiency in that difficult language.14
During the period when he was stationed at El Toro,
the KGB operational pattern required that thecommunications plan for every important agent in the
United States be based on impersonal means oftransmitting their information. The KGB favored the useof dead drops for agents who were able to provide
intelligence on unprocessed film. In the few cases where
agents had large volumes of documents to turn over, suchas agents involved in scientific and technologicalintelligence (S&T), the KGB also used lockers at train
and bus stations.
Nelson Delgado, Oswald’s bunkmate at El Toro, said
that toward the end of Oswald’s tour of duty there henoticed a stack of “spotter” photographs showing front
and profile views of a fighter plane among Oswald’s
papers. Oswald stuffed the photographs into a duffel bag
along with some other things, and Delgado agreed todeposit the bag in a locker at the Los Angeles bus station
for him and bring him back the key. For this Delgado
believed Oswald had given him two dollars.15 Assuming
Delgado’s recollection is accurate, there can hardly be anyother explanation than espionage for a duffel bag
containing classified material to be placed in a public
locker.

It is quite possible that Oswald included in such duffelbags some of the new information on the height at which
the U-2 planes were flying in their practice runs over thatpart of Southern California. According to Francis Gary
Powers, the U-2 pilot whom the Soviets shot down on
May 1, 1960, at El Toro Oswald had had access “not only
to radar and radio codes but also to the new MPS-16
height-finding radar gear,” and the height at which the U2 flew was the most highly classified secret about it.16
On February 15, 1962, after having defected to theSoviet Union, Oswald would write his brother Robert: “Iheard over the voice of america [sic] that they released
Powers the U2 spy plane fellow. That’s big news where
you are I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, brightamerican-type [sic] fellow, when I saw him in
Moscow.”17
It would have been normal procedure for the KGB totake Oswald to observe the Powers trial as one of the
rewards given him for having helped the Soviet Union toshoot down the U-2. Otherwise, there is little reason
Oswald would have seen him in Moscow.
It is significant that the pilot of the U-2 plane was notinterrogated by Soviet military intelligence, as would
have been normal if the downing of the plane had been
simply the result of a military operation. Colonel Oleg
Penkovsky, a GRU (Soviet military intelligence) officer
who was in clandestine contact with the CIA, reported onApril 23, 1961, that since Powers had been downed in a
military operation, the GRU had selected him, Penkovsky,
because he spoke good English, to talk to Powers when hewas brought to Moscow. Penkovsky said that, however,KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin had interfered with
the GRU’s plans. “Shelepin got an interpreter and picked
Powers up.”Powers himself would later write that he was secretlyinterrogated at the Lubyanka, the KGB headquarters, andthat means that it was actually the KGB, not the Red
Army, that had played the first violin in the wholeoperation.
According to Powers, his interrogation began the same
day he was shot down, and it was witnessed by about adozen people, some in uniform but most in civilian dress—the latter evidently important KGB officials who had
come to see the show. During one session, which was
conducted by a general rather than the usual two majors,“a short, thin, chain-smoking man of about forty
monitored the proceedings.” Later, Powers would learn
that this was Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB.18
A substantial part of Powers’ interrogation centered on
the flight altitude of the U-2.19 He was asked if he had
ever been stationed at Atsugi, and he answered truthfully
that he had not. His interrogators specifically asked him
about U-2s at Atsugi, showing him articles in Japanese
about a U-2 that had crash-landed there.20 (The Soviets

would not have wanted Powers to suspect they might
have had a source at Atsugi, and newspaper articles could
conveniently explain their interest in that base. In
September 1959, the Japanese magazine Air Views had
published a detailed account of a U-2’s emergency
landing at a glider-club strip near Atsugi and suggested
that the U-2s might be conducting other reconnaissancebesides weather.21)
Epstein’s well-documented book, which is centeredaround suspicions that Oswald had secret ties to Soviet
intelligence, provides significant information indicatingthat Oswald had indeed been manipulated by Moscow.
Epstein even collected sufficient data to cause him
correctly to suspect that George de Mohrenschildt, thewealthy American oilman who had reportedly come fromthe old Russian nobility and who became Oswald’s “bestfriend” after Oswald returned to the United States, was infact Oswald’s KGB “handler.”
In 1977, Epstein had a meeting with de Mohernschildt
at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. The
meeting had been arranged by the Reader’s Digest
magazine. Epstein and de Mohrenschildt broke for lunch
and decided to meet again at 3 p.m. When the latterarrived at the Palm Beach home where he was staying, hefound a card telling him that he had to testify under oathto the House Select Commission on Assassinations. De
Mohrenschildt’s body was found later that day. He hadcommitted suicide by shooting himself in the mouth.22
Unfortunately, Epstein lacked the inside backgroundknowledge that would have helped him to fit his bits andpieces together into one whole picture, and to reach a firm
conclusion. His very well-documented story is left
hanging in midair.

30
KHRUSHCHEV: A
MONUMENT TODISINFORMATIONTODAY, PEOPLE MIGHT REMEMBER KHRUSHCHEV as a downto-earth peasant who corrected the evils of Stalin. That is
the result of another successful disinformation campaign.
The Khrushchev who was my supreme boss for nine years—during which time I was promoted up to the top of theSoviet bloc intelligence community—was brutal, brash,and extroverted. He tended to destroy every project he got
his hands on, and he ended up with an even more personal
hatred for what he called the “Western bourgeoisie” than
Stalin had.

Many times I heard Khrushchev say, both when hewas sober and when he was drunk, that Stalin had madeone inexcusable mistake—he had turned his politicalpolice against the Soviet Union’s own people. “Ourenemies” were not in the Soviet Union, Khrushchev
would explain. America’s millionaires were the ones who
were determined to wipe communism off the face of theearth. They were “our deadly enemies.” They were the“rabid dogs” of imperialism.
After the U-2 spy plane was shot down over Soviet
airspace on May Day 1960, Khrushchev demanded ameeting of the United Nations Security Council to tell his
side of the story. That meeting began May 23, continued
for four days, and ended with the decision to arrange afour-power Paris Summit aimed at calming the waters.
Khrushchev’s handling of the Paris summit illustrates
his nefarious nature. According to what I learned from
General Sakharovsky, once Khrushchev was in the planeflying him to Paris, he became consumed with the ideathat Eisenhower had deliberately sent his U-2 plane over
the Soviet Union a few days before the summit for the
express purpose of sabotaging any resolution of the Berlin
crisis, and Khrushchev began boiling over with a“vitriolic hatred” for his adversary. During that very flightto Paris, Khrushchev therefore decided to withdraw his—already accepted—invitation for Eisenhower to visit
Moscow, unless Eisenhower declared from the summit
meeting’s podium that he would cancel the U-2 program.

Just as the summit meeting was about to open,
Khrushchev additionally decided to demand an apology
from Eisenhower. In the end, Khrushchev opened thefour-power summit by publicly announcing that theSoviet Union would no longer deal with Eisenhower, andthat there would be no more summits as long as
Eisenhower was still president.
At the beginning of 1962, the management of the DIE
learned that Khrushchev wanted to go down in history as
the Soviet leader who had exported communism andSoviet nuclear power to the American continent.
According to General Sakharovsky, that was now almosta done deed. Khrushchev predicted that the new US
president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, would suffer a heart
attack when he realized Soviet nuclear rockets were only
ninety miles away from him.
During the critical days of the Cuban crisis, Romanianleader Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej happened to be visiting
the Kremlin. On the morning of October 23, 1962,
returning home from a state visit to Indonesia and Burma,
Dej stopped off in Moscow for a couple of hours to
inform Khrushchev about the results of his visits. And
there he stayed. Just before that, Kennedy had publicly
warned Moscow to refrain from any dangerous adventure
in Cuba, and Khrushchev—who at critical moments
always reached out for an audience—needed somebody
around to whom he could vent his anger. This time thatwas Dej.

According to Gheorghiu-Dej, the Soviet leader was
unusually irascible, and although their meeting was held
before noon, Khrushchev already reeked of vodka.
Shortly after Dej entered Khrushchev’s office, Marshal
Rodion Malinovsky, the Soviet minister of defense and an
old friend of Dej’s (after WWII Malinovsky had become
the Soviet gauleiter of Romania), came in and reported
that the American Navy had been put on alert, and that
according to Soviet electronic monitoring the Pentagon
was preparing a blockade of Cuba. Khrushchev flew intoa rage, yelling, cursing and issuing an avalanche ofcontradictory orders. Without asking Dej what his
program for the day was, Khrushchev commanded a state
luncheon and festive evening at the opera to be held in
Dej’s honor, ordering both events to be attended by thewhole Presidium of the Communist Party and to be
widely publicized by the Soviet media as a display ofcommunist unity.
The rest of that day, Khrushchev acted more
irrationally than Gheorghiu-Dej had ever seen him before,
his mood changing from one minute to the next. During
the state luncheon, Khrushchev swore at Washington,
threatened to “nuke” the White House, and cursed loudly
every time anyone pronounced the words America or
American. At the end of the opera performance, however,
he went out of his way to extend personal congratulations
to an American singer who had performed in BorisGodunov.1
The next morning, Gheorghiu-Dej was having
breakfast with Khrushchev when General Vladimir
Yefimovich Semichastny, the new chairman of the KGB,
presented the Soviet leader with a freshly decoded KGB
cable from Washington stating that Kennedy had canceled
his official visit to Brazil and ordered a naval“quarantine” to prevent the eighteen Soviet cargo ships
heading toward Cuba from reaching their destination.
According to Dej’s account, when Khrushchev finishedreading that cable his face was purple. He looked
inquiringly at Semichastny, and, when the terrified
general nodded, Khrushchev “cursed like a bargeman.”
Then he threw Semichastny’s cable on the floor andground his heel into it. “That’s how I’m going to crush
that viper,” he cried. The “viper,” Dej explained in tellingthe story, was Kennedy.
Goading himself on, Khrushchev grew increasingly
hysterical, for whole minutes in a row uttering violent
threats against the “millionaire’s whore” and his CIA
masters. “If Kennedy had been there, the lunatic would
have strangled him dead on the spot,” I heard Dej telling,when he was back in Bucharest.
As I later learned, no sooner had Dej left Moscow than
Khrushchev found a new victim in William Knox, thepresident of Westinghouse Electric International, who
also happened to be visiting Moscow that same day.

Khrushchev summoned him to the Kremlin “for threehours of threats, complaints, and peasant jokes.” As thescene was described by former US official WilliamHyland:Khrushchev appeared in a state near exhaustion, but hewarned that if a Soviet ship were sunk, Soviet submarines
would go into action. Perhaps Khrushchev thought Knox
would sound the alarm to the American Embassy, which inturn might warn Washington to veer from its perilous
course.2

On the night of October 25, 1962, Khrushchev
received a joint PGU/GRU report stating that theconventional and nuclear forces of the United States had
been put on worldwide alert, and that “the largest invasion
force mounted since World War II” was massed in
Florida. That intelligence report (Sakharovsky showed it
to me a few years later), concluded that there were serious
indications that an attack on Cuba could take place within
the next two or three days. I also learned from
Sakharovsky that early on the morning of October 28,
1962, Khrushchev received a cable from Anatoly
Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador in Washington,containing the text of a message handed to him byAttorney General Robert Kennedy, the president’s
brother. The message warned that time was running out,
and that the United States was prepared to take strong andoverwhelming retaliatory action by the end of the week if

Moscow did not immediately agree to withdraw its
missiles from Cuba.
It did not take Khrushchev long to make up his mind.
At around midnight Moscow time, about a dozen of theSoviet ships turned away from the confrontation. The
Kremlin also publicly announced that all Soviet missile
bases in Cuba were to be dismantled and that inspections
would be permitted.
On the evening of that same Sunday, October 28,
1962, I went to Gheorghiu-Dej’s residence in Bucharest
to report the end of the Cuban crisis. “That’s the greatest
defeat in Soviet peacetime history,” Dej said. That day
also happened to be my birthday, and Dej celebrated both
events with caviar and champagne. Although it was truethat Kennedy had won, Dej remarked, he would not give apenny for his skin. “He won’t die in his bed,” Dej
predicted. Though he took secret pleasure in
Khrushchev’s “apocalyptical” humiliation, Dej was also
troubled. “The lunatic could easily fly off the handle andstart a nuclear war!”

Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was certainly the mostcontroversial Soviet to reign in the Kremlin. He
unmasked Stalin’s crimes, but he made politicalassassination a main instrument of his own foreign policy;
he authored a policy of peaceful coexistence with theWest, but he pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war;
he repaired Moscow’s relations with Yugoslavia’s Tito,
but he destroyed the unity of the communist world.
Even though they were political heretics, Lenin andStalin genuinely strove to build a paradise for theworkers, filling the country with gigantic industrial
complexes, erecting huge hydroelectric power plants, andeven changing the course of some rivers. Khrushchev, on
the other hand, had an eminently destructive nature: hesmashed Stalin’s statues, shattered the Soviet Union’s
image as the workers’ paradise, and broke up the SinoSoviet alliance, all without building anything new to fill
the vacuum he had created. On September 11, 1971,
Khrushchev died in ignominy, but not before seeing his
memoirs published in the West giving his version ofhistory.
Everything in Khrushchev’s life deviated considerablyfrom the path taken by his Soviet predecessors. Unlike
Lenin and Stalin, who had come from the very thin layerof Russia’s middle class, Khrushchev belonged to themeanwhile heroicized proletariat, an insignificant social
category made up of urbanized Russian peasants—themost backward peasantry in all of Europe. The grandchildof a serf and the son of an indigent miner, Khrushchev
grew up in a deeply ignorant peasant environment andstarted his working life as an unskilled manual laborer. He
became a member of the Communist Party in 1918, joined
the Red Army a year later, and served as a junior politicalcommissar in the campaigns against the Whites and theinvading Polish army. Unlike Lenin, who was a lawyer,
and Stalin, who had studied at a theological seminary,
Khrushchev had no formal education whatsoever when hebecame a party activist. “When we saw postcards ofballerinas, we thought they were simply photographs ofwomen wearing indecent costumes,” Khrushchev wrote
disarmingly in his memoirs.3
I learned about Khrushchev’s start down the path ofpower mostly from General Sakharovsky, who became
one of his closest collaborators. Of course, Sakharovsky
described a good Khrushchev while he was reigning in
the Kremlin, and a bad Khrushchev after the controversial
Soviet leader was demoted, but I have done my best to
corroborate or refute Sakharovsky’s claims
independently.
Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolay Bukharin,
Grigory Zinovyev, Lev Kamenev, and even Iosif Stalin allrose to the leadership of the Soviet Union because they
had become intellectually infatuated with Marxism andhad dedicated their lives to it. Khrushchev climbed to the
top because he was a bellicose bureaucrat. He started his
rise to power in a period when Stalin was in the process of
eliminating the Old Bolshevik intelligentsia and replacing
it with rough, ignorant peasants or factory workers who
pledged allegiance to him. Khrushchev fitted that moldperfectly and was soon absorbed by the new communistbureaucracy. In 1931, after being hastily indoctrinatedduring a two-year course at the Stalin Industrial Academy,
Khrushchev was assigned as a full-time activist with the
Moscow Regional Committee. Two years later he became
its second secretary and was given the job of politicallysupervising the construction of the Moscow metro. Stalin
had noticed him in 1934 during a visit to the metro
construction site, where Khrushchev had fawned over the“Little Father” in the Kremlin.
Khrushchev’s show of devotion, along with thebrutality he was using in driving the workers building themetro, made such a strong impression on Stalin that heinstantly catapulted Khrushchev to the position of first
secretary of the Moscow party committee and made him afull member of the seventy-man Central Committee of theCommunist Party. Less than a year later, Stalin madeKhrushchev an alternate member of the ruling Politburo.
Khrushchev matured politically in a period when
Lenin and Stalin produced what historians now term thegreatest peacetime mass-terror in European history, aperiod in which many millions of Soviet people lost theirlives. That left a strong imprint on Khrushchev’s
formation— he became impulsive, violent and brutal, andhe ended up with a deep hatred for what he called the“bourgeoisie.” I was present at several meetings between
Romanian leader Gheorghiu-Dej and Khrushchev, andthere I repeatedly heard Khrushchev actually brag about
his hatred: “It is in my blood—my serf’s blood!” Afterhearing such outbursts, Gheorghiu-Dej, who had himself
authorized many thousands of killings, repeatedly
expressed uneasiness over Khrushchev’s bloodthirstiness.
Khrushchev became a party activist in a period when
Soviet policy was carried out through heavy-handed
propaganda and disinformation. Hence, he matured into a
compulsive political chatterbox who had no objective
appreciation of facts and filled his speeches with
distortions, deliberate omissions, and flat-out lies.
According to Sakharovsky, many times the interpreters
Khrushchev used while traveling abroad (all of whomwere Sakharovsky’s officers) had to change the sense of
Khrushchev’s statements or to ignore some entirely,
because they were filled with vulgarities, inexactitudes,
deceptions, and self-contradictions.
Khrushchev’s close association with Stalin’s killings
made him aware of what political crime could accomplishand gave him a taste for the simple criminal solution. In
1936, Stalin unleashed his Great Purge aimed ateliminating all competition and opposition to himself. In
the ensuing slaughter, some 7 million people lost theirlives, including most of the high-ranking Soviet
communists.
Of the seven men who formed Lenin’s Politburo at thetime of the October Revolution, Stalin alone outlived thepurges. Among provincial party secretaries, only threewho had zealously supported Stalin’s purges survived theexecutions. The flamboyant Khrushchev, who as party
boss in Moscow had ardently and vociferously upheld
Stalin’s new purges from the first day, was one of those
three. As a supplementary reward, in 1938 Stalin
appointed him first party secretary of Ukraine and gave
him the task of organizing a similar purge in his new
territory. There Khrushchev proceeded to carry out his
master’s wishes with savagery and brutality.
The habit of resorting to political assassinations
remained with Khrushchev for the rest of his career. His
addiction to political crime is well illustrated in the person
he chose as his new chief of the secret political police. In
1954, Khrushchev reconstituted that organization as theCommittee of State Security (KGB) and installed at its
helm a man who was even more bloodthirsty than Beriya
had been. General Ivan Serov, the first chairman of the“new” KGB, had already become infamous for thebrutality with which, during Stalin’s rule, he had forcibly
deported people from the Caucasus, crushed theanticommunist opposition in the Baltic states, andmurdered, in the Katyn forest, near Smolensk, anestimated 22,000 “bourgeois” Polish officers taken
prisoner by the Red Army. Referring to his choice,
Khrushchev said: “Beriya’s deputies were Kruglov andSerov. I hardly knew Kruglov, but I knew Serov well, andI trusted him. I thought, and still think, Serov is an honest
man. If there are a few dubious things about him, as there
are about all Chekists [i.e., members of the politicalpolice], then let’s just say he was a victim of Stalin’s
general policy.”4
Lenin and Stalin had called themselvesinternationalists and had indiscriminately murdered
foreigners as well as Soviet citizens. Khrushchev’s
peasant origins had, however, molded him into such anationalistic Ukrainian that after Stalin died he gave up
the gray tunics buttoned to the neck, which had become akind of international communist uniform, and instead
started wearing peasant-proletarian outfits he invented.
That was approximately the period when Khrushchev
softened the repression of Soviet citizens and moved thecutting edge of his violence abroad.
When Khrushchev became the head of the Soviet
Union, he had not yet set foot abroad, nor had he been
given an opportunity to discuss foreign affairs with Stalin,
for the latter had laid personal claim to that field. All
Khrushchev knew about capitalism was therefore solely
what he had learned from Soviet propaganda. He wasutterly convinced that the West was the world’s deadliest
enemy, and he truly believed that the centerpiece ofSoviet foreign policy necessarily had to be the struggle
against the “millionaires” and their “bourgeois” countries.
In his memoirs, he wrote: “Right up until his death, Stalin
used to tell us, ‘You’ll see, when I’m gone theimperialistic powers will wring your necks likechickens.’”5

Khrushchev’s total ignorance about the civilized
world, together with his irrational hatred of the“bourgeoisie” and his propensity to offend people, madehim believe that disinformation and threats were the mostefficient and dignified way for a Soviet leader to deal with“bourgeois” governments. In the spring of 1956, he went
to London together with Premier Nikolay Bulganin in
response to an invitation from Prime Minister Anthony
Eden. According to what I learned from Sakharovsky,
Khrushchev’s main goal on that trip was to persuade Eden
quietly to sell prohibited technologies and equipment to
the Soviet Union. Khrushchev’s decision to take thechairman of the KGB, General Serov, along with him to
London set off a storm in the British press, however, andit got the visit off to a bad start. The reason the talks
ended badly was that Khrushchev began bragging about
Moscow’s hydrogen bomb arsenal, after Eden had refused
to circumvent the Western embargo on strategic goods to
the Soviet Union.
Toward the end of 1957, Moscow learned that theUnited States was ready to establish bases forintermediate-range ballistic missiles on the territory of its
NATO partners. In an attempt to prevent that move,
Khrushchev sent a threatening note to the head of eachNATO country. The note to Great Britain, which wasformally signed by Premier Bulganin but fully reflected
Khrushchev’s style, stated:I say frankly that we find it difficult to understand what, intaking part in such a policy, guides the government of sucha country as Great Britain, which is not only in an
extremely vulnerable position by force of its geographicalsituation but which according to the admission of its
official representatives has no effective means of defense
against the effects of modern weapons. Nor can there, it istrue, be such defense.6

At the beginning of November 1959, following thenationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt’s President
Gamal Nasser, Great Britain and France sent anexpeditionary force to capture Port Said and gain controlof the canal. On November 4, one day after the Soviet
invasion of Hungary, Khrushchev impertinently
threatened the Western “aggressors.” A letter Moscow
sent to the British government stated, for instance:
If rocket weapons were used against Britain and France,
you would doubtless call that a barbarous act. But how
does this differ from the inhuman attack carried out by thearmed forces of Britain and France against practicallyunarmed Egypt? … We are fully resolved to use force tocrush the aggressors and to restore peace in the East.7

Disinformation had always been a main component ofSoviet foreign policy. That fit Khrushchev like a glove,
although he would soon learn that deceiving the West wasconsiderably more difficult that lying to his fellow
Soviets. Khrushchev, who had spent World War II as ageneral, considered himself an expert in militarydisinformation; therefore, once in the Kremlin he mademilitary disinformation a main pillar of his foreign policy.
According to what I learned from the razvedka advisers,
Khrushchev started by trying to persuade the West that
the Soviet Union’s air force had acquired superiority over
the United States. “Walnut” was the codename underwhich this KGB operation, coordinated by Khrushchev
himself, was known in the DIE.
Just as I was leaving for my assignment as Romania’s
spy chief in West Germany, the DIE adviser for
intelligence on military technology, KGB Colonel
Rudenko, told me that in July 1955, Nikita Sergeyevich
had organized a “spectacular” Aviation Day, on whichwave after wave of the brand new MYa-4 strategic
bombers had flown over Moscow. In actual fact, it had
been the same squadron reappearing every few minutes.
“That was all we had,” Rudenko explained.
That endless air show had caused a shock explosion in
the Western media, the KGB adviser claimed, which had
immediately been followed up by an avalanche of data“leaked by us” showing that Moscow had outdistanced
Washington in strategic bomber strength. “Now this justcame in,” Rudenko said during that same discussion,
handing me a “documentary” study. His material had
been prepared in Moscow and contained comparisons
between the Soviet long-range TU-20 and MYa-4
strategic bombers and the American B-47 and B-52. The

bottom line of the study was that the Soviet Union now
had more and better strategic bombers that the UnitedStates did, and my station’s task was to leak thesecomparisons to the West German media.
As I later learned, the United States government was
only temporarily deceived by Khrushchev’s bomber
disinformation. In the spring of 1957, soon after the U-2
became operational, Director of Central Intelligence Allen
Dulles wrote to Senator Stuart Symington:
The estimate of Soviet heavy bomber strength as of April 1,
1956, which was given in my testimony before yoursubcommittee, was largely based on an estimated build-up
rate which rested upon earlier evidence. Subsequent to mytestimony before your committee in April 1956, theintelligence community acquired new and better evidence
on Soviet heavy-bomber production and strength inoperational units and we undertook a complete review ofour estimates on this subject, [which] revised downwards
the estimated total production on Bison (the Russianequivalent of the B-52).8

A few months after I arrived as station chief inFrankfurt, I was informed by DIE headquarters that the
KGB had launched “Operation Walnut II,” aimed atmaking the West believe that the Soviet Union had also
become the world’s largest rocket power. Once again,
Khrushchev made the first move by telling James Restonof the New York Times: “Now we have all the rockets weneed: long-range rockets, intermediate-range rockets andshort-range rockets.”9 The disinformation departments of
the Soviet bloc intelligence community followed step, andsoon the West was laboring under the widespread
impression that there was a growing missile gap in favorof the Soviet Union, which, in addition to a large variety
of offensive rockets, also possessed sophisticatedantimissile rockets able to defend its territory. Three years
later, however, the Eisenhower administration was inpossession of strong evidence obtained by its U-2
reconnaissance planes that the Soviets had in fact only
two ballistic missile bases.
The film captured by the Soviets from the U-2 plane
shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, showedthat Washington had seen through Moscow’s lies, but
Khrushchev evidently could not understand that his gamehad been compromised. New instructions from Moscow
asked the DIE to redouble its efforts to deceive the Westabout the “missile gap,” and also to spread the rumor thatby then Moscow possessed antimissile systems as well. It
was only in his memoirs that Khrushchev allowed himself
indirectly to acknowledge that his claims to Soviet rocket
superiority had been a bald-faced lie: “I used to saysometimes in my speeches that we had developed anantimissile that could hit a fly, but of course that was justrhetoric to make our adversaries think twice.”10
In the end, Khrushchev’s missile deception turned

against him, just as most of his foreign policy adventures
did. Temporarily convinced that there really was a missile
gap in Moscow’s favor, the United States engaged in a
massive arms buildup that soon gave it overwhelming
rocket superiority over the Soviet Union. At the sametime the Chinese, who took Khrushchev’s “missile
deception” at face value, could not understand why he had
failed to use his advantage, and they therefore branded
him “soft” on imperialism and accused him of abandoning
communist principles.
The fuse was lit that would eventually set off the blast
ousting Khrushchev from the driver’s seat. On October
14, 1964, less than a year after Kennedy was assassinated,
Khrushchev was accused of “harebrained schemes, hasty
decisions, actions divorced from reality, braggadocio, andrule by fiat,” and he was dethroned.11
Many years later, Khrushchev in his grave suffered theultimate indignity when his son Sergei became a citizen of
the United States, the country his father had dedicated hislife to destroying. In 2000, Sergei Khrushchev published alengthy book in which he tried to put a human face on his
father.12 I found it sincere and convincing, but it deals
with an entirely different Khrushchev—a serene,
peaceful, loving one. Then again, if my daughter, who is
now also an American citizen, should someday decide towrite a book about her father, she would not know
anything about my real career in Romania. Even thoughshe visited me at my cover office and I often took her tothe Generals’ Club of the Securitate, she had never beenable to get even a glimpse of my real work as Romania’s
spy chief. That was another of those strictly enforced
rules inherited from Moscow.
Unfortunately, we continue to cope with the legaciesof the Khrushchev I knew—not the one his son describes.

31
OPERATION “DRAGON”

ON NOVEMBER 26, 1963, four days after President
Kennedy was killed, General Sakharovsky landed
unannounced in Bucharest, in what proved to be his firststop on a blitz tour of the main “sister” services. Fromhim, we in the DIE learned that the KGB had alreadylaunched a worldwide disinformation operation aimed atdiverting public attention away from Moscow in respect
to the Kennedy assassination, and at framing the CIA as
the culprit. “The Comrade” himself—Khrushchev—
wanted to make it clear to all “our sister services” that thiswas by far our first and most important task.
“The Comrade” was afraid, Sakharovsky told us, that
if the American media and public opinion should startpointing the finger at Moscow, that could end in a nuclearconfrontation. Time was of the essence. It was crucial,
Sakharovsky emphasized, to spread our version about theassassination before Washington could spread its own, sothat our disinformation machinery could plant the idea on
virgin soil that the CIA was responsible for the crime.
We in the DIE knew better than to ask Sakharovsky
questions. But we knew.
Blaming the CIA for the KGB’s own assassinations
and kidnappings abroad was a disinformation tactic that
had been introduced by Khrushchev after the TwentiethCongress, where he had “unmasked” Stalin’s crimes. In
spite of the KGB’s penchant for bureaucratic paperwork,
Khrushchev ordered that from then on, all operations
connected with assassinations and kidnappings abroadmust be handled on a strictly oral basis. They were never
to be committed to paper, and they had to be kept totally
secret from the Politburo and every other governing body.
Only the Comrade himself could approve assassinations
and kidnappings abroad. Regardless of any evidence thatmight be produced in foreign investigations, the KGB wasnever to acknowledge its involvement in assassinations
and kidnappings abroad; any such evidence was to bedismissed out of hand as a ridiculous accusation.
Finally, after each operation the KGB was
surreptitiously to spread “evidence” in the West, accusing
the CIA or other convenient “enemies” of having done thedeed, thereby if possible killing two birds with one stone.

We learned about Khrushchev’s new strategy soon after
the Twentieth Congress from General Ivan Anisimovich
Fadeyev, the new chief of the rebaptized and widely
expanded KGB department for assassinations abroad,
who came to Bucharest for an “exchange of information.”
General Fadeyev was known to the DIE managementfrom the years when he had headed the KGB rezidentura
in East Berlin, which became an infamous mechanism forassassinating people in, and kidnapping people from,
West Germany. He had also been instrumental in the
brutal June 1953 suppression of anti-Soviet
demonstrations in East Berlin, when his KGB troops
opened live fire against the German demonstrators. That
had been too much even for the bloodthirsty Stalin, as
Fadeyev was recalled to Moscow. Not for Khrushchev,
however.
In 1957, General Fadeyev began his exchange ofexperience in Bucharest by playing Khrushchev’s broken
record, according to which Stalin had made an
unpardonable mistake by aiming the cutting edge of thestate security apparatus against the Soviet Union’s own
people. Fadeyev said that when Khrushchev delivered his“secret speech,” the only thing he had in mind was tocorrect that aberration. In December 1917, when Leninfounded the Cheka, he gave it the emblem of a shield anda sword to symbolize its duties: to shield and protect thecommunist revolution, and to put its enemies to thesword. Lenin never intended, Fadeyev said, to use “us”

against “our own people.” Ten million Soviet citizens
gave their lives to defend “our” political system during
World War II—what more evidence did one need toprove their devotion to communism?
Fadeyev explained that “our enemies” were not in theSoviet Union. America’s bourgeoisie and our own traitors
who had defected from their motherland and were now
attacking it from abroad were our “deadly enemies.” Weshould direct the cutting edge of our sword against them,and only them, to fulfill “our historic destiny” as thegravedigger of capitalism. That was what Nikita
Sergeyevich had really wanted to tell us in his “secretspeech.”In fact, Fadeyev explained, one of Khrushchev’s firstforeign policy decisions after settling down on the
Kremlin throne had been his 1953 order to have one such“deadly enemy” secretly assassinated. Fadeyev wasreferring to a KGB operation aimed at killing Georgy
Okolovich, a Ukrainian émigré who was the leader of the
National Labor Alliance (Natsionalnyy Trudovoy Soyuz,
or NTS), one of the most aggressively anticommunist
Russian émigré organizations in Western Europe.
Although born in the Crimea, Khrushchev had spent years
as Stalin’s viceroy for Ukraine and considered himself aUkrainian—he would soon incorporate the Crimea into
Ukraine—and it was quite normal for him to inaugurate
his foreign policy by planning to “neutralize” the leadersof the anticommunist organizations run by Ukrainianémigrés.
The KGB execution team arrived in West Germany inFebruary 1954. Unfortunately, in Fadeyev’s view, theteam’s head, KGB officer Nikolay Khokhlov, “betrayedhis country” by defecting to the CIA. Because troubles
never come alone, Fadeyev added, two other officers fromthe KGB assassination unit defected at about the sametime: Yury Rastvorov in January 1954, and Petr Deryabin
in February 1954.
According to Fadeyev, all those setbacks led to drasticchanges. First of all, Khrushchev ordered the KGB to
spread the rumor worldwide that he had dismantled the
KGB’s assassination component. Then he baptizedkidnappings and assassinations abroad with theeuphemism “neutralization” operations. Finally, he
rechristened the Ninth Department—as the assassination
component had been called up to then—as the Thirteenth
Department, buried its existence in even deeper secrecy,and put it directly under his own supervision. Having
done all that, Khrushchev then introduced a new pattern
for the KGB’s “neutralization” operations.
Before Fadeyev left Bucharest, the DIE had acquired
its own ultrasecret component for kidnappings andassassinations abroad. The new unit was given the name“Group Z,” because the letter Z was the final letter in thealphabet, representing the “final solution.” Only the headof the DIE had knowledge of its operations, but weunderstood that its structure was virtually identical to thatof its “sister” units recently created in the East German,
Hungarian, and Bulgarian foreign intelligence services. In
accordance with another new KGB pattern, all four“sister” units had their operational components in East
Berlin, and all were equipped by the KGB with acomplete arsenal of supplies ranging from powerfulsoporifics to trusted agents living in the West who had
previously been used in terrorist operations by the various
bloc services, thus allowing for the standardization ofoperational methods.
In fact, one of the first operations conducted under
Khrushchev’s new rules was jointly carried out by the
KGB, the DIE and the East German Stasi in September
1958, when anticommunist Romanian émigré leader
Oliviu Beldeanu was secretly kidnapped from West
Germany. The official East German newspaper, Neues
Deutschland, and the Romanian equivalent, Scînteia,
placed the onus for this crime on the CIA’s shoulders by
publishing official press communiqués stating that he had
been arrested in East Germany after having been secretly
infiltrated there by the CIA in order to carry out sabotage
and diversion operations.
Now, in late November 1963, a special KGB courier
notified the management of the DIE that within the
Dragon Operation we should include mention of a jealous
President Johnson as the instigator of the CIA plot, which
he, allegedly, had personally arranged to take place inTexas on his home turf. By December, as part of the plot,
the KGB added the “sharks” of the American “militaryindustrial complex,” who were allegedly furious at
Kennedy for wanting to cut back on the American
military presence abroad and therefore on arms spending(and the sharks’ profits).
The Dragon Operation has become one of the mostsuccessful disinformation operations in contemporary
history. According to JFK, a 1991 movie made by Oliver
Stone, the assassination of President Kennedy was theresult of a conspiracy at the US government’s highest
level, implicating members of the military-industrial
complex, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Mafia,
and Lyndon Johnson. The movie was nominated for eight
Academy Awards and it won two. According to a later
Gallup poll, between two-thirds and three-quarters ofAmericans believed there had indeed been a CIA
conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.1
For many years, a satisfactory explanation of
Oswald’s motivation had yet to be offered, because thewhole important dimension of Soviet foreign policy
concerns and Soviet intelligence practice in the late 1950s
and early 1960s had not been addressed in connection
with Oswald by any competent authority.

In 2007, I published Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey

Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination,a book in which I was primarily concerned with
documenting and explaining the events leading up to theassassination. I did include everything I knew about thesubsequent disinformation campaign from the Romanianperspective, but I could just barely touch on what has now
become an avalanche of insistent lies, off-the-wall
opinions, and amateur analysis flooding through the
public media in every country over the course of all theseyears. As that very clever master of deception Yuri
Andropov once told me, if a good piece of disinformationis repeated over and over, after a while it will take on alife of its own and will—all by itself,—generate a hordeof unwitting but passionate advocates.
Let me summarize my book’s analysis of what led up
to the assassination, presenting the Soviets with such anenormous headache in November 1963. The KGB
recruited Oswald for ideological reasons when he was a
US Marine stationed in Japan. When he insisted on
defecting to the Soviet paradise, the KGB kept him there
for three years and then persuaded him to return to theUnited States temporarily, in order to assassinate
President Kennedy, who had badly humiliated Oswald’s
idol Khrushchev before the whole world. During thistime, Oswald was intensively indoctrinated, trained inagent communications and weaponry, given a Soviet wife
who was trained to assist him, and then dispatched off toTexas. Once there, an American businessman, George deMohrenschildt, helped Oswald settle into his new
surroundings.
De Mohrenschildt has been an enigma for mostassassination researchers and even for his friends. A goodpart of Programmed to Kill deals with de Mohrenschildt.
Here let me just say that he was a long-time Soviet illegal
officer whose biography had frequently changed in orderto accommodate his Soviet intelligence tasks. De
Mohrenschildt became an American citizen in the 1930s,
during the Nazi era, when he was documented by
Moscow as Baron George von Mohrenschildt, son of a
German director of the Swedish “Nobel interests” in the
Baku oilfields. Toward the end of World War II, when it
became clear that the Nazis would be defeated, theGerman baron became the French George deMohrenschildt, who had attended a commercial school in
Belgium founded by Napoleon. After World War II, heclaimed that his father had been a Russian engineer in the
Ploiesti oilfields in Romania, captured there by the Soviet
Army and executed. No wonder de Mohrenschildt
committed suicide when he was summoned to testify
under oath to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations in 1977.
By the time Oswald was settled in Texas, Khrushchev
had changed his mind about killing Kennedy. In October
1962, Khrushchev had been revealed as a politicalmurderer at a spectacular public trial held by the West
German Supreme Court. The defendant was Bogdan

Stashinsky, an officer of the KGB’s Thirteenth
Department, who had defected to West Germany in 1961.
He confessed to having assassinated two leading
Ukrainian émigrés in 1957 and 1959 at Khrushchev’sorder, for which afterward he was personally decorated by
Khrushchev. What had started out as Stashinsky’s trial
soon transformed into one against Khrushchev.
The flamboyant, impulsive, and unpredictable ruler inthe Kremlin, whose “secret” speech unmasking Stalin’s
crimes was still fresh in everyone’s memory, now
appeared to be just another odious butcher—and a flat-out
liar. It was not at all true that after the Twentieth Party
Congress Khrushchev had stopped the KGB’s killings; hehad merely turned the focus abroad. The West German
Supreme Court declared Stashinsky only “an accomplice
to murder.”“Murder is now carried out on express government
orders,” the judge explained. “Political murder has, so to
speak, now become institutionalized.”2 Any revelation of
a Soviet hand in an assassination of the widely popular
American president would fatal to Khrushchev.
Oswald had arrived in the United States shortly before
Stashinsky’s well-publicized trial, after which the KGB
tried to turn Oswald off. The KGB sent him many
messages, and then he had secret meetings in Mexico City
with “Comrade Kostin,” the KGB assassinations expert
who had been assigned to that nearby country whereclandestine meetings could safely be conducted. Oswald
had unfortunately been so well indoctrinated for his
mission that he insisted on going through with it byhimself, convinced he knew what his idol Khrushchev
really wanted.
Here are a few extremely important pieces of evidence
that were found in various places after Kennedy’s
assassination. These points have never been seriously
considered by US investigators, who were unfamiliar with
the KGB modus operandi. They are, however, crucial forunderstanding Oswald, his secret connection with the
KGB’s supersecret unit for assassinations abroad, and thereason he acted alone in the end.
The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had
no secret ties with the KGB and no connection with its
Thirteenth Department, which was responsible forassassinations abroad. During the long holiday weekendof November 9-11, 1963, however, Oswald wrote a letterfor the Soviet Embassy in Washington, in which hedescribed the meeting he had just had with “comrade
Kostin” in Mexico City, whom he also names elsewhere
as Comrade Kostikov. As previously noted, the CIA
identified “comrade Kostin,” aka “Comrade Kostikov,” asValery Kostikov, an officer of the KGB’s Thirteenth
Department for assassinations abroad, who was assigned
under diplomatic cover at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico.
After the assassination, a handwritten draft ofOswald’s above-referenced letter was found among
Oswald’s effects in the garage of Ruth Paine, an
American at whose house Oswald had spent thatweekend. Ruth testified under oath that Oswald rewrotethat letter several times before typing it on her typewriter.
It was important to him. A photocopy of the final letter
Oswald sent to the Soviet embassy was recovered by the
Warren Commission. Let me quote from that letter, inwhich I have also inserted Oswald’s earlier draft version
in italics within brackets:
This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings
with comrade Kostin [of new events since my interviews
with comrade Kostine] in the Embassy of the Soviet Union,
Mexico City, Mexico. I was unable to remain in Mexico[crossed out in draft: because I considered useless]indefinitely because of my Mexican visa restrictions which
was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance onrequesting a new visa [applying for an extension] unless I
used my real name, so I returned to the United States.”

The fact that Oswald used an operational codenamefor Kostikov indicates to me that both his meeting with
Kostikov in Mexico City and his correspondence with theSoviet Embassy in Washington were conducted in a KGB
operational context. The fact that Oswald did not use hisreal name to obtain his Mexican travel permit confirms
this conclusion.
Now let us juxtapose this combined letter against thefree Mexico City guidebook Esta Semana—This Week for
September 28—October 4, 1963, and against a SpanishEnglish dictionary, both found among Oswald’s effects,
but given no attention whatsoever. The guidebook has theSoviet embassy’s telephone number underlined in pencil,
the names Kosten and Osvald noted in Cyrillic on thepage listing “Diplomats in Mexico,” and checkmarks next
to five movie theaters on the previous page.3 In the backof his Spanish-English dictionary, Oswald wrote: “buytickets [plural] for bull fight,”4 and the Plaza México
bullring is encircled on his Mexico City map.5 Also
marked on Oswald’s map is the Palace of Fine Arts,6 afavorite place for tourists to assemble on Sunday
mornings to watch the Ballet Folklórico.
Contrary to what Oswald claimed, he was notobserved at the Soviet Embassy at any time during his
stay in Mexico City, although the CIA had surveillancecameras trained on the entrance to the embassy at thattime.7 All of the above facts taken together suggest to me
that Oswald resorted to an unscheduled or “ironmeeting”—zheleznaya yavka in Russian—for an urgent
talk with Kostikov in Mexico City. The “iron meeting”
was a standard KGB procedure for emergency situations—iron meaning ironclad or invariable.
In my day, I approved quite a few “iron meetings” inMexico City— a favorite place for contacting ourimportant agents living in the United States—andOswald’s “iron meeting” looks like a typical one. Thatmeans: a brief encounter at a movie house to arrange ameeting for the following day at the bullfights (in Mexico
City they were held at 4:30 every Sunday afternoon); a
brief encounter in front of the Palace of Fine Arts to pass
Kostikov one of the bullfight tickets Oswald had bought;
and a long meeting for discussions at the Sunday
bullfight.
Of course, I cannot be sure that everything happened
exactly that way— every case officer has his own quirks.
But however they may have connected, it is clear that
Kostikov and Oswald did secretly meet over that weekendof September 28-29, 1963. The letter to the Soviet
embassy that Oswald worked so hard on irrefutably
proves that.
It seems that no one in the Warren Commission had
ever heard about the KGB’s zheleznaya yavka, however.
Therefore, all these strong pieces of evidence showingthat in Mexico City, Oswald had an “iron meeting” with“comrade Kostin,” an identified officer of the KGB’s
department for assassinations abroad, were lost within thetwenty-six volumes of chaotically assembled documents
and testimonies of the Warren Commission Report.
We should not blame the Warren Commission for
missing the significance of the espionage proof sitting
right in their hands. None of its members had any
background in counterintelligence analysis. And because Isuppose most of this book’s readers are equally unfamiliar
with the fine points of counterintelligence technique, letme put it this way: You cannot expect a plumber toperform heart surgery.
The Warren Commission’s unfamiliarity with the
KGB codes caused it to miss other pieces of conclusive
evidence. After September 11, 2001, the FBI told
members of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States that only a native Arabic
speaker could catch the fine points of an al-Qaida
telephone intercept, especially one containing intelligence
double-speak and codes. I spent twenty-three years of myother life double-speaking in codes. Even my own
identity was codified. In 1955, when I became a foreign
intelligence officer, I was told that my new name wouldbe Mihai Podeanu, and Podeanu I remained until 1978,
when I broke with communism. All my subordinates—
and the rest of the bloc foreign intelligence officers—used
codes in their written reports, when talking with theirsources, and even in conversations with their own
colleagues. When I left Romania for good, my espionage
service was the “university,” the country’s leader was the“architect,” Vienna was “Videle,” and so on.
By that time, I was also managing Romania’s
equivalent of the National Security Agency, and I became
relatively familiar with the KGB code and cipher systems.
In an April 10, 1963, note Oswald left for his wife,
Marina, before he tried to kill American General Edwin

Walker in a dry run before going on to assassinate
President Kennedy, I found two KGB codes of that time:friends (code for support officer) and Red Cross (code forfinancial help).
In this note, Oswald tells Marina what to do in case heis arrested. He stresses that she should contact the (Soviet)“embassy,” that they have “friends here,” and that the“Red Cross” (written in English, so that she’ll know how
to ask for it) will help her financially. Particularly
significant is Oswald’s instruction for her to “send the[Soviet] embassy the information about what happened tome.” At that time the code for embassy was “office,” butit seems that Oswald wanted to be sure Marina would
understand that she should immediately inform the Soviet
Embassy.
It is noteworthy that Marina did not mention this note
to US authorities after Oswald’s arrest. It was found at thehome of Ruth Paine, the American friend with whom
Marina was staying at the time of the assassination, and it
also got lost inside the twenty-six volumes of the Warren
Commission Report.

When the KGB realized that Oswald could not bereasoned with, they brought Fidel Castro peripherally into
the case, asking him to get one of his agents in the UnitedStates to kill Oswald, if the latter could not be prevented

from going ahead with the assassination when Kennedy
made his scheduled visit to Dallas.
Oswald’s killer, Jack Ruby, testified under oath to the
Warren Commission that he had visited Cuba only once,
as a tourist, in August 1959. Fourteen years later,
however, the House Select Committee on Assassinations
obtained records of the US Immigration andNaturalization Service “indicating that Ruby left Cuba on
September 11, 1959, traveling to Miami, returned to Cuba
on September 12, and traveled to New Orleans on
September 13, 1959.” These documents were later
supplemented by tourist cards the committee obtained
from the Cuban government, which showed “Ruby also
entered Cuba on August 8, 1959, left on September 11,
reentered on September 12 and left again on September
13, 1959.”8
In connection with these newly discovered trips, thechief counsel of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, Robert G. Blakey, wrote: “We establishedbeyond reasonable doubt that Ruby lied repeatedly andwillfully to the FBI and the Warren Commission about
the number of trips he made to Cuba and their duration.”9
In its final report, the House Select Committee
concluded that “vacationing was probably not the purpose
for traveling to Havana, despite Ruby’s insistence to the
Warren Commission that his one trip to Cuba in 1959 wasa social visit.”10 The official US investigation of Ruby

stopped there, however.

32
NEW HARD PROOF OF THE
KGB’S HAND

SINCE THE PUBLICATION of Programmed to Kill, a gooddeal of unimpeachable information has become available,
providing fascinating insights into the KGB’s
disinformation operation aimed at framing the CIA as thebehind-the-scenes perpetrator of President Kennedy’s
assassination. Not only are we now better able to envision
the KGB’s thinking and projected aims for the
postassassination period, but many of the players havealso been identified as KGB agents, and some of thetechniques have been exposed as tried and true KGB
ploys—agents and operational tricks that have turned up
in other KGB disinformation operations, some of whichhave been discussed earlier in this book. (The Soviet
intelligence officers whom I knew in my previous life
generally recommended that we continue to use
operational scenarios that had worked in the past.)
The first piece of irrefutable evidence proving the
KGB had launched a disinformation offensive withrespect to the Kennedy assassination aimed at diverting
public attention away from Moscow was released by
Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first freely elected president. In his
memoir, The Struggle for Russia, Yeltsin revealed a letterto the Central Committee of the Communist Party of theSoviet Union dated November 23, 1963—the day after
Kennedy’s assassination—signed by KGB chairman
Vladimir Semichastny, which recommended publishing,in a “progressive paper in one of the Western countries,”
an article “exposing the attempt by reactionary circles in
the USA to remove the responsibility for the murder ofKennedy from the real criminals, [i.e.,] the racists andultra-right elements guilty of the spread and growth ofviolence and terror in the United States.” Semichastny’s
request was approved. Two months later, R. Palme Dutt,the editor of a communist-controlled British journal called
Labour Monthly, published an article that raised thespecter of CIA involvement without offering a scintilla ofevidence. “[M]ost commentators,” Dutt wrote, “havesurmised a coup of the Ultra-Right or racialists of Dallas… [that], with the manifest complicity necessary of a very
wide range of authorities, bears all the hallmarks of a CIA

job.”1
The CIA is by far the world’s best intelligenceorganization. It decisively contributed to America’s Cold
War victory, and it became the world’s first line ofdefense against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. By
portraying it as a criminal organization, the KGB hoped todiminish its ability to recruit human assets able to see
what satellites could not—what Soviet bloc despots werethinking, and what their most secret war plans were.
Much of the reliable new information that documents
the Kremlin’s disinformation operation blaming the CIA
for killing Kennedy has come from defectors. In 1992, theBritish smuggled Colonel Vasili Mitrokhin, a KGB
archivist, out of the Soviet Union, along with some
25,000 highly classified documents he had stolen from
KGB foreign intelligence archives over the course ofmany years. Those documents represent a minuscule partof the whole KGB archive. Nevertheless, the FBI
described the Mitrokhin Archive as “the most complete
and extensive intelligence ever received from any
source.” In the view of the CIA, this archive is “thebiggest counter-intelligence bonanza of the postwar
period.”2
Mitrokhin reported on the Kennedy assassination
conspiracy stories promoted by the KGB, and his material
identifies a number of the agents in the West who were
engaged in promoting those conspiracy theories. Amongthe most important revelations provided by the Mitrokhin
Archive are the highly classified KGB documents provingthat the so-called Kennedy assassination conspiracy,
which to this day has generated thousands of books allaround the world, was born in the KGB, and that some of
it was financed by the KGB.
Equally significant are the documents in the Mitrokhin
Archive showing that the KGB had constructed thisconspiracy using some of the same paid KGB agents who
were called upon to promote the disinformation operation
designed to frame Pius XII as having been pro-Nazi:
Carlo Marzani, codenamed Nord, who received asignificant amount of money from the KGB to produce
pro-Soviet books; I. F. Stone, codenamed Blin (Russianfor “pancake”), who began receiving the Kremlin’s
money in 1944; and Victor Perlo, codenamed Raid or
Raider, identified as a Soviet agent in the Venona
electronic intercepts, as well as by defectors.
That should come as no surprise. After all, both
operations took off in 1963 (The Deputy hit the Berlin
stage in February, and Oswald shot the president inNovember), both would have been dreamt up by
Khrushchev with the help of his spy chief, General
Sakharovsky—the former chief Soviet intelligenceadviser for Romania—and both would have been carriedout by the same disinformation experts on the desk at
KGB headquarters at that time.

According to documents in the Mitrokhin Archive, thefirst book on the assassination published in the UnitedStates, Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy?, was authored by aformer member of the German Communist Party, Joachim
Joesten, and published in New York by KGB agent Carlo
Aldo Marzani.3 The publisher Marzani was regularly andgenerously paid by the KGB (and by the Communist
Party’s Central Committee) to promote books of aprogressive nature by both American and foreignauthors.4 Until the Mitrokhin Archive documents beganappearing in 1999, it was not known that Joesten’s
publisher, Marzani & Munsell, received subsidies totaling$672,000 from the Central Committee of the Communist
Party in the early 1960s.5
Shortly before publishing Joesten’s book on Oswald,
Marzani supported the KGB’s attack on Pius XII. As
noted in an earlier chapter discussing Hochhuth’s The
Deputy, when that anti-Pius XII play debuted in Berlin in
1963, Marzani was able on short notice to republish
Shylock: The History of a Character, an early bookdescribing the mistreatment of Jews by popes, which
helped to advertise Hochhuth’s play.
It is noteworthy that Joesten’s book saw the light of
day just a couple of days before the Warren Commission
Report was published, conforming to the KGB’s
instructions that we in the DIE received in the Dragon
Operation. In his book, Joesten also follows what weknew as Dragon Operation guidelines by describing
Oswald as an FBI agent provocateur with a CIA
background, who was used to shield the real assassins, an
unnamed group of American right-wing conspirators.
No one knows how Joesten became such an instantauthority on the assassination. He has said that he spent
five days in Dallas “investigating” the tragedy and that hethen, on December 11, 1963, returned home to his wife.
But she said he failed to show up for dinner that evening,
instead leaving her a note saying he had gone to Europe.
And gone he was for several months. Later that year,
Joesten began publishing articles and books on the
Kennedy assassination.6
As discussed earlier, when people asked Rolf
Hochhuth where he got his outrageous stories about Pius
XII, he would say he had spent three months in Romechatting up a talkative German bishop, but that the source
material had to remain sealed for fifty years. The public
has not been satisfied with either five days in Dallas or
three months in Rome.
The first review of Joesten’s book, which praised it to
the skies, was signed by KGB agent Victor Perlo and was
published on September 23, 1964, in New Times, which I
knew was a KGB front at one time printed in Romania.7
In the 1930s, Perlo was the head of a group of important
agents run by the communist underground in the UnitedStates. In 1944, Perlo and his group were turned over tothe KGB predecessor organization and handled by
Elizabeth Bentley, who defected a year later. Thattransfer, incidentally, took place at the New Yorkapartment of the lawyer John Abt, a lifelong member ofthe American Communist Party, who—according to the
Vassiliev Archive—regularly helped the party
underground, the KGB and the GRU with funding andlegal matters.8 After his arrest, Oswald stated he wanted
to be represented by John Abt and tried to reach him by
telephone, but Abt was away for the weekend.9 The
Vassiliev Archive also documents that Perlo frequently
wrote articles for various communist fronts, signing themwith assorted pseudonyms. In the 1940s, he helped thewriter I. F. Stone compile material for various exposés.10
On December 9, 1963, I. F. Stone (KGB codename“Blin”) published a long article in which he tried to justify
why America had killed its own president. He called
Oswald and Ruby “rightist crackpots,” but put the real
blame on the “warlike Administration” of the UnitedStates, that was trying to sell Europe a “nuclear
monstrosity.”11 Stone was another paid KGB agent who a
few months later joined in the attack on Pius XII. As
noted in an earlier chapter, on March 9, 1964, Stonesigned an article in his own weekly publication thatpraised Hochhuth’s play The Deputy and attacked Pius
XII as having been “friendly to Hitler” and to
Mussolini.12 That same month, Stone’s sister, Judy Stone,published a friendly interview with Hochhuth inRamparts13 which, as will be seen below, would playsignificant role in promoting the KGB disinformation
connected with the Kennedy assassination as well.
So again we see the KGB rounding up the “usual
suspects,” both in order to smear Pius XII as pro-Hitler
and to blame the CIA and other American targets for thedeath of President Kennedy.
Joachim Joesten dedicated his book Oswald: Assassin
or Fall Guy? to Mark Lane, an American leftist who in1966 produced the bestseller Rush to Judgment, alleging
Kennedy was assassinated by a right-wing Americangroup. Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive show that the
KGB indirectly sent Mark Lane money ($2,000), and that
KGB operative, Genrikh Borovik, was in regular contact
with him. Another KGB defector, Colonel Oleg
Gordievsky (former KGB station chief in London), has
identified Borovik as the brother-in-law of Col. General
Vladimir Kryuchkov, who in 1974 became head of KGB
foreign intelligence, in 1988 chairman of the KGB, and in
August 1991 led the anti-glasnost coup in Moscow.
The year 1967 saw the publication of two more books
attributed to Joesten: The Case Against Lyndon Johnson
in the Assassination of President Kennedy and Oswald:
The Truth. Both books insinuated that President Johnson
and his CIA had killed Kennedy. They were soon
followed by Mark Lane’s A Citizen’s Dissent (1968).

According to assassination researcher Vincent Bugliosi,
Mark Lane has been “by far the most persistent andaudible single voice” in making Americans believe thatreactionary elements in the United States killed
Kennedy.14 Lane has also intensively traveled abroad topreach that America is an “FBI police state” that killed its
own president.
Mark Lane helped New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison arrest a local man (Clay Shaw), whom Garrison
accused of conspiring with elements of US intelligence tomurder Kennedy in order to stop the latter’s efforts to end
the Cold War. Garrison’s book, On the Trail of theAssassin, inspired Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, which, as I
mentioned prior, claims the assassination of President
Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy at the highest
level of the US government.
Thus, the Kennedy assassination conspiracy was born,and it has never stopped. All kinds of people with any sortof remotely related background expertise joined the party,
each viewing events from his own narrow perspective.
Some witnesses to the JFK assassination have claimed tohave heard more shots and seen more assassins andobserved different wounds than those described in the
Warren Commission Report, even though the latter’s
forensic conclusions have repeatedly been declaredaccurate by responsible analysts. For example, a ballistics
expert supplied the information that led to BonarMenninger’s Mortal Error: The Shot that Killed JFK (St.
Martin’s, 1992), which concludes that a Secret Service
agent probably killed JFK by accident. Gaeton Fonzi’s
The Last Investigation (Thunder’s Mouth, 1993) was
written by a journalist who had worked with the House
committee and claimed to have personal knowledge of a
CIA/Oswald link through investigations he conducted inplaces like Miami. Computer expert David S. Lifton
wrote Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in theAssassination of John F. Kennedy (Macmillan, 1980), in
which, on the basis of his own examination ofphotographs, concludes that JFK’s wounds had beenaltered before he was buried, although no purpose forsuch an alteration is offered. Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw
also wrote a book questioning the wounds: JFK:
Conspiracy of Silence (Signet, 1992).
All such books divert the public’s attention away fromthe real case. Unfortunately, serious publishing houses
continue to accept books of this kind, which are based on
nothing more than each author’s viewing some aspect of
the story through his own narrowly focused lens and thenletting his imagination run wild.

Another extremely significant new piece of information
provided by the Mitrokhin Archive revolves around a
short, handwritten and apparently naïve note that starts,

“Dear Mr. Hunt,” in which “Lee Harvey Oswald” politely
asks for “information concerning my position … before
any steps are taken by me or anyone else.” In 1975,
photocopies of this document were mailed in the UnitedStates to three of the most active conspiracy advocates,
along with a note alleging that the head of the FBI had theoriginal.
According to Mitrokhin, the note had been fabricatedby the KGB using words and expressions taken from
actual letters handwritten by Oswald during his stay in theSoviet Union, and had been twice authenticated by the
KGB’s Technical Operations Directorate. (Remember that
the KGB insisted on using photocopies of forgeries, asthat made them more difficult to detect.) The KGB
intended the “Dear Mr. Hunt” note to be an allusion to
Texas oil tycoon H. L. Hunt, who was part of its originalplan to implicate wealthy Texans in the assassination. In
1977, the note was published in a small Texas newspaper.
(The owner of the newspaper was the late Penn Jones, Jr.,a “mysterious-deaths” conspiracy advocate, who selfpublished several books on the Kennedy assassination andwas supported by the leftist Ramparts magazine.15 As
discussed earlier, Ramparts actively attacked Pius XII and
was instrumental in seeing Hochhuth’s anti-Pius XII play
The Deputy produced in New York. Ramparts also
published numerous articles on the Kennedy
assassination, often implicating US government officials.)
The “Dear Mr. Hunt” note was then picked up by the New

York Times, which claimed it had been authenticated bythree handwriting experts and by Oswald’s widow.
The KGB forgery had been “validated.”
In connection with the above “Dear Mr. Hunt”
forgery, it is instructive to recall the forgeries created by
the Hungarian communists in an effort to compromise
Cardinal Mindszenty (discussed earlier). In 1949, right inthe middle of his trial, the handwriting experts Lázlo andHanna Sulner, who had fabricated documents used against
Mindszenty, escaped to Vienna. Once safely in the West,they explained how they had copied words and phrases
from some of the manuscripts stolen from Mindszenty’s
office, and then had strung them together to create perfectforgeries, such as his alleged confession. Hanna said herfather had invented a machine that could produce
foolproof copies of handwriting and that Lázlo had
become very proficient at using it. She added that the
Hungarian security police officers had been very
interested in the machine, eventually confiscating it sothat they themselves could make their own (rather sloppy)
forgeries. (Here, I again recall how mystified I was when
the KGB kept asking me to have my agents search the
Vatican archives for more and more innocuous documents
written by Pope Pius XII. Now we know why.)
In April 1977, the KGB informed the Communist
Party’s Central Committee that it was orchestrating
additional “active measures” to expose the supposed roleof the “American special services” in the Kennedy
assassination. By 1980, E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA
officer who had been caught up in the Watergate scandal,
was publicly complaining that people were accusing himof having had some role in the Kennedy assassination.16

Several authors have recently published meticulous bookson the Venona intercepts. Although the decryption ofSoviet intelligence broadcasts from the period 1940 to
1948, known as the Venona material, does not directly
apply to our knowledge of the disinformation operationthat took place in the post-Kennedy assassination period,
it does provide documentary background information onsome of the KGB agents involved. I. F. Stone is one ofthem.
Another source of KGB foreign intelligence
documents is known as the Vassiliev Archive. In the
1990s, the Kremlin authorities briefly allowed some of
the KGB’s foreign intelligence archives, covering the
1930s and 1940s, to be made available to former KGB
officer Alexander Vassiliev, so that he could make noteson the documents for a projected joint Russian/American
publication in the West. In the end, this window ofopportunity was shut down before anything was
published, but Vassiliev and his notebooks made it out to
London in 1996. In 2009, the so-called Vassiliev Archivewas published without Russian censorship and augmented
by more complete Venona decryptions and other material
made possible with the help of Vassiliev’s notes. Thisarchive provides new information on some of the Soviet
intelligence agents used in connection with the Kennedy
assassination and other disinformation operations.
One other book provides some surprisingly significant
new information from the Cuban perspective. EntitledCastro’s Spies and published in 2012, it is authored by
Brian Latell, a writer and former CIA officer, who hascollected factual information from defectors and overt
sources. His most important source is Florentino
Aspillaga, a radio intercept officer with Cuban
intelligence who defected in Vienna in 1987. Latellinterviewed him in 2007, and describes him as the mostvaluable defector ever to come from Cuba.
In October 1963, having just finished his training as acommunications technician, the sixteen-year-old
Aspillaga was assigned to sit alone in a commo hut on the
shore near Havana and monitor CIA transmissions from
Virginia, Miami, and offshore ships, looking for spies.
Only once in the dozen years he held that job did his
routine vary, and that was on November 22, 1963. At
about 9:00 or 9:30 that morning, he got a coded radio
message telling him to call his headquarters, which he didfrom another hut with a secure telephone. He was ordered
to stop all CIA tracking for that day and instead to listen
for communications from Texas, and to report anything ofimportance back to headquarters.
About three or four hours later, Aspillaga began
picking up messages on amateur radio bands about theshooting of President Kennedy in Dallas, which hereported to his headquarters on the secure telephone.
(Kennedy was shot at about 12:30 p.m. Dallas time,
which would have been 1:30 p.m. Havana time.)
Aspillaga told Latell: “Castro knew. They knew
Kennedy would be killed.” Aspillaga did not try toembroider this story or to accuse Fidel of the killing, andhis story remained the same even after going over it again
and again. He said that, fearing for his life, he never told
this story to anyone until after his defection in 1987.
Latell checked and found he had included this informationin the Spanish-language memoirs he wrote for his original
debriefers in 1990. It did not become publicly available
until the appearance of Latell’s book in 2012.17
The significance of this small item lies in the fact thatit supports the Programmed to Kill analysis of Fidel
Castro’s peripheral role in the KGB’s damage-control
measures and disinformation operation orchestrated inconnection with Oswald and his assassination of thepresident. After Oswald’s secret meeting with “comrade
Kostin” in Mexico City, the Kremlin evidently informed
Castro about Oswald’s intention to assassinate President
Kennedy during his visit to Dallas, and asked for Cuba’s
help. Castro’s DGI provided its agent, Jack Ruby, whowas given a cover story about why he might have to kill
Oswald, and the KGB briefed Castro on the role heshould play in the ensuing disinformation operation
should it all become necessary.
As soon as news of the assassination hit the airwaves,the Kremlin and its friends rushed to disseminate theirversion of who was responsible before anyone else daredto do so. Fidel Castro was among the first to react.
Because of Oswald’s public support for Cuba and visit
to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Castro knew hehad to act quickly to deflect any suspicion that he was
responsible for Kennedy’s death. As was his wont, hemade many long speeches in Cuba and over Radio
Havana, beginning on November 23. In all his speeches,
he consistently said only nice things about Kennedy,
whose death Castro said could only benefit “ultra-rightist
and ultra-reactionary sectors” in the United States. At firsthe even denied that he had ever heard of Oswald.
However, when his consular officers said they had
reported to Castro on Oswald’s visit to their office in
Mexico City, Castro admitted it but improved on thestory, saying not only that Oswald had gotten angry over
not receiving a Cuban visa, but that he had stormed out,
threatening to kill Kennedy and slamming the consulate
door behind him. The consulate employees denied
Oswald had threatened to kill Kennedy, and no one seems
to have wondered what connection such a remark could
have had anyway with the refusal of a Cuban visa. Castrowas apparently just trying to improve on thedisinformation suggestions he had undoubtedly received
from the KGB. As time went on, Castro, like the KGB,
settled for simply blaming the CIA for the assassination.18

When I was working for Nicolae Ceauşescu, I always
tried to find a way to help him reach a decision on his
own, rather than telling him directly what I thought heshould do about something. That way, both of us were
happy. From our KGB advisors, I had learned that thebest way to put over a deception was to let the target see
something for himself, with his own eyes. Not
surprisingly, there are two cleverly executed andspectacularly successful examples of this tactic that turnup as part of the KGB disinformation operation connectedwith the Kennedy assassination.
In November 1963, Morris Childs, the number two
man in the American Communist Party (which he hadjoined in 1919!), was on his annual visit to Moscow for
the purpose of requesting money and receiving policy
instructions. On November 22, as news of theassassination broke, Morris was summoned to the officeof Boris Ponomarev, the powerful chairman of theInternational Department of the Central Committee of theCommunist Party. The two men had just begun discussing
how the American party should react when a couple ofparty underlings burst in, their faces ashen. In Russian,which Morris had never admitted to understanding, theybreathlessly briefed Ponomarev on Oswald’s arrest,
blurting out that he was a former US Marine who had
defected to the Soviet Union, but that after he had
attempted suicide, Soviet psychiatrists had concluded hewas unbalanced, so the Soviets were glad to be rid of him
when he asked to go back to the United States. The
storytellers excitedly added that the KGB had just sworn
to the Kremlin that it had never had any operational
relationship with him.
Suddenly the storytellers noticed Morris—“theAmerican”—and asked what he should be told.
Ponomarev vouched for him and said he should be told
the truth. The talented actors then retold the same story,
which was relayed to Morris through an interpreter. The
Soviets beseeched Morris to believe they had nothing to
do with the assassination.
In fact, since 1951, Morris Childs had been a very
sensitive FBI agent, whose reporting was considered to becompletely reliable and whose identity was never revealed
to anyone until 1995, when John Barron received
permission to publish Operation Solo: The FBI’s Man in
the Kremlin, from which the above account is taken.
In 1993, before the publication of Solo, my wife and I
had enjoyed a long lunch with John Barron, hosted by
Alfred Regnery, who had published my book Red

Horizons and had just read the outline of a book on the
Kennedy assassination I was writing. At lunch, thediscussion centered around Morris’s diary, which Barron
had just obtained from Morris’s widow, and around Al
Regnery’s intention to publish it as a book. During thatlunch, I learned that Morris’s information was regularly
and anonymously distributed to top members of the US
government on an “eyes only” basis. Barron’s book,published in 1995, contains convincing evidence that
Morris was a very trusted FBI agent and that the
information he provided to the FBI played a decisive rolein the decision of the Warren Commission—and later, ofthe House Committee on Assassinations—not to consider
any Soviet bloc hand in President Kennedy’s
assassination.
There is no question that Morris Childs, as well as his
brother Jack, who had both once been loyal members of
the American Communist Party, were by 1951 and for the
rest of their lives absolutely reliable and devoted FBI
sources. Morris was mainly involved with policy
guidelines and Jack with funds, both of which
commodities they obtained from the Soviet Communist
Party and passed on to its American subsidiary. Even after
1963, both brothers continued to meet with theircommunist contacts and both remained confident theSoviets trusted them.19
According to the Mitrokhin Archive, however, in1974, the KGB component responsible for operations in
the United States became suspicious of Morris Childs
because of certain anomalies in his background. Jack,
then, also fell under suspicion for similar reasons. Bothbrothers had been leading figures in the American party
since its early days and both had switched their allegianceto the FBI in 1951. (Morris was the number two man in
the overt party and Jack an important member of theunderground party, who picked up the funds for the party
through clandestine meetings with KGB officers. By the1970s, the working-level KGB officers responsible forespionage in the United States had wondered if thebrothers might be reporting to the FBI, especially because
the brothers had experienced no ill effects from theanticommunist “witch-hunts” of the 1950s.)
Although in the 1970s the working level of the KGB
periodically recommended that the party replace both
brothers, the party dragged its feet and took no action forvarious reasons, mostly saying the head of the party in the
United States was happy with them. Morris finally retired
from his party position in 1981, and Jack died that same
year. Both brothers had been highly decorated by theSoviets in the 1970s—in 1977 the party even threw a
special birthday party for Morris, attended by KGB
chairman Andropov, party International Department
chairman Ponomarev, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, andabout half the Politburo. Brezhnev pinned the Order of the
Red Banner, a high honor, on Morris’s lapel. (At the sametime, Jack was given the same award, which he would
receive the next time he went to Moscow.)20
Putting all of the above information on the Childs
brothers together, we must inevitably conclude that the
top levels of both the KGB and the Soviet Communist
Party had long understood—since at least 1963 andprobably much earlier— that Morris and Jack Childs werereporting to the FBI. Instead of dumping or even arresting
them, the KGB and party leadership realized they could
use the brothers as unwitting conduits for disinformation.
The brothers would not only pass the Kremlin’s politicalmessages to the American party, but they would also act
as superbly credible sources for the disinformation the
Kremlin wished to convey to the American government.
When the incredible happened and Oswald did succeed in
killing President Kennedy, the Kremlin went into
overdrive to convince both Childs brothers separately that
the Soviets had nothing to do with it.
The show put on for Morris on November 22, 1963,
was unquestionably a farce, deliberately staged as part of
the Kennedy assassination disinformation operation. The
Soviets certainly knew that Morris spoke Russian as hehad spent the first nine years of his life in tsarist Russia,
and later three years at the Communist Party’s Lenin
School in Moscow, where he had even been recruited by
the KGB predecessor as an informant. Moreover, it isincredible that any party flunkies would have dared tobreak into Ponomarev’s meeting with an American, to say
nothing of their having spoken freely about suchextremely sensitive matters as Oswald’s background or
KGB file records.
As a marvelous bonus, the Mitrokhin Archive
completes the picture. Although the First (US)Department of the KGB’s foreign directorate spotted
weak points in the backgrounds of the Childs brothers andkept urging the party to drop them, the top KGB and party
leaders knew perfectly well that the brothers werereporting to the FBI. The interruption of Ponomarev’s
meeting with Morris on November 22, was clearlyplanned deliberately, so that he would convince the FBI(and thus also the top level of the American government)of the lie that the Soviets had had absolutely nothing to dowith Kennedy’s assassination.
Remarkably, another staged performance took place inCuba on that very same day of November 22, 1963—an“amazing coincidence,” as Fidel Castro would call what
happened. On that afternoon, Fidel hosted a luncheon at
his Varadero beach house outside of Havana, to honor
Jean Daniel, the distinguished French correspondent of
the Parisian weekly L’Express. The latter had been
visiting Cuba for several weeks and had already spent a
couple of days with Castro. About a dozen people—
Castro, Daniel and his wife, and nine or ten other Cubans—were sitting around a table, when Cuba’s figureheadpresident called on the telephone with preliminary news

of the Kennedy assassination attempt. Fidel took the callin the presence of his guests, who heard him exclaim inastonishment: “¿Como? ¿Un atentado?” (What? An
assassination attempt?). Fidel seemed genuinely shocked,
but he had the presence of mind to ask immediately who
the vice president was. When it was shortly thereafter
learned that the president was dead, Castro expressed
alarm, saying: “They will have to find the assassin
quickly, otherwise you watch and see, they will try to
blame us.” Brian Latell, after reporting the above story in
his book, perceptively points out that Castro may have
had an ulterior motive for arranging that luncheon withsuch care, “and with the expectation that Jean Daniel
would write one or more widely circulated articles.”Indeed, two articles by Daniel soon appeared in the New
Republic describing the above scene. Because Daniel wasa journalist of impeccable reputation, no one would everquestion where Castro was when he heard the news, or his
surprise over it.21 But why did Fidel worry about who thevice president was, even before the president was reported
mortally wounded? And why was he afraid people would
blame Cuba, before anyone knew who the assassin was?
In any case, it seems clear that Fidel Castro was doing his
best to support the KGB’s disinformation operation bydenying any Cuban involvement in the assassination andby trying to peddle some of the KGB’s suggested
solutions to the crime.
Jack Childs also played a role in the disinformation

operation mounted after the assassination. The
Communist Party had introduced Jack to Fidel Castro in
May 1963, during the latter’s first visit to Moscow. The
two seemed to get along well together, so in May 1964,
the Soviet Communist Party sent Jack from Moscow to
Havana, after coaching him in how to deal with Castro,
who allegedly needed someone to talk to. After coolinghis heels for nine days, on the tenth day Jack was finallysummoned by Fidel. They were discussing party relations
between the United States and Cuba, when out of the blue
Fidel asked: “Do you think Oswald killed President
Kennedy?” Castro then answered his own question,saying his people had experimented with a gun similar tothe one Oswald had used, and they had concluded it was
impossible for one person to have fired the three reported
shots in such short succession—it had to have been aconspiracy. He also told Jack Childs that Oswald had
stormed out of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City after
being refused a visa, saying “I’m going to kill Kennedy
for this.” Jack, of course, reported this back not only to
the American party, but especially to the FBI, which did
give it to the Warren Commission, although FBI director
Hoover trivialized it, convinced there had been noconspiracy.22
Now we can understand why Morris and Jack Childs
were both awarded the Order of the Red Banner withgreat ceremony at the Kremlin in 1977.

The jewel in the crown of Soviet disinformation
connected with Oswald’s story is the recently publishedrevelation that the U-2 spy plane flown by Powers over
the Soviet Union was not shot down by Soviet rockets, as
the Russians have always claimed, but by a Sukhoi Su-9
plane that had been especially modified to achieve higher
altitudes by having its weapons removed. According to
the recently published revelations of Soviet Capt. Igor
Mentyukov, the pilot of that airplane, he had caught theU-2 in the slipstream of his unarmed Su-9, causing the U2 to flip over and break its wings. The salvo of Soviet
rockets had indeed scored a hit, downing a pursuing MiG19, but not the U-2.23 (In an article about the downing ofPowers’s U-2 plane, published in the US in 2000,
Khrushchev’s son Sergei acknowledged that the Soviets
fired three SA-2 rockets, but only one ignited. Unsure
about their success, the Soviets fired thirteen further
antiaircraft missiles, but the later rockets hit a pursuingMiG-19 piloted by Sr. Lt. Sergey Safronov, who wasposthumously awarded the Order of the Red Banner.24)
According to Captain Mentyukov, the U-2 flight
altitude was higher than the altitude the Soviet rockets
could reach. He also noted that the pilot of the U-2 plane
would have certainly died if his frail plane had been hit bya rocket.25
It seems that, after Oswald provided the KGB with thehighly secret flight altitude of the U-2 plane, the KGB
prepared a specially modified airplane, keeping it ready tointercept the US spy plane. This measure provided an
additional bonus: the U-2 pilot was captured alive.
Khrushchev did indeed parade Powers and used him as
propaganda.
“The most valuable May Day present we’ve evergiven the Comrade,” I heard Sakharovsky say.

PART IVUNRAVELING TODAY’S WEB
OF DECEIT

33
FROM DISINFORMATION TO
TERRORISM

IN DISCUSSING YURI ANDROPOV’S LEGACY, Western
Sovietologists usually focus on his brutal suppression ofpolitical dissidents, his role in igniting the violent
suppression of the 1956 uprising in Hungary (where he
was ambassador at the time), his role in preparing the1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, and his pressure on the
Polish regime to impose martial law. In contrast, theleaders of the Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when
I was one of them, looked upon Andropov as the father ofa new disinformation era, which revived anti-Semitismand generated international terrorism against the UnitedStates and Israel.

The grisly decapitation and dismembering of WallStreet Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 symbolizes
Andropov’s legacy. The mastermind of the September 11,
2001, attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gruesomely
murdered Pearl solely because he was an American Jew.
The Kremlin’s continued silence about the framing ofPius XII, who was politically decapitated in part because
he had protected the Jews, symbolizes another Andropov
legacy.
Andropov was the first head of the KGB to beenthroned in the Kremlin. As a former ambassador andafterward head of the Soviet Communist Party’s
department responsible for relations with the rulingparties in communist countries, his interests lay abroad,and that is where he directed the cutting edge of the KGB
sword. Andropov extended Khrushchev’s policy of
individually framing religious and political leaders
disliked by the Kremlin, such as Pius XII and US
presidents, to framing entire religious movements andwhole countries. Zionism, Israel, and the United States
were his main targets.
Andropov began his unprecedented fifteen years as
KGB chairman only a couple of years after the framing ofPius XII, and just months before the 1967 Six-Day ArabIsraeli War, in which Israel humiliated the Soviet Union’s
most important allies in the Arab world at that time—
Egypt and Syria. In those days, the governments of those
two countries were in effect being run by Soviet advisers.

The new KGB chairman decided to repair the
Kremlin’s prestige by humiliating Israel. Toward the endof that year, Andropov introduced a new arrow into the
KGB’s quiver—presenting Zionism as Nazi-style racism,and hijacking “Zionist” El Al airplanes. Before 1969
came to an end, Palestinian terrorists trained at the KGB’s
Balashikha special-operations school east of Moscow had
hijacked their first “Zionist” El Al plane and landed it inAlgeria, where its thirty-two Jewish passengers were held
hostage for five weeks. The hijacking had been plannedand coordinated by the KGB’s Thirteenth Department,
known in Soviet bloc intelligence jargon as the
Department for Wet Affairs (wet being a KGB
euphemism for bloody). To conceal the KGB’s hand,
Andropov had the Popular Front for the Liberation ofPalestine (created and financed by the KGB) take credit
for the hijacking.
The media frenzy generated by that terrorist operation
convinced Andropov that airplane hijacking was theweapon of the future. He therefore extended the
hijackings from Israeli planes to any other “Zionist”
flying target of opportunity. During the next two years,
various Palestinian terrorists (trained by the KGB) took
credit for hijacking thirteen Israeli and Western passenger
planes and for blowing up a SwissAir plane in flight,
killing forty-seven passengers and crewmembers.
The huge political “success” brought about by thehijacking of “Zionist airplanes” prompted Andropov toexpand into organizing “public executions” of “Zionists”
in airports, train stations, and other public places.
Andropov’s puppet Dr. George Habash, leader of the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and afanatical Marxist, mirrored the true colors of the new
terrorist tactic: “Killing one Jew far from the field ofbattle is more effective than killing a hundred Jews on thefield of battle, because it attracts more attention.”1
The most important “anti-Zionist” operations forwhich the KGB took secret credit while I was still in
Romania include:
December 1968, attack on an El Al plane in the Athens
airportFebruary 1969, attack on the El Al office in Zurich
November 1969, armed attack on the El Al office inAthens, leaving 1 dead and 14 wounded
May 30, 1972, Ben Gurion Airport attack, leaving 22 deadand 76 wounded
September 1973, Vienna train attack
December 1974, Tel Aviv movie theater bomb, leaving 2
dead and 66 wounded
March 1975, attack on Tel Aviv hotel, leaving 25 dead and6 woundedMay 1975, Jerusalem bomb, leaving 1 dead, 3 wounded
July 4, 1975, bomb in Zion Square, Jerusalem, leaving 15
dead and 62 wounded
April 1978, Brussels airport attack, leaving 12 wounded
May 1978, attack on an El Al plane in Paris, leaving 12
woundedBy 1972, Andropov’s disinformation machinery wasworking around the clock to persuade the Islamic worldthat Israel and the United States intended to transform therest of the world into a Zionist fiefdom. According toAndropov, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which the
KGB community could nurture a virulent strain ofAmerica-hatred, grown from the bacterium of MarxistLeninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep.
The message was simple: The Muslims had a taste fornationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Andropov
pontificated that “we” should make them feel sick to theirstomachs just thinking about that “Council of the Eldersof Zion” (meaning the US Congress), the aim of which
was to have the Jews take over the world. We should
whip up their illiterate, oppressed mobs to a fever pitch.
Terrorism and violence against Israel and America would
flow naturally from the Muslims’ anti-Semitic fervor,
Andropov explained.2
The Kremlin has always been a strong advocate of

divide et impera. The split between the Judeo and theChristian worlds generated by the framing of Pius XII
proved that this archaic strategy of divide and conquer
worked in modern times as well. In 1972, Andropov
launched Operation “SIG” (Sionistskiye Gosudarstva,
Zionist Governments). This was the code name for a“socialist division of labor” aimed at turning the Islamic
world into an “explosive” enemy of the United States.
The Romanian DIE’s sphere of influence for the operationembraced Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, where
Romania was involved in building hospitals, schools, androads and maintained large colonies of builders, doctors,
and teachers. The DIE’s task was to scour Romania fortrusted Communist Party activists belonging to Islamic
ethnic groups, train them in dezinformatsiya and terrorist
operations, and infiltrate them into its target countries.
They would be charged with the task of implanting arabid, demented hatred for American Zionism bymanipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by
many people in that part of the world.
Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, the DIE had
sent about five hundred undercover agents to its Islamictarget countries—and, as I later learned, it continued tosend such agents until the Soviet bloc collapsed, in 1989.
Most of them were engineers, medical doctors, teachers,
and art instructors. According to a rough estimate
received from Moscow, by 1978 the Soviet bloc
intelligence community had sent some four thousand suchagents of influence into the Islamic world. The
assumption was that about 70–75 percent of those assets
would end up being really useful.
In 1972, the DIE received from the KGB an Arabictranslation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion alongwith “documentary” material, also in Arabic, “proving”
that the United States was a Zionist country whose aim
was to transform the Islamic world into a Jewish fiefdom.
The DIE was ordered to “discreetly” disseminate both“documents” within its targeted Islamic countries. During
my later years in Romania, every month the DIE
disseminated thousands of copies throughout its Islamic
sphere of influence. In the meetings I had with mycounterparts in the Hungarian and Bulgarian services,with whom I enjoyed particularly close relations at thattime, I learned that they were also sending such influence
agents into their own Islamic spheres of influence.
On one of my visits to Budapest, I met János Kádár,the Hungarian leader. Operation SIG was one of thesubjects in which Kádár was particularly interested. I wasaware that Kádár had founded Hungary’s foreign
intelligence service, but that had been in 1949. By thetime we met, I assumed Kádár would surely havethousands of more important things on his mind, but thatproved wrong. Operation SIG was uppermost in theminds of Soviet bloc leaders in those days. A few years
later, when I became Ceauşescu’s national security

adviser (in addition to my DIE duties), the Romanianleader asked me to report periodically on the number of
influence agents sent to the Arab and Islamic countries.
How much influence did all those operations have? No
one can say for sure, just as no one can exactly measure
how much damage the framing of Pius XII has generated.
Nevertheless, over the course of twenty-plus years, thecumulative effect of sending out thousands of influence
agents and hundreds of thousands of copies of theProtocols of the Elders of Zion into the Islamic world
certainly made some dent. Witness the 1979 takeover of
the US Embassy in Tehran, the 1983 bombing of the US
Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of theWorld Trade Center in New York, the 1998 destruction of
the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and, of course,
the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001.
Soon after launching Operation “SIG,” Andropov
unleashed Operation “Tayfun” (Russian for typhoon),
aimed at expanding international terrorism into Western
Europe. As was usual for such international operations,
the KGB established another “socialist division of labor”
to mobilize the entire bloc intelligence community insupport of its extended terrorist war. The Soviet Union
would assume the most difficult tasks, those of creating
new terrorist organizations, indoctrinating their members,
and providing intelligence, money, and political support
for terrorist operations— which Andropov called “armedstruggle.”
The Czechoslovakian foreign intelligence service wascharged with supplying terrorists with an odorless plastic
explosive (Semtex-H) that could not be detected bysniffer dogs at airports. In 1990, Czechoslovakian
president Václav Havel acknowledged that the communist
regime of his country had secretly shipped a thousand
tons of this odorless plastic explosive to Palestinian and
Libyan terrorists. According to Havel, a mere two
hundred grams was enough to blow up a commercial
plane in flight. “World terrorism has supplies of Semtex
to last 150 years,” Havel estimated.3
The East Germans had to provide the terrorists witharms and ammunition. According to secret documents
found after the fall of the Berlin Wall in the archives of
the East German Ministry for State Security, colloquiallyknown as the Stasi, in 1983 alone its foreign intelligence
service provided the PLO with $1,877,600 worth of AK47 ammunition.4
The Cubans mass-produced concealment devices fortransporting the plastic explosive and weapons into thetarget countries. In 1972, I spent a “working vacation” inHavana as the guest of Raúl Castro, at that time head of
Cuba’s military and security forces, and visited whatproved to be the Soviet bloc’s largest factory for
manufacturing double-walled suitcases and otherconcealment devices for use in secretly transportingweapons. General Sergio del Valle Jiménez, Cuba’s
minister of interior, told me that smuggling arms to “antiZionist terrorist organizations” was one of his main jobs.
Romania’s task in that joint venture was to produce
false Western passports needed by Andropov’s “freedom
fighters.” During my last six years in Romania, the DIE
became the Soviet bloc’s main manufacturer of forgedWest German, Austrian, French, British, Italian, andSpanish passports, which were regularly provided tointernational terrorist organizations and groups. The DIE
also handcrafted a large collection of entrance visa stamps
from all around the world, needed by terrorists to travel totheir target countries.
In the mid-1970s, a wave of terrorism inundated
Western Europe. Tayfun’s first major accomplishment
was the assassination of Richard Welch, the CIA station
chief in Athens, on December 23, 1975. That was
followed by: a bomb attack on Gen. Alexander Haig,
commander of NATO in Brussels, who was not injured
although his armored Mercedes limousine was damaged
beyond repair; a rocket attack against Gen. Frederick J.
Kroesen, commander of US Forces in Europe, who also
escaped alive; a grenade attack against Alfred
Herrhausen, the pro-American chairman of the DeutscheBank, who was killed; and an assassination attempt on
Hans Neusel, a pro-American state secretary at the West
German Ministry of Interior responsible for internal
security affairs, who was wounded.

When the Soviet bloc collapsed in December 1989,
those terrorist operations went poof! and scores of KGBsponsored terrorists were arrested in the former East
Germany. Peter Michael Diestel, who became East
Germany’s interior minister after the fall of its communist
government, acknowledged in 1990 that Schönefeld
Airport in East Berlin had for years been “a turntable forterrorists of all kinds.” Christian Lochte, a senior official
in the West German counterintelligence service,5 statedthat the KGB and the Stasi had done “everything possible
to destabilize this country and the rest of Western Europe
as well.”6 Moreover, the West German government
uncovered evidence that the Stasi had also trained
Palestinian terrorist groups in East Germany and insouthern Yemen and that it had been involved in the 1986
Libyan bombing of the La Belle discotheque in West
Berlin, which killed two American soldiers and wounded
229 other people.7

In November 1982, Yuri Andropov became the first KGB
officer to head the Soviet Union. Once on the Kremlin
throne, he used the foreign intelligence machinery to
introduce himself to the West as a “moderate” communist
and a sensitive, warm, Western-oriented man. He was
depicted as someone who enjoyed an occasional drink of
Scotch, liked to read English novels, and loved listeningto American jazz and the music of Beethoven. I knew him
well. Andropov was none of the above.
Already terminally ill when he seized power,
Andropov did not have time to do much more than project
his new image. He did, however, promote the fortunes ofhis protégé, a vigorous and callous young professional
communist who, as the world would soon learn, shared
his mentor’s views on the importance of deception andinfluence operations: Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gorbachev began his career, as had Andropov, in
Stavropol, and Andropov soon engineered Gorbachev’s
appointment to the Soviet Politburo. One Gorbachev
biographer says that Gorbachev was Andropov’s“principal organizer and his ‘crown prince.’”8
Gorbachev’s glasnost and its unplanned, spectacularoutcome in Eastern Europe made him an instant hit in theWest, for a while. Public opinion in the Soviet Union,
however, was a different matter. Able to speak freely afterenduring almost three- quarters of a century with theirmouths metaphorically wired shut, the Soviets spent mostof their time venting their pent-up angers and frustrations.
Everybody began fighting everybody else and waiting foranother miracle. In real life, of course, economic miracles
do not happen by themselves. The stores became emptierthan ever, and millions of Soviets started blaming the man
who had allowed them to voice that blame. Suddenly, theprivileged Moscow nomenklatura decided that thepresident of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, looked
like a loser, and it sought help from the political police
and its “science of dezinformatsiya,” the usual way out ofa tight spot in a Kremlin balance-of-power struggle.
On June 22, 1991, Vladimir Kryuchkov, the chairmanof the KGB, informed the Soviet parliament that themotherland was on the brink of catastrophe. He thenrevealed “reliable” KGB information showing that
Western intelligence services were drawing up plans forthe pacification and even occupation of the Soviet Union.
By remarkable coincidence, his speech was“clandestinely” videotaped and broadcast on Soviet
television that same evening. Two months later, the world
was horrified by news of a coup d’état in Moscow. On
August 18, 1991, following a pattern similar to the one it
had used to oust Nikita Khrushchev, the KGB arrested avacationing Gorbachev at his summer residence in the
Crimea, took over the Kremlin, and paraded its own
military might on the streets of Moscow.
On the orders of the self-proclaimed “State Committee
on the Emergency Situation,” created by the coup’s
leaders, who included Vladimir Kryuchkov, KGB troops
also surrounded the headquarters of the first freely electedpresident of the Russian Republic, Boris Yeltsin.
Thousands of unarmed citizens gathered to defend thebuilding. A small insurgent tank unit switched sides, andPresident Yeltsin, standing on one of these tanks, made apassionate appeal to the people of Moscow to preserve the“Soviet order.”9 That speech, televised worldwide,
constituted the birth certificate of a new Soviet star.

34
PUTIN TIME

BY 1999, President Yeltsin’s ill-conceived privatization
had enabled a small clique of predatory insiders toplunder Russia’s most valuable assets. The looting had
become so outrageous that people attending auctions ofstate-owned businesses started carrying banners with aslogan that would become commonplace: privatizatsiya(privatization) = prikhvatizatsiya (grabbing).1 “They arestealing absolutely everything and it is impossible to stopthem,” said Anatoly Chubais, the Yeltsin-appointed tsarof this privatization, who acquired a good part of Russia’senergy industry and became a billionaire himself.2 The
corruption generated by this widespread looting
penetrated every corner of the country, and it eventuallycreated a Mafia-style economic system that threatened thestability of Russia itself.
During this time, a small number of businessmen andinvestors were able to make large fortunes by recognizing
and taking advantage of imperfections in the developing
markets. Most of these oligarchs, as they came to be
known, are now in prison or in exile. Only a few havemanaged to thrive under Putin.
Much has been made of the fact that in this antiSemitic nation, of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50
percent of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were
Jewish. Ironic as it seems, anti-Semitism actually made iteasier for them to make their billions. As reported in the
British press, since the Soviet Union restricted Jews’
ability to assimilate and rise up in society, “Jews whowanted to get ahead were forced into the black market
economy. When communism collapsed and the black
market was legalized as free market capitalism, the Jewish
entrepreneurs had a head start.”3
Of course, since Putin took power, most of the originalJewish oligarchs have fled the nation.
By July 1998, the ruble had lost 75 percent of its past
year’s value, short-term interest rates had climbed from21 percent to 60 percent, and the stock market had
slumped by more than 60 percent. Petropavlovsk, thecapital of Kamchatka, and a few other smaller towns weredeprived of electricity as a result of unpaid bills.4 Yeltsin
unsuccessfully tried to solve the crisis by sacking two

prime ministers within six months—Viktor Chernomyrdin
in March, and Sergey Kiriyenko in August.
As of 1999, the Kremlin was reporting more and more
frequently that Russia’s first freely elected president,
Boris Yeltsin, was suffering from a “cold.” When the
Russian media recalled that, in the past, “colds” hadproved lethal for some of the country’s rulers (former
presidents Konstantin Chernenko and Yuri Andropov
were dead within weeks after catching “colds”), theKremlin shifted course and said that Yeltsin had the “flu,”
which later proved to be a euphemism for a heart problem
that necessitated a multiple bypass operation. Soon after
that, Yeltsin came down with one more “cold”— this time
allegedly the result of a postsauna chill—whichmetamorphosed into a two-month bout of pneumonia andcreated another presidential stagnation.5 To top it all off,
an influential Moscow newspaper was already reportingthat a putsch against the ailing Yeltsin was in themaking.6
There is reason to conclude that his failing health,
combined with the fear that he might be thrown out of
power and accused of stealing billions and ofdismembering the Soviet Union, eventually convinced aweakened Yeltsin to place his fate in the hands ofRussia’s historically powerful political police.
At the end of December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly
abdicated. “I shouldn’t be in the way of the natural course

of history,” he explained, speaking in front of a gailydecorated New Year’s tree and a Russian flag with agolden eagle. “I understand that I must do it and Russia
must enter the new millennium with new politicians, withnew faces, with new intelligent, strong, energetic
people.”7 Yeltsin then signed a decree stating that, under
Article 92 Section 3 of the Russian Constitution, thepower of the Russian president would be temporarily
performed by the recently appointed Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin also announced that a special
presidential election would be held around March 27,
2000, and he made a strong appeal for people to vote for
Putin—a former KGB general—who was “a strong
person worthy of becoming president.”8
For his part, Putin signed a decree pardoning Yeltsin—who was reportedly connected to massive bribery
scandals—“for any possible misdeeds” and granting him“total immunity” from being prosecuted (or even searchedand questioned) for “any and all” actions committed while
in office. Putin also gave Yeltsin a lifetime pension and astate dacha (summer home).9This had all the appearances of a behind-the-scenes
KGB putsch. The events that preceded and those that
followed Putin’s sudden promotion strongly suggest that
it was. Yeltsin made history by outlawing the Communist
Party and dissolving the Soviet Union. Putin, however,began to rebuild the country’s confidence in its Sovietinstitutions. He spoke publicly and with fondness about
his years in the KGB, claiming to have inherited hisdesire to work for this institution from his grandfather,
who was a cook at one of Stalin’s dachas, and from hisfather, who had “links” of some kind to the KGB—
meaning at the least that he reported on his friends andneighbors. Putin asked his nation to understand that thesecret police agency “works in the interest of the state.”
He argued for patience, pointing out that “90 percent” of
all KGB intelligence was collected with the collaborationof ordinary citizens.10
This spin worked with the Russian people, whoregarded Putin as disarmingly honest. Their admiration
for him began in December 1999, when as prime minister
he viciously lashed out at Soviet defectors, calling his
former colleague General Oleg Kalugin, who had quit the
KGB after the August 1991 coup and settled in the UnitedStates, a “traitor” and an “absolute loafer.”11 Soviet
people were still highly addicted to Soviet antiAmericanism. Putin then went to the Lubyanka, thebuilding that has headquartered the Soviet Union’s
political police since its creation, to celebrate the birth of
the Cheka, the first Soviet political police organization,founded on December 20, 1917. “Several years ago, we
fell prey to the illusion that we have no enemies,” Putin
told a meeting of top security officials. “We have paiddearly for this. Russia has its own national interests, andwe have to defend them.”12
The next day, December 21, 1999, Putin organized aclosed-door reception in his Kremlin office, allegedly forpoliticians who had won seats in the Duma. By
coincidence, that was also Stalin’s 120th birthday, andPutin took the opportunity to raise a glass to good old
Stalin.13 According to the Russian magazine Novaya
Gazeta, his toast was addressed to “Dzhugashvili.” Stalin,meaning man of steel, was the dictator’s nom de guerre;
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was his real name.14
A couple of days later, in a fourteen-page article titled“Russia on the Threshold of a New Millennium,” Putin
defined Russia’s new political future: “The state must be
where and as needed; freedom must be where and as
required.”15 In the same article, Putin labeled theChechens’ effort to regain their independence as“terrorism,” and he pledged to eradicate it: “We’ll getthem anywhere—if we find terrorists sitting in theouthouse, then we will piss on them there. The matter issettled.”16
In March 2000, Putin was officially elected president,
but people did not know who he really was. His framers
introduced into Russian schoolbooks a page of purple
prose dedicated to the young Volodya Putin, depicting
him as a national hero:
This is your president, the one responsible for everything inthis country. He is not afraid of anything. He flies in fighterplanes, skis down mountains and goes where there isfighting to stop wars. And all the other presidents of othercountries meet with him and respect him very much. And
they show this on television and write about it innewspapers. Then he had so many friends—the entire
country of Russia—and they elected him president. Now
every one says: Russia, Putin, Unity!17

The cover of some of these schoolbooks, released in
September 2000, carried a drawing of a boy resembling
Putin who was pointing an accusing finger, apparently at
a dishonest bureaucrat, and saying: “Comrade children!
Be vigilant, know your rights.”18 The media in Russia
were also still largely state-controlled. They described theunknown Putin as a man of the people, someone who did
not mince words but who, like regular folks, said what
was on his mind.19
By 2002, Russia was also mass-producing official
portraits and busts of Putin—just as Romania had
produced Ceauşescu’s when he was still unknown. Putin
passed them off as mere state symbolism, like the flag or
the national anthem, adding that he would be charmed if
the portraits and busts would remain on people’s desks
and walls after his term of office.20 Russians will have to
wait and see if there is going to be an “after” to his termof office.
Once installed in the saddle, Putin ordered that thestatue of Yuri Andropov be reinstated at the Lubyanka,

from where it had been removed after the KGB coup in
1991.21 Andropov was the only other KGB officer to havebeen enthroned in the Kremlin, and it was therefore
logical for Putin to pay homage to him.
Putin took another page from Andropov’s book andstarted filling the most important Kremlin positions with
undercover KGB officers, many of whom came from St.
Petersburg—where Putin had most recently been
assigned.22 They would become known as“Putinburgers.”23 He signed a decree creating a new
structure to increase central Kremlin control over Russia’s
ninety-eight administrative regions; he divided thecountry into seven “super” districts, each headed by a“presidential representative,”24 and he gave five of theseseven new posts to former KGB officers.25 He also
appointed former KGB general Viktor Ivanov as thedeputy head of his administration.26
Soon after that, former KGB officers became Russia’s
ministers of foreign affairs and defense. Numerous others
became high-ranking members of the government. In abrief interview with Ted Koppel of the ABC News
program Nightline, Putin acknowledged that he hadbrought KGB officers to the Kremlin, but he explainedthat it was because he wanted to root out graft. “I have
known them for many years and I trust them. It has
nothing to do with ideology. It’s only a matter of theirprofessional qualities and personal relationship.”27

In reality, filling the most important government
positions with undercover intelligence officers wasanother Russian tradition. The tsar’s Okhrana security
service had its undercover agents planted everywhere, asAndropov pointed out to me in the early 1970s, when the
Kremlin decided to Sovietize that traditionally Russianconcept. Until 1913, Pravda itself was edited by such anagent, Roman Malinovsky, who had been recruited by the
Okhrana while serving a jail term for theft and burglary.
After he was released, the Okhrana covered up his
criminal record and placed him in Lenin’s Communist
Party, where he gradually rose to become the editor of
Pravda and later Lenin’s deputy for Russia and chairmanof the Bolshevik faction in the Duma.28 According toAndropov, he was also one of Lenin’s best friends. The
Okhrana’s framing of Malinovsky worked wonders.
From Andropov, I also learned that all Soviet bloc
citizens responsible for running the diplomatic, foreign
trade, economic, technological, and even religious
activities in the West should now be made undercoverintelligence officers. It was something like the wartime
militarization of the government, but it had to beaccomplished by the foreign intelligence service rather
than the army. Ceauşescu’s Romania followed step.
By 1978, when I broke with communism, the lines
separating the top leadership of the country from theintelligence apparatus had become blurred. A couple ofweeks after I was granted political asylum in the UnitedStates, the Western news media reported that mydefection had unleashed the greatest political purge in thehistory of communist Romania. Ceauşescu fired one thirdof his cabinet members, demoted four Politburo members,
and replaced twenty-two ambassadors. All were
undercover DIE officers on whose military documents
and pay vouchers I had regularly signed off.
On December 31, 2000, President Putin, celebrating
his first anniversary as president, announced that Russia
had a new national anthem. In fact, the law signed by
Putin restored the melody of Stalin’s national anthem,which had been prohibited after the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Those original lyrics, written by the poet Sergey
Mikhalkov, praised Stalin, Lenin, the Communist Party,
and the “unbreakable” Soviet Union. At Khrushchev’s
request, Mikhalkov wrote a second version of the lyrics,
removing Stalin’s name, after his memory had become
politically unpalatable. Mikhalkov has now again
rewritten his lyrics, this time to satisfy Putin.29
Yelena Bonner, the widow of the Nobel Peace Prizewinner Andrey Sakharov, denounced Putin’s actions inthis matter as a “profanation of history.” Putin disagreed,
explaining: “We have overcome the differences between
the past and the present.”30
In April 2000, just seven days after Putin had been
overwhelmingly elected Russia’s president, Americanbusinessman Edmund Pope was arrested by the FSB. He
was charged with espionage, but his trial evolved into afarce. Professor Anatoly Babkin, the main FSB witness
against Pope, recanted his testimony and stated that hehad been forced to sign it. The FSB threatened to put
Babkin in jail, but he still withdrew the charges. The
Russian research institute where Babkin worked provided
the court with documents showing that all the technicalmaterial given to Pope was unclassified and had beenlegally sold to him. Nevertheless, Pope was found guilty
and was sentenced to twenty years in prison based on a
verdict that was written in just two and a half hours.31
Once again, the United States had been framed to look
like an enemy of Russia. Then, on December 12, 2000,
Pope was magnanimously pardoned by President Putin,32
just as other Americans ludicrously framed by the KGB
had been pardoned by Putin’s predecessors. By that timethe damage was done, however. Particularly for domestic
consumption, the United States had once again beenshown up as an enemy of Russia. Most Russians started
looking at Putin with admiration—standing up to thealmighty America was not a small matter.
According to a March 2001 Russian government press
release, a series of trumped-up, closed-door espionage
trials against the United States were underway in Moscow
on charges “so lacking in evidence and so far-fetched intheir suppositions that at least three of them have beenthrown out by Russian appeals courts.”33 Those setbacks
did not discourage Putin’s government, however, which,in each instance, responded to the not-guilty verdict byreopening the case against its target.
In March 2001, for instance, Vladimir Moiseyev, acareer Russian diplomat, was on his third trial for thesame charge—spying for the United States and its main
ally in Asia, South Korea. The “incriminating” document
presented by the FSB turned out to be a copy of a speechthat Moiseyev, an expert on South Korea, had delivered
publicly. Nevertheless, since July 1998 he had been jailed
by the FSB, whose then-chairman, Gen. Vladimir Putin,
had publicly declared that the case “was proven beyond a
doubt.”34
Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union was deeply
anti-American, and most Russians grew up hating theUnited States. That hatred now made them fall for Putin’s
anti-Americanism.

Putin is a difficult read, but the Russians are enthralledwith him, partly for that very reason. The night ofNovember 20, 1998 was shattering for millions of
Russians: Galina Starovoitova, the country’s leading
female political dissident, was shot dead in St. Petersburg.
Her most trusted aide, Ruslan Linkov, was also shot but
survived. During the Soviet years, Galina had worked

with Nobel Prize-winner Andrei Sakharov, and she wasstill fighting the KGB, now rebaptized as FSB, which
faced credible allegations that it had authored theassassination. While some ten thousand mourners
gathered to pay their respects to Galina and to demandthat the killers be brought to justice, Linkov was visitedby his worst nightmare—Vladimir Putin, the head of the
FSB. Putin held Linkov’s hand for more than an hour andkept reassuring him: “It’s all going to be okay. It’s all
going to be okay.”35
Putin’s co-workers call him the “Gray Cardinal” forhis secrecy and Vatican-like mastery of intrigue. The
Russian people admire his icy-blue eyes as indicative of
the strong, silent type, a real man, who chooses his few
words with great care. Russians also love Byzantine
deception—generations of them have kidded themselves
about the glorious state of their country—and Putin makes
them feel clever again. In 2000, for instance, while Putin
was dining with King Juan Carlos in Madrid, word cameout that the FSB had arrested Vladimir Gusinsky,
Russia’s biggest media mogul. Putin originally pleaded
ignorance. The next day, though, he revealed a surprisingfamiliarity with the arrest. A week later, in Berlin, Putin
condemned as “excessive” the measures taken against
Gusinsky. Back in Moscow, Putin launched the rumor
that the arrest was a provocation against himself.
Eventually, the Kremlin-controlled MOST radio station
insinuated that Gusinsky’s arrest was an unfortunateretaliation for President Clinton’s public support for
Gusinsky during his recent visit to Moscow.36 Case
closed.
When you get right down to it, Putin’s magic derives
from his following the tradition of cloaking himself insecrecy. Soviet rulers did not become known until after
they were gone. It is true that one might get a glimpse of
Putin’s love of karate through occasional carefully
managed appearances, or by seeing pictures of him
showing off as an older “Tarzan,” half-naked with a knife
under his belt or a rifle in his hand, but on the whole Putin
looks even less three-dimensional than his caricature-like
Soviet predecessors did.
Why should Putin be so secretive about himself intoday’s Internet age? For one thing, he spent most of his
working life as a spy and has secretiveness in his blood—no one was supposed to know what he did. Nor is Putin
an “ideologue,” whose work and speeches can be
scrutinized in a search for the man behind them. He is nota creator, but rather a creation. He is a product of theKGB, not a Lenin who built that KGB. He is a product of
the Kremlin’s anti-Americanism, not a Stalin who
spawned that anti-Americanism. He is a product of the
Kremlin’s nuclear proliferation and anti-American
terrorism, not a Khrushchev who authored both.
During the old Soviet days, the West invented
Kremlinology, a discipline of trying to decode whateverwas going on behind the Kremlin’s wall of secrecy by, forinstance, comparing the annual photos of the May Day
parade to see which Politburo member stood closest to theruler. Now we have Putinologists, like Prof. Stephen
White of Glasgow University, Prof. Michael McFaul of
Stanford University, and the Hoover Institution’s John
Dunlop. They do their best with the meager information
available on their subject, but it is nearly impossible foran outsider to put himself in the shoes of a man whose
career was spent in the darkness of Soviet espionage andwho has deception in his bones.

35
FROM “HITLER’S POPE” TO
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

WITH THE FRAMING OF PIUS XII as “Hitler’s Pope,” theKremlin began to make anti-Semitism an international
movement. The low point came in 1975, when Yuri
Andropov used the United Nations to officially brand
Zionism as evil. The Soviet bloc dezinformatsiya
machinery worked around the clock to persuade theleaders of Third World countries to adopt a UN resolution
declaring that Zionism was “a form of racism and racial
discrimination.” Officially presented as an Arab initiative,
the resolution had actually been drafted in Moscow andwas supported by Palestine Liberation Organization
leader and KGB puppet Yasser Arafat, along with several

friendly Arab governments, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, andmost of the Soviet bloc.
The KGB community disseminated hundreds of antiAmerican and anti-Semitic cartoons around UN
headquarters in New York. Andropov used to preach that,in the Third World, cartoons were much more convincing
than documentary materials. By 1975, the clandestine
distribution of cartoons around the premises of UN
headquarters had become such a common Soviet bloc
occurrence that my DIE had to assign a graphics expert(Maj. Gheorghe Roşu) to its station in New York.
Coauthor Rychlak interned at the United Nations in 1979,and he remembers seeing such propaganda at that time.
That so-called Arab initiative was adopted as UN
Resolution 3379 by seventy-two countries—actually onlya slight majority, considering that thirty-five nations voted
against it and thirty-two abstained. Soon after that, theSoviet bloc intelligence community unleashed a vitriolic
dezinformatsiya campaign portraying the United Statesand Israel as Zionists. In December 1991, only a few
months after the Soviet-led voting bloc disintegrated, thatanti-Semitic resolution was repealed by the large marginof 111 to 25. Nevertheless, the UN continued to treat
Israel as an enemy. By 2002, the United Nations General
Assembly had passed 408 resolutions condemning Israel,1
the only UN member prohibited from holding a seat on
the Security Council.2 The total number of votes castagainst Israel up to that same date: 55,642.3 And on
November 29, 2012, the UN General Assembly voted
overwhelmingly—138 to 9 (with 41 abstaining)—toupgrade the PLO’s status to a “non-member observerstate.”No Arab terrorist state or organization had beencondemned by the UN. The reason? The Soviet bloc had
successfully turned a significant part of this organization
against Israel and its main supporter, the United States—
the very country that had formulated its motto: “We thePeople of the United Nations, United for a Better World.”
During my last ten years in Romania, the Soviet bloc
intelligence community poured millions of dollars andthousands of people into this gigantic project. When I
defected, virtually all UN employees and representatives
from the communist countries (comprising one-third of
the world’s population) and their Arab allies were secretly
working, in one way or another, for the bloc’s espionage
services. Their main task was to portray Israel and theUnited States as Zionist countries whose aim was totransform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.
In August 1998, one of Andropov’s pupils, KGB
General Yevgeny Primakov, who rose as Russia’s spy
chief after the Soviet Union collapsed, became prime
minister. Under Primakov—who converted to rabid antiSemitism during the years he spent as Soviet adviser to
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—anti-Semitism threatened tobecome a national policy in Russia.
In October 1998, retired General Albert Makashov,then a member of the Duma, called for the “exterminationof all Jews in Russia.” He insinuated that the Jews werebeing paid by American Zionism to ruin the motherland.
Over and over again Russian television replayed
Makashov screaming in the Duma: “I will round up all[the Jews] and send them to the next world.”4 On
November 4, 1998, the Duma defeated a parliamentary
motion censuring Makashov’s hate-filled statement by avote of 121-107. Eighty-three of the Communist Party’s
132 members in the Duma voted against censure, and of
the remainder, all but one declined to vote. At theNovember 7, 1998, demonstration marking the eightyfirst anniversary of the October Revolution, crowds offormer KGB officers showed their support for the general,chanting “Hands off Makashov!” and waving signs with
anti-Semitic slogans.5
On August 3, 2001, ninety-eight US senators sent a
letter to President Putin expressing concern about the riseof anti-Semitism in the Russian Federation:
In years past, the US Senate has been united in its
condemnation of such virulent anti-Semitism, which,unfortunately, has been present during much of Russia’s
history. Your remarks last year publicly condemning antiSemitism assume special significance against a backdrop of
centuries of tsarist and Stalinist persecutions. We strongly
encourage you to continue to publicly condemn anti-

Semitism whenever it manifests itself in the RussianFederation. We also believe that it is important to back up
the rhetoric of condemnation with the substance of action.6

A few days later, however, a new KGB-style operation
aimed at spreading hatred for Zionism and the Jews
around the world mushroomed up. On August 31, 2001, a
UN “World Conference on Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance”
opened in Durban, South Africa. A main objective was toapprove another resolution asserting that Zionism was a
brutal form of racism, and that the United States andIsrael were its main supporters.7 Yasser Arafat, Fidel
Castro, and the same gaggle of Arab and Third World
governments that had supported the UN anti-Semitic
Resolution No. 3379 in 1975, urged participants tocondemn Israel and the United States as Zionist powers
who wanted to conquer the Islamic world.8
Of course, at that very moment, Russia’s federal andlocal governments were being run by former officers of
the same Soviet political police that had vandalized
Jewish cemeteries in Germany and France, framed Pius
XII as “Hitler’s Pope,” portrayed the United States andIsrael as mortal enemies of the Islamic world, and been
the ghostwriters of the UN’s anti-Semitic Resolution No.
3379. The proceedings at the Durban conference reveal anunmistakable Soviet dezinformatsiya pattern. The day
after Arafat’s speech, anti-Semitic cartoons carpeted theconference grounds.
On September 3, 2001, the United States withdrew its
delegation from Durban, charging that the UN conference
had been “converted into a forum against Israel andJews.”9 The Israeli government followed suit. On
September 4, 2001, Congressman Tom Lantos, a memberof the US delegation, told reporters, “This conference will
stand self-condemned for yielding to extremists.” He
added, “I am blaming them for hijacking thisconference.”10
The September 11, 2001, attacks came eight days
later. On that same day the KGB was celebrating 124
years since the birth of its founder, Feliks Dzerzhinsky.
The weapon of choice for that horrific act of terrorismthat has changed the face of our world was the hijacked
airplane, a concept that had been invented by the KGB.

The anti-Semitism revived through Soviet disinformation
has been transformed into bloody hatred for “American
Zionism.” This is another legacy of Khrushchev’s andAndropov’s dezinformatsiya. After September 11, 2001,
thousands of people in the Islamic world danced in thestreets for days to celebrate the glorious victory over theAmerican evil. Killing Americans, Jews, and their allies
became a way to energize Islamic extremists by giving
them “victories” to celebrate. In March 2002, a stream of

Palestinians lined up in a Fatah-controlled refugee camp
to pay their congratulations to the father and brother ofeighteen-year-old Mohamed Daraghmed, who had justkilled five children and four women in a suicide bombing
attack in Israel.11
The imam of the leading mosque in New York (theNinety-Sixth Street Mosque) claimed, in an interview
published in Egypt, that the Jews were responsible for theWorld Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.12 “It was
Mossad and Israel that perpetrated those horrible crimes,”
agreed Mohamed Ali Eliah, the imam of the Islamic
House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. “Howelse do you explain that four thousand Jews didn’t show
up for work at the Twin Towers the morning of
September 11?”13
The twenty-six-year-old Mohammad Junaid told
Britain’s ITN television network: “My mother was in thenorth tower of the World Trade Center, but I still feelabsolutely no remorse for what happened on September
11.” He added: “I may hold an American passport, but I
am not an American— I am a Muslim.” Soon after that,
Junaid, whose mother had been led to safety from theblazing World Trade Center by New York firefighters,bought a one-way ticket to Pakistan to sign up with the
Taliban. “I will kill every American that I see in
Afghanistan. And I’ll kill every American soldier that I
see in Pakistan.”14

Eventually, Andropov’s new anti-American and antiJewish terrorism seems to have grown into a kind of anefarious “science” threatening the whole civilized world.
A seven-thousand-page Encyclopedia of Jihad (circulated
in the form of a CD-ROM), was found in 1999 in thehome of Arab terrorist Khalil Deek when he was arrested
for allegedly plotting to bomb Jordan’s main airport on
the eve of the millennium. The book’s eleventh volume(which is on a separate CD-ROM) details how to poison
water and food supplies with ricin, a highly toxic
chemical used by Moscow in terrorist actions, mostnotoriously in the umbrella-tip murder of Bulgariandissident Georgi Markov, carried out in London byAndropov’s KGB and its Bulgarian puppet in 1978.15

36
THE KREMLIN’S NUCLEARTERRORISM

WAS IT MERE COINCIDENCE that the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Towers andthe Pentagon took place on the very day that the KGB
was celebrating the birthday of its founder, Feliks
Dzerzhinsky? That is hard to know. By their very nature,foreign intelligence operations are secret, arcane andduplicitous undertakings. In the words of a former head of
the British foreign intelligence service MI6, Stella
Rimington, unraveling them is “like the unraveling of aknotted skein of wool. You get hold of an end and you
have to follow it through until you are near enough to theheart of the knot to see what it consists of.”1

Let us try to unravel the skein tangled around
September 11. During the years I was at the top of theSoviet bloc intelligence community, I knew thatsymbolism constituted a very important secret message
for the “initiated.” The Kremlin had a penchant forsymbolism, another weapon of the emotions successfully
wielded by all Russian tsars and their communist
successors. The emblem of the Soviet Union consisted ofa hammer and a sickle, to symbolize the alliance between
the proletariat and the peasants. The emblem of the
Kremlin’s political police was a sword and a shield,
symbolizing its duties: to put the country’s enemies to thesword, and to shield and protect the communist
revolution. Most of the KGB-financed international
terrorist organizations were called “liberation”
movements, to symbolize the Soviet bloc’s commitment
to liberating the rest of the world from American
imperialism/Zionism.
Andropov and his East European viceroys raised a
glass of champagne to celebrate the terrorist bomb that
exploded in Jerusalem’s Zion Square on July 4, 1975,
leaving fifteen dead and sixty-four wounded. That was
clearly a slap at the United States, whose national day is
the Fourth of July. It was also significant that the firstattack on the World Trade Center, which was intended toknock the North Tower into the South Tower and to
generate mass killing, took place on February 26, 1993,
when the Kremlin was celebrating forty-one years sincethe first Soviet nuclear test. The suicide attack against the
US Navy destroyer USS Cole, in which seventeen sailors
were killed and 39 injured, took place on October 12,
2000. That was the anniversary of the beginning of
Israel’s major offensive of 1973, which was decisive inIsrael’s winning the Yom Kippur War. The significanceof the failed bombing attempts over Detroit and New
York on Christmas Day 2009 needs no explanation.
There are many other “coincidences” in the course of
Russia’s recent policy decisions strongly suggesting thatthey were not accidental. In 2002, for instance, Putin andthe ex-KGB officers who are now ruling Russia began
openly moving their country back into the encampment of
the former Soviet Union’s traditional clients—which had
been the deadliest enemies of Zionism and the UnitedStates. Putin started out with the exact same three terrorist
governments named by President George W. Bush as an“Axis of Evil”—Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
In March 2002, Putin quietly reinstituted the sale ofRussian weapons to Iran. In August 2002, he concluded a$40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannicalregime in Iraq. Then, just before September 2002, while
the United States was preparing to mourn its victims of
the previous year’s terrorist attack, Putin received Kim
Jung Il, North Korea’s despicable dictator (who has sincepassed away) in Moscow with grand honors.2 At the sametime, Putin began quietly helping the highly anti-Semitic

government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to construct a
1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr, with auranium conversion facility able to produce fissile
material for nuclear weapons. The West stood silent, justas it had stood silent. No one wanted to remember
Ayatollah Khomeini’s dire threat of 1980:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism
is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say
let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges
triumphant in the rest of the world.3

During the first decade of the 21st century, a wave of
new books violently asserting that Pius XII was “Hitler’sPope” inundated the West.4 These books, beginning withJohn Cornwell’s 1999 book, Hitler’s Pope, are being used
to persuade young people to abandon Christianity and tomove toward Islam. Rychlak has received letters fromprisoners who complain that this is rampant in American
penitentiaries.
The revival of Pius XII’s image as “Hitler’s Pope” isalso pushing the world toward a nuclear midnight,
prepared by Iran. Its first target is Israel. The rest of the
Judeo-Christian world will come next. The 1945 nuclear
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused theimmediate deaths of an estimated 80,000 people. Whenfactoring in the deaths from the long-term effects ofradiation, the total toll is estimated at 120,000. Today’s

nuclear weapons are many times stronger.

Khrushchev and his political necrophagy are to blame forthe nightmare of the new Holocaust now facing us,
carried out by a deeply anti-Semitic Iran armed with
nuclear weapons and a dangerous North Korea.
Khrushchev liked to portray himself as a peasant, but thatwas misleading. Everywhere in the world, peasants have asense of property. Khrushchev did not. As previously
noted, he matured politically in a period when Soviet
communists were bent on eradicating private property,
and he developed an eminently destructive nature.
Khrushchev smashed Stalin’s statues, shattered the Soviet
Union’s image as a workers’ paradise, demolishedinternational communist unity, destroyed the reputation of
Pius XII, revived anti-Semitism and generated today’s
international terrorism, all without constructing anything
new to fill the vacuum he created.
Khrushchev also overturned Stalin’s policy of
nonproliferation of his nuclear weapons. I never met
Stalin, but I heard plenty of stories about him from
Khrushchev and Igor Kurchatov, an undercoverintelligence officer who headed the Soviet equivalent of
the Manhattan Project. According to them, Stalin was akind of Geppetto, the Italian carpenter who carved a pieceof wood that could laugh and cry like a child. Stalin’sPinocchio was his first nuclear bomb. He baptized it“Iosif-1.” On September 29, 1949, when Beriya called
him from the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan to saythat “Iosif-1” had produced the same devastating
mushroom cloud as the American “Fat Man,” Stalin was
sitting on top of the world.
“That day, Stalin swore to keep nuclear power tohimself,” I heard Frédéric Joliot-Curie say in August
1955, when I was a member of the Romanian delegation
at the United Nations Geneva Conference on the Peaceful
Use of Atomic Energy. The French nuclear physicist andprominent communist claimed he had been with Stalin in
his office when Beriya called him from the Semipalatinsk
test site.
Everything changed after Stalin died. After killing off
the leaders of the Soviet Union’s political police and his
potential rivals, Khrushchev needed a positive boost, so
he decided to repair Stalin’s smoldering rift with China
with a big bang. At the beginning of 1955, he approved
Mao’s request to help his country produce nuclear
weapons. That, together with Khrushchev’s politicalnecrophagy, opened a Pandora’s box and unleashed aninternational nightmare.
In April 1955, Khrushchev set up a joint venture
aimed at helping China produce nuclear weapons. The
KGB, which had—and still has, in its current incarnation—custody of all the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons,coordinated the operation. KGB-sponsored experts beganbuilding the essentials of China’s new military nuclear
industry, which was expressly designed to target“American Zionism.”
Five years later, however, the relations between
Khrushchev and Mao Zedong started to sour. The Chinese
leader grew increasingly unhappy with Khrushchev’s deStalinization and took at face value his proclaimed policyof peaceful coexistence with the West. He branded
Khrushchev “soft on imperialism” and accused him ofabandoning communist principles.
Mao’s prime minister, Zhou Enlai, made several visits
to Romania, where I repeatedly heard him say that Mao
had gotten tired of Khrushchev and had started openly
displaying his discontent—in a Chinese way. Zhou,
speaking fluent French,5 described for his Romanian hosts
how Mao “smoked like a locomotive” during his meetings
with Khrushchev, even though he knew of the Soviet
leader’s aversion to cigarettes. Even worse, during a 1958
meeting in Beijing, Mao, who was an Olympic-classswimmer, took his guest over to his Olympic swimming
pool, even though he knew Khrushchev could not swim.
It was hilarious, Zhou said, to see Khrushchev bobbing
around in an inner tube while the Chairman swam rings
around him, like a fish.
I did not know if all Zhou Enlai’s stories were true—
communist leaders were famous for their lies. Neither dowe know any better now, since the secret archives of theSoviet Union and Red China are both still sealed. But
when Khrushchev attended the Third Congress of the
Romanian Workers Party in Bucharest in June 1960, he
publicly attacked Mao. In return, he received a blistering
response from the chief of the Chinese delegation. I
observed the confrontation between the Ukrainian
flowered shirt and the Chinese high-buttoned uniform,
and I heard the Romanian leader, Gheorghe GheorghiuDej, say that the incident might assume catastrophic
dimensions in the volatile mind of “the peasant”—
meaning Khrushchev.
A few weeks after the Third Congress, the Soviet bloc
was indeed treated to a sample of Khrushchev’s politicalnecrophagy and his destructive tendency to tinker withevery decision. Khrushchev suddenly withdrew all Soviet
advisers from China and terminated all important joint
projects. According to the Chinese, Moscow pulled out
1,390 experts, tore up 343 contracts, and scrapped 257
cooperative projects in just a few weeks.6 The joint
nuclear weapon project was among them, but by then the
Chinese had learned enough to continue it on their own.
Data provided by various US intelligence agencies attest
that by the mid-1980s, China was producing at least 400
kilograms of plutonium-239 per year. The exact strengthof the Chinese strategic force is still relatively unknown—at least outside the CIA— but in 1996 the number of
warheads was estimated at 2,500, with 140–150 more

being produced each year.7
Khrushchev did not survive his own efforts at nuclear
proliferation. Nevertheless, he did light the fuse that
ignited the production of Stalin’s “Iosif-1” in North Korea
and generated Ahmadinejad’s nuclear Iran.

37
A KGB EMPIRE

DURING THE TWENTY YEARS Aleksandr Sakharovsky was
my de facto boss, the Soviet general, who was a Russian
to the marrow of his bones, repeatedly said, “Everysociety reflects its own past.” Sakharovsky believed that
someday “our socialist camp” might wear an entirely
different face. Marxism might be turned upside down, andeven the Communist Party itself might become history,
but that would not matter. Both Marxism and the party
were foreign organisms that had been introduced into theRussian body, and sooner or later they would have to be
rejected in any case. One thing, though, was certain toremain unchanged for as long as the Russian motherland
was still in existence: “our gosbezopasnost” (the state
security service).

Sakharovsky used to point out that “ourgosbezopasnost” had kept Russia alive for the past five
hundred years; “our gosbezopasnost” would guide herhelm for the next five hundred years, would win the war
with “our main enemy, American Zionism,” and would
eventually make Russia the leader of the world.
So far, Sakharovsky has proved to be a dependable
prophet. His successor at the PGU, Vladimir Kryuchkov—who later became chairman of the whole KGB andauthored the August 1991 KGB coup that briefly deposed
Gorbachev—clearly shared the same fanatical belief in
Russia’s gosbezopasnost. Kryuchkov’s successor,
Yevgeny Primakov, who had been an undercover KGB
officer under Sakharovsky, rose to become Russia’s prime
minister. Most notably, Vladimir Putin was the very chiefof the entire gosbezopasnost before being appointed (notelected!) Russia’s president.
On September 11, 2002, large numbers of ranking
gosbezopasnost officers gathered at the Lubyanka. They
had not congregated to sympathize with the United Stateson the first anniversary of its national tragedy as a victim
of terrorism, but to celebrate the 125th birthday of Feliks
Dzerzhinsky—the man who had created the Soviet
political police, one of the most anti-Christian and antiSemitic institutions in history. A few days later,
Moscow’s mayor reversed his previous opposition andsaid he wanted to restore Dzerzhinsky’s bronze statue toits former place of honor on Lubyanka Square.1 The nextyear, the slogan “Russia for the Russians” started making
noise in Russia, and a nationwide poll showed that 42
percent of the population believed that Jews ought to bebarred from power.2
The Cold War is indeed over, but unlike other wars,
that one did not end with the defeated enemy throwing
down its weapons. The barbarous KGB, which in thecourse of its existence slaughtered at least 20 million
people at home and another 70 million throughout thecommunist world, not only survived, but it alsotransformed today’s Russia into the first intelligence
dictatorship in history.
Now Putin and his ex-KGB cronies own Russia.
According to the respected British Guardian, Putin has
secretly accumulated more than $40 billion, becoming
Russia’s—and Europe’s—richest man. He is said to own
at least: 37 percent of the stock (worth $18 billion) of
Surgutneftegs, Russia’s third-largest oil producer; 4.5
percent of the stock (worth $13 billion) of Gazprom, thelargest extractor of natural gas in the world; and 75
percent (worth $10 billion) of Gunvor, a mysterious oil
trader based in Geneva.3 Putin’s puppet, Dmitry
Medvedev—who was the Russian president until Putin(who had faced term limits) won it back in 2012—waschairman of Gazprom, which accounts for 93 percent of
Russian natural gas production and controls 16% of theworld’s reserves. Putin’s first deputy prime minister, Igor
Sechin, is chairman of Rosneft, the biggest oil company
in the world.4
Oil and gas account not only for Putin’s exorbitant
wealth, but for 50 percent of the Russian budget and 65
percent of its exports as well. When the price of oil went
over $122 a barrel on May 6, 2008, analysts pointed toattacks on pipelines in Nigeria and turmoil in Iraq. Russia,
however, made a fortune. Other disruptions of foreign oil
supplies may give Russia—and Putin— other fortunes.
Putin’s Kremlin seems to be well aware of thatpossibility.
On July 12, 2006, militants of Hezbollah (“Party ofGod”), a deeply anti-Semitic Muslim fundamentalist
group based in Lebanon but armed by Putin’s Russia,
launched a powerful rocket attack against Israel. That
attack was followed by a thirty-four-day Israeli offensive
against the attacker. Most of the Hezbollah weapons cases
captured by the Israeli military forces during that
offensive were marked: “Customer: Ministry of Defenseof Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”5
In October 2010, the same Russian-supported
Hezbollah conducted a drill simulating the takeover ofIsrael. The European Union-sponsored Gulf ResearchCentre, which provides journalists an inside view of the
Gulf Center Region, found out that Hezbollah’s militaryforces were armed with a large quantity of the “Soviet-

made Katyusha-122 rocket, which carries a 33-lb
warhead.” Hezbollah was also armed with Russiandesigned and Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets which can reach
the Israeli port of Haifa, and with the Russian-designed
Zelzal-1 rockets, which can reach Tel Aviv. Hezbollah
also possessed the infamous Russian Scud missiles, aswell as Russian antitank missiles AT-3 Sagger, AT-4
Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel, AT-13 Saxhorn-2, and AT-14
Spriggan Kornet.6
With the passage of time, evidence has begun to revealthat Putin’s Kremlin was involved in igniting, and thenstealing, the 2011 Islamic revolutions. In Egypt, the mostpro-American Islamic country, antigovernment
demonstrations started on January 25, 2011, when people
took to the streets to protest poverty, unemployment, andgovernment corruption. Over the next few days, Cairo’s
Tahrir Square filled with a sea of Hezbollah’s green flags
mixed with red hammer-and-sickle banners. Some of theyoung people there who were allegedly demanding
democracy could be seen burning the flag of the very
country that symbolizes democracy for most of the world— the United States.
According to news media reports, on January 30,
2011, “a joint Hezbollah-Hamas unit used the rebellion’s
havoc in Egypt to storm the Wadi el-Natroun prison northof Cairo, and break out 22 members of Hezbollah’s spycum-terror network led by Sami Shehab, who had been

convicted for plotting terrorist attacks in Cairo, the Suez
Canal and Suez cities, and on Israeli vacationers in Sinai
in 2007–2008.7 The plan was to release these terrorists
and as many Muslim Brotherhood inmates as possible, inorder to “organize” and “boost” the street protests.8
The leader of the Russian-armed Hezbollah, Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah, admitted to sending Sami Shehab to
Egypt as head of a twenty-two-man force charged withcarrying out terrorist operations aimed at destabilizing thecountry’s pro-American government.9 In a speechdelivered to the rebels immediately after Shehab was
freed from prison, Nasrallah said:
I want to apologize to the youth of Tunisia and Egypt
because we were late in announcing this message of
support, which was not delayed due to hesitation or
confusion …. If we addressed you before, it would havebeen said that Hezbollah cells were behind yourmobilization—or Hamas or Iranian Revolutionary Guardcells.”10

On February 20, 2011, the Meir Amit Intelligence andTerrorism Information Center released a report, publishedby the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Tawm, stating that thereal name of the just-freed Hezbollah terrorist leader Sami
Shehab was Muhammad Yussuf Ahmed Mansour, that he
was a trained operative in Unit 1800 of the Russian-armed
Hezbollah, and that he had entered Egypt on a forgedpassport showing him to be an Egyptian.11

To an informed eye, the secret conversion of the
Hezbollah operative Muhammad Mansour into the
Egyptian Sami Shehab looks just like the KGB creation of
the PLO chairman Yasser Arafat—but in reverse. The
KGB, when I was still connected with it, went to great
lengths to transform an Egyptian-born Marxist,
Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat
al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar, into a
Palestinian-born Yasser Arafat. It took the KGB—and my
DIE—many years to endow Arafat with a credible
Palestinian birth certificate and other identity documents,
to build him a new past, and to train him at the KGB
Balashikha special-operations training school east of
Moscow.12 But as Andropov said, it was worth every
minute. In 1994, the KGB-born-and-trained Arafat wasawarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet in 2002 alone, there
were a recorded 13,494 incidents of terrorism against
Israelis, committed by Arafat’s PLO. More than six
hundred civilians had lost their lives.13 Six months later,
the number of Israeli civilians killed by Arafat’s“martyrs” passed seven hundred.14

During the old Cold War, the KGB was a state within astate. Now the KGB, rechristened FSB, is the state. In
2003, more than six thousand former officers of the KGB—an organization that had in the past implicated and shotmillions after framing them as Zionist spies—wererunning Russia’s federal and local governments, andnearly half of all top governmental positions were held byformer officers of the KGB. The Soviet Union had one
KGB officer for every 428 citizens. In 2004, Putin’s
Russia had one FSB officer for every 297 citizens.15
Symbolic of this new era in Russia’s history is thebarbaric assassination of KGB defector Alexander
Litvinenko in London in 2006, after he was framed as an“enemy of Russia” for exposing—in his book Blowing Up
Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror—
domestic crimes committed by the Putin administration.
British intelligence documented that the crime wascommitted by Moscow, that it was “a ‘state-sponsored’
assassination orchestrated by Russian security services,”and that it was perpetuated with Russian governmentproduced polonium-210.16 The suspected killer, Russian
citizen Andrey Lugovoy, was captured on cameras at
Heathrow as he flew into Britain, carrying on him themurder weapon, polonium-210.17 On May 22, 2007, theCrown Prosecution Service called for the extradition of
Lugovoy to the UK on charges of murder.18 On July 5,
2007, Russia declined to extradite Lugovoi.19
Also during 2007, the Russian KGB/FSB assassinatedIvan Safronov, a Russian military expert for the magazine
Kommersant (and framed his death as a suicide) toprevent him from publishing an explosive article aboutthe Kremlin’s secret sale of SU-30 fighters to antiAmerican Syria. Safronov was the twenty-first journalist
critical of the Kremlin to be killed since the progeny ofAndropov’s political police took over the Kremlin on
December 31, 1999.20 Well over 120 more Russianjournalists have been killed since.21
Moreover, the little window into the KGB archives
that had been cracked opened to Russian researchers byformer president Boris Yeltsin was quietly closed. The
fate of the tens of millions framed and killed by the KGB
is still securely locked up behind the Lubyanka’s walls.
The KGB involvement in the war against religion—all
religions—similarly continues to be shielded by a veil ofsecrecy.

On December 5, 2008, Aleksi II, the fifteenth Patriarch of
Moscow and All Russia and the primate of the Russian
Orthodox Church, died. He had worked for the KGB
under the codename “Drozdov” and was awarded the
KGB Certificate of Honor, as was revealed in a KGB
archive accidentally left behind in Estonia when the
Russians pulled out.22 For the first time in its history,
Russia had the opportunity to conduct the democraticelection of a new patriarch, but that was not to be.
On January 27, 2009, the seven hundred Synod
delegates assembled in Moscow were presented with aslate listing three candidates: Metropolitan Kirill of
Smolensk (a secret member of the KGB codenamed“Mikhaylov”); Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk (whoworked for the KGB under the code name “Ostrovsky”);
and Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga (who had the KGB
codename “Topaz”).23
When the bells at Christ the Savior Cathedral tolled toannounce that a new patriarch had been elected,
Kirill/“Mikhaylov” proved to be the winner. Regardlessof whether he was the best leader for his church, hecertainly was in a better position to influence the religious
world abroad than were the other candidates. In 1971, theKGB had sent Kirill to Geneva as a representative of theRussian Orthodox Church to that Soviet propaganda
machine the World Council of Churches. In 1975, theKGB infiltrated him into the Central Committee of theWCC, which had become a Kremlin pawn. In 1989 the
KGB appointed him chairman of the Russian
patriarchate’s foreign relations as well. He still held thosepositions when he was elected patriarch.
In his acceptance speech as the new patriarch,“Mikhaylov” announced that he planned to take a trip tothe Vatican in the near future. He also spoke about his
intention to establish religious television channels in
Russia that would broadcast to audiences abroad.
In Russia, the more things change, the more they seemto stay the same. The science of disinformation has

proven to be such a wonder weapon that the Russians
remain addicted to it. There is no end in sight to the
Kremlin’s manipulation of religions for the ultimate goalof consolidating its own power by widening the gap
between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

38
KEEPING THE LIEMACHINE GOING

AFTER VLADIMIR PUTIN and his former KGB colleagues
took over the Kremlin, the war against Zionist America
exploded in Western Europe with the same fury as at thepeak of the Cold War. Soon after we set foot in the newmillennium, millions of Europeans began taking to thestreets, not to celebrate the freedoms they enjoy because
America liberated them from under the Nazi and Sovietboots, but to condemn the United States for its new war
on terrorism. Once again the European left mobilizedagainst its archenemy, Zionist America, persuading othersaround the world to join in gatherings conducted with all
the passion of religious revival meetings. In 2001, whenOsama bin Laden’s terrorists declared war on the UnitedStates with their suicidal airplane attacks, those graying
European Marxists who had taken to the streets todemonstrate against Americans when they were young
Sorbonne students now took up their pens to condemn
Americans once more.
The Russian backers supplying ideological instigation
for this new anti-American offensive have become evenmore disturbing than the Kalashnikovs the al-Qaeda
terrorists were pointing at us. French philosopher Jacques
Derrida, who claimed he had broken with Marxism but
still choked up with emotion whenever he heard “TheInternationale,”1 now began preaching that the Islamic
war against the United States was justified because theUnited States was culturally alienated. Derrida therefore
called for a “new Internationale” to unite all theenvironmentalists, feminists, gays, aboriginals, and other“dispossessed and marginalized” people who were
combatting American-led globalization.2
Antonio Negri, a professor at the University of Padua
who once was the brains behind the Italian Red Brigades—one of the KGB-financed leftist terrorist groups of the
1970s—and who served time in jail for his involvement in
kidnapping and killing former Italian prime minister Aldo
Moro, has now coauthored a virulently anti-Americanbook entitled Empire. In it, Negri justifies Islamist
terrorism as being a spearhead of “postmodern

revolution” against American globalization—the new“empire”—which he claims is breaking up nation-states
and creating huge unemployment.3 The New York Times(which omitted any mention of Negri’s involvement interrorism) went so far as to call his modern-day
Communist Manifesto “the hot, smart book of the
moment.”4
On December 14, 2002, the (Soviet-style) Secretariatof the (Soviet-created) World Peace Council, still headedby (KGB asset) Romesh Chandra, convened a meeting ofits (Soviet-style) Executive Committee, which strongly“condemned the extremely dangerous escalation of US
aggressiveness on the global level.” An international
appeal issued by the “WPC Secretariat” on the same day
stated that “it is significant and encouraging to see large,
unprecedented mobilizations against war and the
problems of globalization that have been taking place inthe recent period. Many and multiform movements that
contest today’s situation have been forming and growing.
Demonstrations have been held in USA, Great Britain,
Florence, Prague, and in many other European capitals aswell as in other countries.”5
The WPC document acknowledged that “the World
Peace Council has participated in or co-organized thesemobilizations,” and it called on “peace movements tostrengthen their struggle, take initiatives to mobilize thepeople and form links with the growing popularmovement, at the same time boosting their autonomous
action as WPC members and helping to form a broad andmilitant peace movement against the new world order.”6
The WPC official communiqué published at theconclusion of that meeting stated, in typical old Sovietstyle: “The criminal Bush administration is intensifying
readiness for the unilateral attack on Iraq, and thisunilateralism of hegemony is becoming the biggest threat
to world peace.” The communiqué also called “upon thepeoples and movements of the world aspiring to peaceand justice to unite their voices and actions against the US
war on Iraq.”7
In early 2003, the same KGB-appointed Chandra, now
honorary chairman of the World Peace Council, declared
April 12 “international mobilization day” and called upon
people throughout the world to organize demonstrations
demanding that all governments “stop all support to the
US and British murderers” and insisting that the UN
General Assembly convene in order to stop the war in
Iraq. WPC branches in at least fifty-seven countries joinedin, calling for anti-American demonstrations. Over the
April 12–13 weekend, more peace demonstrations werestaged simultaneously around the world, with the largest
in Athens and Moscow.
The Workers World Party (WWP) joined the fray.
That was another KGB front known to me from when I
served at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligencecommunity. The WWP, which is headquartered in the
United States, called for anti-American demonstrations on
April 12, 2003 in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco, and
Los Angeles, to condemn the “colonial occupation of
Iraq” and to demand “regime change in Washington.”8
The WWP was created by the KGB community in
1957, with the initial task of helping the Kremlin create afavorable impression of the 1956 Soviet invasion of
Hungary among the trade unions and the “colored”
population of the United States. It was run by a Sovietstyle secretariat whose members were secretly
indoctrinated and trained by the KGB, which alsofinanced its day-to-day operation. In 1959, the WWP got
its own newspaper, Workers World, which was edited by
the KGB’s disinformation department and was, for awhile, printed in Romania together with the Cominformmagazine (For Lasting Peace, for Popular Democracy).
To camouflage Moscow’s hand and to give the paper abroader appeal, the early issues showed both Lenin andTrotsky holding up a banner saying, “Colored and White
Unite and Fight for a WORKERS WORLD.”
Currently, the WWP has a national office in New
York (55 W. Seventeenth Street) and eighteen regional
headquarters across the United States, the addresses ofwhich are posted on the Internet. Now the WWP
represents itself as a “national Marxist-Leninist party
promoting socialism, supporting working class struggles

and lesbian/gay/bi/trans liberation, organizing protests,
and denouncing racism and sexism.” Two of its leaders,
Larry Holmes and Monica G. Moorehead, repeatedly ran
for president of the United States on the WWP ticket.
Both portrayed the United States as a country run bywarmongering governments, and both charged that
America was full of political prisoners.9
The WWP newspaper Workers World is also stillaround and maintains its Cold War rhetoric. Its website
states: “We’re independent Marxists” whose “goal issolidarity of all the workers and oppressed against thiscriminal imperialist system.”10Over the years, the WWP created several front
organizations along Soviet lines, such as the Youth
Against War and Fascism, the United Labor Action, and
the American Servicemen’s Union. Most recently the
WWP spawned a front called ANSWER, standing for Act
Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is a UnitedStates–based umbrella group consisting of many Marxist
antiwar and civil rights organizations. Formed in the wakeof the September 11, 2001, attacks, ANSWER has sincehelped organize many of the largest antiwar
demonstrations in the United States,11 including
demonstrations of hundreds of thousands against the Iraq
war. It is supported by numerous foreign Marxist bodies(the Lebanese Communist party, the New Communist
Party of the Netherlands, the Partido Comunista de laArgentina) and by other anti-American organizations (theItalian Tribunal on NATO Crimes, the Green Party USA,
the Canadian-Cuban Friendship).12
ANSWER was the main organizer of the large antiAmerican demonstrations that took place in the UnitedStates on April 12–13, 2003. Its website contained
numerous ready-to-use anti-American flyers (among them
“Surround the White House” and “Vote to ImpeachBush”) that could be downloaded, printed, and posted.
ANSWER also provided dozens of buses to transport the“spontaneous” demonstrators from more than one
hundred cities around the United States to Washington,
San Francisco, and Los Angeles, where the main antiAmerican demonstrations were scheduled. Its website
contained the names, phone numbers, and e-mailaddresses of the contacts in charge of handling each bus,
as well as detailed instructions for reaching those buses.
For instance: “Buses from Detroit and Ann Arbor depart 9
P.M. Friday, April 11; return by 6 A.M. Sunday, April 13.
Ann Arbor bus leaves from Michigan Union (State St. and
S. University). Be there at 8:30. Detroit bus leaves fromsoutheast corner parking lot at Temple St. and Third
Street. Enter parking lot from south side of Temple, justeast of Third. Security, free parking all weekend from
Detroit departure point.”13
It is noteworthy that the end of the Iraq Summit
organized by President Putin in St. Petersburg andattended by the German chancellor and by the French
president coincided with the April 12, 2003, antiAmerican demonstrations organized by the World PeaceCouncil and its American offshoot, the Workers World
Party. It is also noteworthy that in 2005, after he stepped
down as chancellor, Gerhard Schröder accepted a highposition at the Russian Gazprom company.14 In an
editorial titled “Gerhard Schroeder’s Sellout,” theWashington Post also expressed sharp criticism, reflecting
widening international ramifications of Schröder’s new
post.15 Democrat Tom Lantos, chairman of the UnitedStates House Committee on Foreign Affairs, likened
Schröder to a “political prostitute.”16
American politicians and media have offered various
explanations for the current wave of European Americabashing: Europe feels irrelevant because Washington did
not ask its permission to start the war against terrorism;
for the past twenty years Europe poured all its wealth into
welfare and social programs, and now it is ashamed toadmit that its military is not up to snuff; Europe has
always favored appeasement; the European Community is
too self-absorbed in its own internal integration and does
not want to be distracted by fighting terrorism—just as it
did not want to be involved in its own Balkan conflict; theUnited States failed to solve world poverty and that madethe Arab and Islamic countries mad.
Although there is some truth in all those explanations,there is another more cogent reason that is universally
ignored: the survival of the KGB’s Cold War
dezinformatsiya machinery, which spent more than forty
years running anti-American operations for the purpose of
discrediting the Kremlin’s “main enemy.”In the 1970s, during my last meeting with Andropov,
the KGB chairman told me that “now all we have to do is
keep this machinery alive.” Andropov was a shrewd judgeof human nature. He understood that in the end, theSoviets’ original involvement would be forgotten, andthen the dezinformatsiya machinery would take on a lifeof its own. That was just the way human nature worked.
In Russia, the more things change, the more they seemto stay the same. Of course the French, those clever
diplomats, have the perfect saying for this: Plus çachange, plus c’est la même chose. And so it goes.

39
THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT

IN MARCH 2008, the whole world watched in disbelief as
the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the spiritual adviser of aprominent US senator running for the White House as the
Democratic Party’s candidate, screamed at the televisionscreen, “God damn America!” He accused the UnitedStates of America, the country that had defeated Nazism
and its Holocaust, of deliberately spreading the AIDS
virus to kill black people. He also insinuated that
America, the only country on earth that had declared war
on terrorism, had actually brought about the 9/11 attacks
with its own “terrorism.”
I expected the leaders of the Democratic Party tostrongly censure Reverend Wright’s poisonous antiAmericanism for the disinformation that it was. Instead,the Democrats’ damage-control machine simply brushed
away Wright’s statement, calling it “a staple of black
churches.”
But “God damn America” was not born in black
churches. I have many black friends and they all love andrevere America. Nor is the phrase— and sentiment—ofIslamic, French, German, or Mexican origin. The millions
around the world waiting in line to be admitted into theUnited States do not hate America. They admire it—that’s
why they want to live here.
“God damn America” is a slogan launched many years
ago by a religious movement dubbed “liberation
theology,” whose creation by the KGB dezinformatsiya
machinery was described in a previous chapter.
I have good reason to believe that the Democratic
Party’s tolerance of Rev. Wright’s anti-American
profanity is the result of that party’s growing tendency toswallow dezinformatsiya operations and to give themAmerican cover. Back when I was granted politicalasylum, I was unable to tell the difference between the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party. To my eyesof that time, both parties epitomized the embodiment of
freedom and anticommunism. That was, until thememorable day of July 19, 1979, when President Jimmy
Carter affectionately and repeatedly kissed the brutal
Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev during their first encounterin Vienna.

Tyrants despise appeasers. On April 12, 1978, I was in
the car with Ceauşescu driving away from an official
ceremony at the White House. He took a bottle of alcoholand splashed it all over his face, after having been
affectionately kissed by President Carter in the Oval
Office. “Peanut-head,” Ceauşescu whispered disgustedly.
Five months after the infamous Carter-Brezhnev kiss, a
KGB terrorist squad assassinated Hafizullah Amin, theAmerican-educated prime minister of Afghanistan, andreplaced him with a Soviet puppet. Then the Red Army
invaded the country.
President Carter’s feeble protest consisted merely of
boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow, a compromisethat gave rise to the Taliban regime. I am grateful to
President Carter for signing off on my political asylum,
but in truth, it was he who laid the groundwork for the
expansion of today’s international terrorism. Hispresidential weakness in abandoning the pro-Western
shah of Iran led directly to the birth of the modern
Islamist revolution, which has since metastasized into farflung terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda that havedirectly attacked America.
Another KGB dezinformatsiya launched the politicalcareer of the 2004 Democratic Party nominee for theWhite House, Senator John Kerry. On April 22, 1971, theformer Navy lieutenant testified to the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations that American soldiers told him that

in Vietnam they had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,
taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals
and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion
reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”1
Although Senator Kerry never fully revealed thesource of those outrageous accusations, I recognized themas being the product of another KGB disinformation
operation. In the 1960s and ‘70s, when I was a leader of
the Soviet bloc intelligence community, the KGB spreadthose same vitriolic accusations, almost word for word,
throughout American and European leftist movements.
They were part of a KGB disinformation operation aimed
at discouraging the United States from protecting theworld against communist expansion.
I do not question Senator Kerry’s patriotism. He
surely loves this magnificent country as much as I do.
Nevertheless, I have strong reason to believe that when he
was young, he was deluded by Moscow’s
dezinformatsiya. During my years as an intelligence
officer, I was many times involved in creating antiAmericanism out of whole cloth, and I could see howeasy it was to make young people hate the almighty
America.
In July 1953, I was charged to help organize aninternational congress of the Fédération Mondiale de laJeunesse Démocratique (World Federation of Democratic

Youth) held in Bucharest. The task of this youth congress
was to denigrate American efforts to stop North Korea’s
expansion of communism. My boss of that time, General
Penteleymon Bondarenko—Romanianized as Gheorghe
Pintilie—put the final touches on my preparation. As
previously mentioned, he was a Soviet citizen of vague
Romanian ancestry who had become the first chief of the
Romanian Securitate, where he was universally known as
Pantyusha, his Russian nickname. He spoke hardly any
Romanian, and what little he did was seasoned with astrong Russian accent and came out as an outdated
working-class argot larded with vulgarities.
Pantyusha explained to me that “those f*cking
students easily got excited about f*cking injustices andhad a f*cking short fuse when it came to violent protests.”
That made them “putty in our hands, and we could moldthem into any f*cking thing we wanted.” My main task
was to mold them into anti-American protesters.
As an intelligence officer, I was still green, but I
eventually had to agree that Pantyusha knew his students.
The young people attending the congress were put up atstudent hostels set aside for them in Bucharest, and I
bunked with them. The walls of the hostels were plasteredwith articles and photographs supposedly documenting
the abominable crimes committed by America’s Genghis
Khan–style military, generating violent anti-American
reactions from the young visitors. Free alcohol wasavailable in the hostels, which helped fuel the rioting.

At night, most of the young people, led on by the
Swedish delegates, wandered buck naked from room toroom, looking for sexual adventures. In short, thecongress was one colossal, uninhibited party, and the only
price of admission was the special fun of yelling out antiAmerican epithets.
On July 27 of that year, while the youth congress was
running full steam ahead, Romanian radio announced thatan armistice in the Korean War had been reached that day.
“American imperialism has been soundly defeated,” theradio blared. Wild celebrations broke out. The debaucheryborn in the youth hostels spread to the streets, building up
into night-and-day, anti-American hysteria. I was part ofit. The next day, the Romanian government organized a“popular” meeting in Bucharest to celebrate the occasion.
It was the first American defeat in the international arena
and was royally feted. I remember joining in, shouting“Yankees go home!”
In retrospect, I recall that no mention was made during
the youth congress of the fact that the war had actually
been started when North Korean troops in Russian T-34
tanks crossed the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950, in an
attempt to export the communist revolution. As usual, theactual history was entirely changed. No one wanted tohear that communist China had decided to enter the war
the following October, although that event had turned thetide of the war. Instead, the World Federation ofDemocratic Youth congress spent the whole time loudlycondemning America’s war “atrocities,” as displayed in
the fabricated horror scenes posted all over the meetinghall and the youth hostels.
Looking back on that time in my life, I realize howmuch easier it is to change your political views at twentyfive than at fifty. Five decades later, as I watched thetelevised spectacle of thousands of young people
demonstrating in Paris and Berlin against “America’s
criminal war” in Iraq, I could picture myself among them.
They belonged to a new generation, but there they werecondemning the same kind of carefully fabricated“American atrocities” that I had back in 1953, and they
were just as many thousands of miles away from the real
America as I had been.

Today, it is considered bad manners to point to any Soviet
source of American anti-Americanism. But throughout
their history, Americans had never before been antiAmerican. They voluntarily came to the United States.
They were always a proud and independent people who
loved their country and who won every military conflictup until its wars against communist expansion—the
Korean and the Vietnam Wars.
From 1776 to 1782, the Americans faced off against
Great Britain, the most powerful empire in the world atthat time—and won. In the War of 1812, the United Statesagain forced the British to retreat back across the Atlantic.
After the United States annexed Texas, whose
independence the Mexicans refused to accept, in 1846
Mexico attacked the US and was soundly defeated. In
1898, the United States went to war to support Cuba’s
desire for independence from Spain, decimating the
Spanish fleet and forcing Spain to sue for peace. During
World War I, in which more than 40 million Europeans
were killed, the United States quickly put together anarmy of 4 million and became instrumental in defeating
the German aggressor.
During World War II, almost half a million Americans
died to defeat Nazism and the Holocaust, and theircountry remained sturdily united around its commander inchief. The United States held national elections duringthat war, but no one running for office even thought toharm American unity in a quest for personal victory.
Republican opponent Thomas Dewey declined to criticize
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s foreign policy
during a time of war.2 When the war ended, a united
America rolled up its sleeves and helped rebuild hervanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Hitler’sGermany, Mussolini’s Italy and Hirohito’s Japan into
prosperous democracies, but that effort made the UnitedStates the uncontested leader of the world.
Then, suddenly, a number of Americans began turningagainst their country’s own wars. By 1968, the anti–
Vietnam War protesters in the United States numberedalmost 7 million. They came to regard their own
government, not communism, as the enemy.3 It reached
the point that today the Washington elite believe bashing
the US commander in chief in time of war is as American
as apple pie.
How did America’s venerable patriotism arrive at thispoint?
“Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy
forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled,internationalist, strong and successful,” said Sen. Joseph
Lieberman on May 27, 2008, explaining the problem in anutshell. “Now, the Democratic Party sees America as themain danger to the world’s peace. The Soviets and their
allies were our enemies, not because they were inspiredby a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to ourway of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global
conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemies because
we had provoked them, and because we failed to sit down
and accord them the respect they deserved. In otherwords, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.”4Sen. Lieberman was right on the money, but he knew
only one side of the coin. Here is the other.
The general perception in the United States is that
America’s antiwar movement has been a homegrownproduct. In reality, it is the result of a still very secretdezinformatsiya operation ignited by the KGB during theVietnam War for the dual purpose of counteracting
American efforts to protect the world against communist
expansion, and of creating doubt around the world about
American power, judgment and credibility. Unfortunately,
it has fulfilled both aims.
KGB chief Yuri Andropov, a former ambassador andby far the best educated chairman the KGB ever had,baptized this dezinformatsiya operation with thecodename “Ares,” after the Greek god of war. Ares wasusually accompanied in battle by his sister Eris (goddessof discord) and by his two sons, Deimos (fear) andPhobos (terror).
Andropov was convinced that the war in Vietnam
provided a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make Europe fear
America’s military terror and instill discord between the
Old Continent and its own leader at that time, the UnitedStates. Therefore, Andropov made Operation Ares aforemost priority from almost the first days of theVietnam War.
In order to conceal its hand, the KGB created the socalled Stockholm Conference on Vietnam and staffed itwith undercover KGB officers. This new dezinformatsiya
front organization received an average of $15 million
yearly from the International Department of the Soviet
Communist Party— which in addition provided $50
million annually to Chandra’s World Peace Council. The

money—for both organizations—was delivered by the
KGB in the form of laundered cash dollars in order tohide its origin. Nevertheless, Moscow’s fingerprints were
all over the new organization.
Copying the World Peace Council, Stockholm’s
smaller dezinformatsiya sister established a Soviet-stylesecretariat to manage its general activities, created Sovietstyle working committees to conduct its day-to-day
operations, generated Soviet-style bureaucratic
paperwork, used Soviet-style vocabulary, and launched
Soviet-style slogans. Moreover, it resorted to the same
modus operandi as the World Peace Council. The DIE’s
operational program for 1968, for instance, included thetask of obtaining one hundred thousand signatures
worldwide on the “stop-the-Vietnam-War” appeal justlaunched by the Stockholm Conference. For the same
year, the DIE was also tasked to set up émigré meetings inevery major Western country, condemning America’s“criminal aggression” in Vietnam.
The so-called Stockholm Conference held annualinternational meetings through 1972. During the five
years of its existence, it spread around the world countless
vitriolic dezinformatsiya articles and photographs
supposedly depicting the debaucheries committed by theGenghis Khan–style American military against
Vietnamese civilians. All these materials were producedby the KGB’s disinformation department and contained
basically fabricated descriptions of American atrocities

committed against civilians in Vietnam, as well as
counterfeited pictures supporting the allegations. “Even
Attila the Hun looks like an angel when compared tothese Amis,” a West German businessman reprovingly
told me after reading one such report in German (“Amis”
was the German nickname for American GIs). These
forgeries made quite an impression, however, within the
Italian, Greek and Spanish communist parties.
In 1972, I had a long discussion with Andropov about
Operation Ares. “It turned America against her own
government,” Andropov started off in his soft voice. It
damaged America’s foreign policy consensus, poisoned
her domestic debate, and built a credibility gap between
America and European public opinion that was wide anddeep. It also transformed the world’s leftists into deadly
enemies of American “imperialism.” Now all we had to
do was to continue planting the seeds of “Ares” and waterthem day after day after day. Eventually, American
leftists would seize upon our Ares and would startpursuing it of their own accord. In the end, our original
involvement would be forgotten and Ares would take on alife of its own.
Sadly, Andropov seems to have been right. The US
elections of 1974 brought in a new Congress dominatedby leftist Democrats who immediately restricted thefinancing of the war in Vietnam, and in 1976 cut thefunding altogether. As US forces precipitously pulled outof Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some 2

million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Anothermillion tried to escape by sea, but many died in theattempt.
Ares has changed the United States as well. Today it is
not only hot-headed young Americans like the young
Navy lieutenant John Kerry, who scream out accusationsof war crimes allegedly committed by the American
military. The 2004 Democratic National Convention
focused almost exclusively on the Vietnam days, giving
new dimensions to Andropov’s old “Ares” and throwing
more mud on our military forces and their commander inchief than Andropov and his satraps had ever dared toimagine. One after the other, the convention participants
denigrated America’s armed forces by portraying theircommander in chief as a “renegade,” a “liar,” a“deceiver,” and a “fraud” who had concocted the war for
personal gain.5 The United States had some 140,000
soldiers engaged in a grueling war, fighters who needed
political support from all sides—but all they got from that
Democratic Convention was insults and hatred.
After the convention, one of the participants, Martin
O’Malley, who later became governor of Maryland, evenclaimed to be more worried about the actions of the
George W. Bush administration than about al-Qaeda.6
A few days after the convention ended, Teresa Heinz
Kerry, wife of the Democratic contender for the WhiteHouse, stated that four more years of the Bush

administration meant four more years of hell for
America.7 Like her husband, she also had bought into theAres dezinformatsiya.
I am also an immigrant like Teresa Kerry (born toPortuguese parents in Mozambique and naturalized
American citizen twenty-five years later), and I havespent my thirty-four American years under six presidents— some better than others—but I have always felt I was
living in paradise.
Yet by 2007, most leaders of the Democratic Party
were engaged in a frantic campaign to condemn the
United States for its war in Iraq, and to withdraw ourtroops unconditionally. Senator Harry Reid, theDemocratic majority leader, famously declared, “the war
is lost.” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
announced, “this war has been a grotesque mistake,”adding that wealthy corporate interests would get awindfall and the middle class would get the bill. That isexactly what the “Ares” dezinformatsiya also preached.

On October 9, 2008, Sen. John Kerry, who in 2009
became chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, stated in a televised interview with
PBS’s Jim Lehrer:
Well, let me just say quickly that I’ve had an extraordinary
experience of watching up close and personal that transition

in Russia, because I was there right after thetransformation. And I was probably one of the first senators… to go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Squareand see reams of files with names on them. It sort ofbrought home the transition to democracy that Russia wastrying to make.8

First of all, if Senator Kerry does not know that
Treblinka was a Nazi death camp in Poland, whereas the
KGB headquarters was, and still is, the Lubyanka, whatshould we suppose he learned from seeing all those files— written in a language he could not read anyway?
Unfortunately, Sen. Kerry and quite a few other top
US political leaders now consider the Soviet Union and
its KGB to be ancient history. They bought another
Kremlin dezinformatsiya, according to which thenefarious Soviet legacy was uprooted in 1991 with thedisintegration of the Soviet Union, just as the Nazi legacy
was eradicated in 1945 with the end of World War II.
They also believe Russia has become an ally who is as
sincere a friend to the United States as is today’s
Germany.
Make no mistake: since the Soviet borders have been
thrown open, Russia indeed has been transformed in
unprecedented and positive ways. Young generations ofintellectuals are now struggling to develop a new national
identity. There are, however, substantial differences
between post-Soviet Russia and post-Nazi Germany.

After Germany surrendered in 1945, Hitler’s Third
Reich was demolished, its war criminals put on trial, its
Gestapo and military forces disbanded, and the Nazis
removed from public office. In the 1950s, when I was
acting chief of Romania’s Mission in West Germany, I
saw how West Germany’s economy was being rebuiltwith the help of Marshall Plan money, and how thecountry had become a multiparty democracy and a closefriend of the United States.
None of these things have happened in the former
Soviet Union. No individual has been put on trial,
although its communist regime killed, in peacetime, 94
million people all around the world.9 Most Soviet
institutions, under new names, have been left in place andcontinue to be run by many of the same people who
guided the communist state. The military and the politicalpolice forces, instrumental during the Cold War, have also
remained in place but with new nameplates on their doors.
During most of the last century, the world’s foreign
and military policies were heavily centered around theSoviet Union, which dispossessed a third of the globe’s
population, deeply divided the world, and repeatedly
brought it to the brink of nuclear war. Yet no American
political figures talk about Russia any more, even thoughthat country still has more than six thousand nuclear
missiles.
Indeed, in August 2008, the deputy chief of theGeneral Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, General
Anatoly Nogovitsyn, threatened to attack Poland with a
new generation of nuclear weapons. By hosting a US
antimissile shield, he said, Poland “is exposing itself to a
strike 100 percent.” Any new US assets in Europe, thegeneral warned, could come under Russian nuclear
attack.10
This new generation of Russian nuclear weapons, if it
truly exists, must have been developed in one of the
KGB-managed nuclear cities hidden throughout Russia.
In the late 1970s, when I was still in Romania, the KGB’s
nuclear component alone had eighty-seven supersecret
nuclear cities, such as the ones on Vozrozhdeniye andKomsomolsk islands in the Aral Sea. At that time, I
coordinated Romania’s technological intelligence andknew these nuclear cities quite well. They were built andrun by the KGB. Not a single such city was ever listed
anywhere, not even on the Soviet Union’s most highlyclassified military maps.
For instance, Chelyabinsk City in the Urals was on amap of the Soviet Union, but Chelyabinsk-40, a city of
40,000 people also located in the Urals, was not. Nor did
any maps show Chelyabinsk-65, Chelyabinsk-70,
Chelyabinsk-95, and Chelyabinsk-115, all in the Urals.11
Krasnoyarsk city in eastern Siberia was shown on maps,
but there was no mention anywhere of Krasnoyarsk-25,
Krasnoyarsk-26, and Krasnoyarsk-45. However, after anuclear accident at the east Siberian city of Tomsk-7 inApril of 1993, ten other “secret cities” located in that partof the country were disclosed.12
These secret cities are so enormous, they almost
cannot be disassembled, and nothing so far indicates thatthey have been. Knowledge of them may persuadeAmerica in general, and its leaders in particular, to stop
fantasizing that a Russia run by the KGB is our sincere
friend—a Russia that, as we have seen, framed Pius XII
as Hitler’s Pope in order to divide and conquer the world.
In World War II, 405,399 Americans died because
Neville Chamberlain fantasized that Hitler was a friend.
We must not repeat such a mistake.
“Trust, but verify,” was the famous signature phrase
defining President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. The
current US policy toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia,
however, is called “Reset” (erroneously translated by theState Department as “Peregruzka,” which means“overcharged”). There is just one meaning for “trust, butverify.” There are quite a few meanings for “reset” indictionaries, but all tend to signify “restore”—except in
Scotland, where “reset” is the legal term for knowingly
and dishonestly receiving stolen goods.13
Russia’s intelligence dictatorship is a new politicalphenomenon, and we need a new foreign policy to deal
with it. Otherwise, we may face a new Cold War, one thatthreatens to be not only cold, but also bloody. I do notknow what our new policy toward Russia should be. I
have no access to classified information and no wish toplay the armchair general. The know-it-all talking heads
in the American media are no wiser than I am. I do,
however, have reason to suggest that our administration
and Congress take a serious look at President Truman’s
NSC 68 (1950).
That report of the National Security Council, a downto-earth, 58-page document, described the challenges
facing the United States of that day in realistic terms.
“The issues that face us are momentous,” NSC 68 stated,“involving the fulfillment or destruction not only of thisRepublic but of civilization itself.”14
Therefore, NSC 68 focused on creating a “new worldorder” centered on American liberal-capitalist values, andit contained a two-pronged political strategy: superior
military power and a “Campaign of Truth,” defined as “astruggle, above all else, for the minds of men.” President
Harry Truman argued that the propaganda anddisinformation used by the “forces of imperialistic
communism” could be overcome only by the “plain,simple, unvarnished truth.”15 The Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberation (soon to
become Radio Liberty) became part of Truman’s“Campaign of Truth.”16
If you still wonder how the United States was able to
win the Cold War without firing a shot, here is one

explanation from Romania’s second post-Ceausescu
president Emil Constantinescu:
Radio Free Europe has been a lot more important than thearmies and the most sophisticated missiles. The “missiles”
that destroyed Communism were launched from Radio Free
Europe, and this was Washington’s most importantinvestment during the Cold War. I don’t know whether theAmericans themselves realize this now, seven years after
the fall of Communism, but we understand it perfectly
well.17

In July 2007, Russia’s President Putin predicted a new
Cold War against the West. “War has started,” heannounced on August 8, 2008, minutes after Russian
tanks crossed into pro-Western Georgia.18
Dezinformatsiya became secret policy once more. This
invisible weapon is again sustained by military threats, as
it was during the Cold War. President Putin took pains toannounce that Russia had test-launched a missile systemthat could maneuver in mid-flight, allowing it to dodge
defenses. The chief of the General Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation, General Yury
Baluyevsky, added: “We can build weapons which willrender any anti-missile system defenseless.” He also
stated that Russia was ready to use nuclear missile
systems to “defend the sovereignty of Russia and its
allies.”19

40
MARX’S GHOST LIVES ON

IN A 2008 RASMUSSEN POLL, only 53 percent of Americans
preferred capitalism to socialism, with another 27 percent
unsure, and 20 percent strongly opting for socialism. Oneof the most popular nightclubs in New York City’s East
Village is the KGB Bar, jammed with Marxist writers
who read from their literary works extolling the need toredistribute America’s wealth.1 Ironically, today’s
Russian Pravda chaffed: “It must be said, that like thebreaking of a great dam, the American descent into
Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against
the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me
dear reader, I meant people.”2
Why is the United States of America, which built themost successful free-market economy in history, nowtoying with Marxism? History will certainly provide adefinitive answer to this question. Meanwhile, I suggest
considering the explanation provided by the French
philosopher Jacques Derrida, who claimed he had broken
with Marxism but confessed to still being choked withemotion whenever he heard “The Internationale.”
Just before he died, Derrida reminded us that the firstnoun in Marx’s Communist Manifesto is “specter”: “Aspecter is haunting Europe, the specter of Communism.”According to Derrida, Marx began The Communist
Manifesto with “specter” because a specter never dies.3
Derrida was on to something.
“Of only one fact do I feel certain, and it is that no
thinking man can imagine that the ultimate result of theGreat War can be anything but disastrous to humanity atlarge,” stated Alfred Mosley, one of Europe’s mostcelebrated economists, in 1915.4 He was prophetic. The
Great War brought Marx’s specter to life in the shape of
the Soviet Union. Marx’s specter continued to come tolife after each long war in another corner of the world.
The Soviet Empire, which transformed Eastern Europe
into dismal feudalism, was created soon after World War
II ended. My native country is a case in point: Four yearsof war on Germany’s side had squeezed Romania like asponge, and what little remained had been stolen by thevindictive “liberating” Soviet Army, which had laid waste
to the land worse than a plague of locusts. Many youngRomanian intellectuals who had grown up under the
influence of the postwar patriotic fervor were willing to
try anything, Marxism included, to rebuild their
homeland. I was one of them.
In 1945, the young British voters, also tired of five
years of war and ignorant of world history, turned toMarx’s specter for help as well. Two months after WorldWar II ended, they kicked out of office the legendary
Winston Churchill—who was instrumental in winningthat war—and brought in Clement Attlee, an undercover
Marxist leader of the Labor Party. Attlee started his reign
by nationalizing the healthcare system. His appetite forsocialism thus whetted, Attlee went on to nationalize thefinance, auto, and coal industries, communication
facilities, civil aviation, electricity, the steel industry—
just as many leaders of the Democratic Party in the UnitedStates have indicated they also intend to do.
The British economy collapsed and the powerful
British Empire passed into history, providing a stern—butevidently ignored—warning to all who later might betempted to look at Marx’s Specter as savior. Even themost famous British brand names, like Jaguar and RollsRoyce, had to be rescued from oblivion by autocompanies in other countries.
In 1950 the British voters repented and brought
Churchill back to Downing Street, but it took GreatBritain eighteen years of conservative governments torepair the catastrophe generated by Attlee’s government
in a mere six years. In the process of recovery, the Labor
Party was fortunate enough to acquire non-Marxist
leaders, such as Tony Blair, who normalized the party
again.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human
Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, haverecently discovered a genetic factor, the A1 Mutation, that
supposedly affects one’s ability to learn from past
mistakes. If true, then perhaps many people in SouthAmerica carry the A1 mutation. They brought various
Atlee-style Partidos dos Trabalhadores (Workers Party)
leaders to power in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras, andArgentina, and moved these countries into the Marxist
fold. Russian military ships and bombers are now back in
Cuba—and in Venezuela—for the first time since the
Cuban missile crisis. Brazil, the world’s tenth largest
economy, even installed a former Marxist guerrillafighter, Dilma Rousseff, as that country’s president.
After forty-five years of Cold War, and still more
years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of young
Americans, unaware of history or unable to learn from it,
have come to believe that capitalism is their real enemy,
and that it should be replaced with socialism. They founda home in the Democratic Party, whose primary 2008
election theme was the promise to redistribute America’s
wealth.

But the United States of America spent too many
years fighting Marxism, and its free population of
independent entrepreneurs will never succumb to thatheresy. Be that as it may, Marx’s Manifesto of theCommunist Party has endured to turn 165 years old thisyear, and the remaining Marxists of the world seem to be
still clamoring to see their fantasy finally come to pass:
the eradication of capitalism.

At the end of World War II, at a time when I knew
nothing about Marxism, I also believed the Marxist
disinformation about the marvels redistribution of wealthcan perform. During those early days, I never suspectedthat by helping Marxism to grab Romania I wascommitting a crime against my own country, just likemillions of Germans who supported Hitler’s National
Socialism because they were convinced that they werealso helping their country.
Early on, millions of other Romanians were also
persuaded, thanks to the Soviet “science” ofdezinformatsiya, to believe that Marx’s redistribution of
wealth would rescue their country. There were quite a few
well-to-do people in Romania, and the governmentcontrolled media launched powerful disinformation
offensives to persuade everyone, in every social stratum,that Romania could be changed into a prosperous countryjust by confiscating their wealth.
Stealing became a national policy on December 30,
1948, when the Kingdom of Romania was abolished andthe Popular Republic of Romania was born. The new
Marxist government confiscated the king’s wealth, seized
the land owned by the rich Romanians, nationalized
Romanian industry and banking, and sent most of theproperty owners to gulags. Then in 1949, the Marxist
government turned its covetous eyes in the opposite
direction, toward the poorest elements in the country. By
forcing the peasants into collective farms, it stole theirland along with their animals and agricultural tools.
Within a few years, virtually the entire Romanian
economy was running on stolen property.
“Stealing from capitalism is moral, comrades,” I heard
Nikita Khrushchev repeatedly say. “Don’t raise youreyebrows, comrades. I intentionally used the word steal.
Stealing from our enemy is moral,” he used to explain.
“Stealing from capitalists is a Marxist duty,” myformer boss, Romania’s president Nicolae Ceauşescu,
used to sermonize during the years I was his national
security adviser.
Both men rose to lead their countries without everhaving earned a single penny in any productive job.
Neither man had the slightest idea about what made an
economy work, and each passionately believed thatstealing from the rich was the magic wand that would

cure all his country’s economic ills. Both were leading
formerly free countries, transformed into Marxist
dictatorships through massive wealth redistribution,
which eventually made the government the mother andfather of everything.
Both Khrushchev and Ceauşescu, however, died
before learning that in the long run Marxist stealing does
not pay, even when committed by the government of asuperpower, as the economic collapse of the Soviet Union
devastatingly proved.

41
DISINFORMATION IN
TODAY’S AMERICA

IN 2008, veteran Washington Post journalist David S.
Broder candidly compared Sen. Barack Obama’s tactics
for hiding his past to the tactics military pilots use toprotect themselves when flying over a target heavily
defended by antiaircraft guns: “They release a cloud offine metal scraps, hoping to confuse the aim of the shells
or missiles being fired in their direction.”1 This is also agood characterization of glasnost, which, as I explained
earlier, is an old Russian term for polishing the ruler’s—or would-be ruler’s—image.
One of the overriding purposes of every glasnost I
have known has been to hide the leader’s past by giving

him a new political identity. Stalin’s glasnost was
designed to conceal his horrific crimes by portraying him
as an earthly god. Khrushchev’s glasnost was to create apeaceful international façade for the man who brought the
Kremlin’s political assassinations to the West (as provedby the West German Supreme Court in October 1962,
during the public trial of Bogdan Stashinsky, a KGB
officer who had been decorated by Khrushchev himself
for assassinating enemies of the Soviet Union living in theWest).2 Ceauşescu, who attained the rank of general after
secretly attending a Red Army school for politicalcommissaries in Moscow, focused his glasnost on hidingthat past by portraying himself as a Romanian Napoleon—another five-foot-three tyrant—who hated Russia.
Gorbachev, recruited by the KGB when he was studying
at Moscow State University,3 designed his glasnost to veil
his KGB past by portraying him as a magician-like leader
who displayed a flirtatious “Miss KGB” to Westerncorrespondents while pledging to transform the Soviet
Union into a “Marxist society of free people.”4Thus it was that in America, the 2008 election
campaign for the White House was, for me, a major caseof déjà vu. It felt as though I were watching a replay of
one of those election campaigns of Ceauşescu’s in which
I was involved during my years in Romania. Ceauşescu’s
media painted the Romania of his predecessor,

Gheorghiu-Dej, as a decaying, corrupt, economicallydevastated country and demanded it be changed byredistributing the country’s wealth. It was adisinformation campaign.
In the same way, the establishment US media painted
America as a decaying, racist, predatory capitalist realm
unable to provide medical care for the poor, rebuild her“crumbling schools,” or replace the “shuttered mills thatonce provided a decent life for men and women of every
race,”5 and promised all this could be changed byredistributing the country’s wealth. That also was adisinformation campaign.
Just as Ceauşescu loved to remind everyone thatsomeone as great as he “is born once every five hundredyears,” so did Sen. Barack Obama portentously proclaim,“We are the ones we have been waiting for,” artfully
substituting the regal “we” to convey his actual meaning:
I am the One you have been waiting for. Meanwhile,
Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters had a large
poster of communist idol Che Guevara hanging on thewall, as revealed by that city’s Fox News affiliate.6
The Democratic Party and the media both portrayed
Obama an American messiah, and the senator agreed: On
June 8, 2008, during an electoral speech in New
Hampshire, he stated that the beginning of his presidency
would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began
to slow and our planet began to heal.”7

Once elected, during his first 231 days in the WhiteHouse, Obama gave 263 speeches,8 all of them essentially
focused on himself. His 2010 State of the Union speech
contained the word “I” 76 times. In 2011, whenannouncing that brave US military forces had killed
Osama bin Ladin, Obama used the words “I”, “me,” and“my” a combined thirteen times in his short 1,300-word
speech.”9 “I directed the director of the CIA … I met
repeatedly with my national security team … I determinedthat we had enough intelligence to take action … At mydirection, the United States launched a targeted operation
against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.”10
President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union addresscontained the word I forty-five times and the word me
thirteen times. By that time, he had been in the WhiteHouse for 1,080 days and had given 726 speeches.11 USA
Today notes that, by the end of his first term, President
Obama had given 1,852 speeches, public remarks andcomments.12
Self-serving speeches have always been an important
facet of glasnost. In fact, with the passage of time,
Marxism has become a mere vehicle used by the“Marxist” rulers to build glasnost speeches aimed atpromoting themselves, demonstrating Marxism’s
prodigious adaptability. Lenin’s glasnost speecheschanged Marxism so much that his followers ended up
calling it “Leninism.” Stalin put Marxism, Leninism,

Hegel’s dialectics, and Feuerbach’s materialism into one
glasnost bowl and came up with his own simplified
political doctrine, which he dubbed “Marxism-LeninismStalinism.” Ceauşescu’s glasnost speeches were aludicrous mixture of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism,nationalism, Roman arrogance, and Byzantine fawning
called Ceausism. All were focused on Ceauşescu; eachcontained hundreds of instances of “Me,” “Myself,” and“I.” And all were so slippery, undefined, and everchanging that he filled twenty-four volumes of hiscollected works without ever being able to describe what
his Ceausism really meant!
In Obama’s case, when he was first running forpresident in 2008, his preferred policies and voting record
clearly revealed him to be “the hardest-left candidate evernominated for president of the United States.”13 And who
can forget his unvarnished Marxist remark to “Joe the
Plumber” three days before the final presidential debate,that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good foreverybody”?14
President Obama is a brilliant young politician who
was bitten by the Marxist bug, and who evidently believes
that the change from capitalism to socialism is what the
US really needs. Running for president as a secretsocialist, however, meant sailing on uncharted waters, andit seems the senator decided to cover his radical ideology

by comparing himself to Ronald Reagan,15 and after hiselection, to Abraham Lincoln16 and Teddy Roosevelt.17
Of course, people everywhere want their politicalleaders to be better than their predecessors. But thequintessence of Marxism is change, which is built on the
dialectical materialist tenet that quantitative changes
generate qualitative transformations. Thus, “change,”
through the redistribution of the country’s wealth, became
the electoral slogan in all Soviet bloc countries.
Alas, change through wealth redistribution also
became the electoral slogan of the Democratic Party
during America’s 2008 electoral campaign. People always
love a free lunch. No wonder the Democratic Party easily
filled entire stadiums with people who demanded that thewealth of the United States be redistributed. Some ofthose electoral gatherings looked like Ceauşescu’s revival
meetings—more than eighty thousand people weregathered in front of the now-famous Greek temple
resembling the White House that had been erected in
Denver, to demand that America’s wealth beredistributed. It was a superb show of disinformation.
According to a March 12, 2008, amendment
introduced in the US Senate by Sen. Wayne Allard (RColorado), funding just 111 of the 188 tax increases
proposed thus far by the Democratic Party would steal$1.4 trillion from businesses and other taxpayers over the
next five years. This huge redistribution of America’swealth would cause the tax bill of people earning$104,000 to rise 74 percent ($12,000) and that of people
earning more than $365,000 to rise by 132 percent($93,500),18 but it would also heavily affect the average
taxpayer earning $62,000, whose tax bill would rise 61
percent ($5,300).19
Millions of young Americans who were not yet paying
taxes cheered, as did most of the people belonging to the
38 percent of households exempted from paying taxes atthat time. They were, of course, galvanized by theprospect that a Democratic administration would force
America’s rich people to pay part of their own healthcare,mortgages, loans and school tuition, and they rushed tosupport Democratic candidates.
The Democratic Party won the White House and bothchambers of the United States Congress. Soon the newpolitical leaders of the United States began changing intoa kind of a Ceauşescu-style nomenklatura (in the Soviet
bloc, the special elite class of people from which
appointees for top-level government positions weredrawn) with unchecked power. This new nomenklatura
started running the country secretly, just as Ceauşescu’s
nomenklatura did. “We have to pass the bill so that you
can find out what is in it,” then-leader of the US House ofRepresentatives nomenklatura, Nancy Pelosi, once told
the media.20 That was a first in American history. It didn’ttake long before this nomenklatura—this arrogant, newelite class—began to take control of banks, homemortgages, school loans, automakers and most of thehealthcare industry.
When tens of thousands of Americans disagreed withthis transfer of wealth from private hands into those of thegovernment and stood up for traditional American values,
the congressional nomenklatura called them “extremists”
and potential “terrorists.”21 That was what Ceauşescu’s
nomenklatura had also called its critics.
On February 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek, at thattime the second-largest weekly newsmagazine in the US,
proclaimed: “We Are All Socialists Now.”22 That wasexactly what Ceauşescu’s newspaper Scînteia proclaimed
after he changed Romania into a monument to himself.
Newsweek’s change produced the same results asScînteia’s change—on a US scale. More than 14 million
Americans lost their jobs and 41.8 million people got foodstamps. The GDP dipped from 3-4 percent to 1.6 percent.
The national debt rose to an unprecedented $13 trillion
that year, and is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2019.
Scînteia went bankrupt. In 2010, Newsweek was soldfor one dollar (and even under new ownership and with amassive cash infusion, published its final print edition in
December 2012). Also during 2010, a member of thecongressional nomenklatura—and a stout admirer of andvisitor to Fidel Castro’s Cuba—Rep. Maxine Waters
began preaching that the future of America’s oil industry
was socialism. While grilling oil company executives
during a congressional hearing, Waters actually blurted
out her intention to socialize the entire oil industry,
quickly backtracking into more subdued language once
she realized what she had said: “And guess what thisliberal will be all about? This liberal will be all aboutsocializing, uh, uh, would be about basically about taking
over the government running all of your companies.”23 In
1948, when the Romanian nomenklatura nationalized theoil industry, that country was the second oil exporter inEurope. Thirty years later, when I broke with Marxism,
Romania was a heavy importer of oil, gasoline wasrationed, the temperature in public spaces had to be kept
under sixty-three degrees, and all shops had to close nolater than 5:30 p.m. to save energy.
A few conservative political commentators, like Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly,
warned that Marxism was infecting the United States.
Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, leaders of both the
Democratic Party and Republican Party have failed towarn the country about this danger. It seems no one
believes it possible that the United States of America, theleader of the Free World, could be vulnerable to the virusof Marxism. That is another consequence of
disinformation.

After winning the 2008 elections, the Democratic
Party began changing the United States into a monument
to its leader as well. Heaven forbid I should be understoodas comparing President Obama to Ceauşescu or any other
Soviet bloc monsters—I strongly believe that the first
black American president should have a place of honor in
our country’s history—but I do note a few coincidencesthat should serve as food for thought. Following is apartial list of projects and places already named after
President Obama:
California: Obama Way, Seaside; Barack Obama Charter
School, Compton; Barack Obama Global Preparation
Academy, Los Angeles; Barack Obama Academy,
Oakland.
Florida: President Barack Obama Parkway, Orlando;
Barack Obama Avenue, Opa-locka; Barack Obama
Boulevard, West Park.
Maryland: Barack Obama Elementary School, Upper
Marlboro.
Missouri: Barack Obama Elementary School, Pine Lawn.
Minnesota: Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning
Elementary, Saint Paul.
New Jersey: Barack Obama Academy, Plainfield; Barack
Obama Green Charter High School, Plainfield.

New York: Barack Obama Elementary School, Hempstead.
Pennsylvania: Obama High School, Pittsburgh.
Texas: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy, Dallas.

Change—in the direction of greater “fairness”—was still
the Democratic Party’s theme for the 2012 elections, but
now the target was American capitalism. This new
crusade was reflected in the article “Why isn’t capitalism
working?” by Lawrence Summers, former head of
President Obama’s National Economic Council.
According to Summers’s essay, Americans have been
disillusioned with market capitalism: Only “50% of
people had a positive opinion of capitalism, while 40
percent did not.” The reasoning: “[Capitalism produces]inequality and declining social mobility … The problem
is real and profound and seems unlikely to correct itself
untended. Unlike cyclical concerns, there is no obvious
solution at hand.” The “problem’s roots,” according to
Summers, “lie deep with the evolution of technology.”
Capitalism was a profit-driven economic system thatcared more about enriching its owners than aboutmodernizing the country’s economy. The solution wasgovernment-financed research and production facilities.24
Solyndra! Remember that cute glass-and-steel factorybuilt with $535 million of government money, which on

August 31, 2011, went bankrupt, laying off eleven
hundred employees and shutting down all operations?
That was the solution. That was the future, in Summers’sview.
Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under Bill
Clinton, added his own two-cents’ worth, calling
American capitalism “Casino Capitalism,” which uses
“other people’s money to make big bets which, if they gowrong, can wreak havoc on the economy … . It’s been
terrible for the American economy and for our
democracy.”25
The Republican candidate for the White House, Mitt
Romney, happened to be a “capitalist,” and the
Democratic Party/news media’s disinformation machinery
ramped up a brutal campaign to crucify America’s most“heinous” capitalist, Mitt Romney. In addition to
constantly demonizing his private equity firm, Bain
Capital—which in reality is one of the most respectedcompanies in the venture capital field—the disinformationteam got creative. For example, in a five-thousand-wordpiece published on May 10, 2012— at the same time as arave report on President Barack Obama’s public embraceof gay marriage—the highly influential Washington Post
depicted Romney as an anti-gay bully who had
psychologically murdered one John Lauber, an allegedly
gay classmate in their prep school days, by forcefully
chopping off a shock of his bleached hair. According tothe Post, Lauber was a fragile young man, and four
decades later his body collapsed around a spirit broken by
Mitt Romney.26 Wow! How dare that brute Romney now
presume to run for president?
A few days later, the whole Post story was shown to
be a disinformation campaign, but by then the damage
was done. Stu White, who had been featured by the Post
as an eyewitness to Romney’s brutal assault on Lauber,
told ABC News that, in fact, he had never even heard
about the hair incident until contacted by the Post.
Lauber’s sister, Christine, confirmed that her brother had“never uttered a word about Mitt Romney or the haircut
incident.”27 Nor was Lauber a broken spirit. He was a
tough guy, who took dressage lessons in England andtoured the world with the Royal Lipizzaner Stallion riders.
Moreover, Lauber did not die because his spirit was
broken by Romney. He died of cancer. According to his
obituary published in the South Bend Tribune at the timeof his 2004 death, “Lauber led a full life, graduating from
Vanderbilt and becoming a member of the British Horse
Society. He earned seaman papers, was licensed in threestates as mortician, and was head chef of the [upscale]Russian Resort in California. He also served as a civilian
contractor in Iraq.”28 According to his sister, Lauber kept
his hair blond until he died. “He never stopped bleachingit.”29For people who dared to start their lives again from

scratch in order to become citizens of this great country—
as I did, and as did those millions who have patiently
waited in line for their immigration papers—America is“the Canaan of capitalism, its promised land,” as prescient
German economist Werner Sombart called it in 1906.30
This “Canaan of capitalism” was not created by Jeremiah
Wrights; it was created by a long procession of Americanpresidents who were capitalists like Mitt Romney, men
who were daring enough to become successful in businessand to earn sizable fortunes.
George Washington’s assets are estimated in today’s
dollars at $525 million, Thomas Jefferson’s at $212
million, Theodore Roosevelt’s at $125 million, Andrew
Jackson’s at $119 million, James Madison’s at $101
million, Lyndon Johnson’s at $98 million, Herbert
Hoover’s at $75 million, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s
at $60 million. John Fitzgerald Kennedy may not haveearned his own fortune, but he inherited an estimated $1
billion. Bill Clinton’s estimated wealth is $80 million.
Some of these presidents were better than others; but none
has ever been called a “heinous capitalist.”
The 2012 election ended that American tradition.
Capitalism lost elections for the first time in the history of
the United States. The Democratic Party’s disinformation
machinery was able to distort Romney’s capitalist past to
such a degree that he was always on the defensive, always
portrayed as a greedy capitalist predator, when by allaccounts his personal history was one of extraordinary
generosity and humanitarianism.
The United States won the Cold War because Ronald
Reagan was elected president long after he had purged
himself of his own youthful infatuation with Marx’s
socialism. President Reagan was thus able to see throughMarx’s seductive ideology and to identify it as thepolitical swindle it really is. Then he could subdue it. Let
us hope that President Obama will also change himself.

42
FROM DISINFORMATION TO
ASSASSINATION

THE 2012 ASSASSINATION of John Christopher Stevens, theUS ambassador to Libya, by Islamic terrorists vividly
reminded me of the 1973 public assassination of Cleo A.
Noel Jr., the US ambassador to Sudan. Both were killed
by armed Islamic terrorists who stormed and occupied our
diplomatic offices—an act of war against the UnitedStates, according to international law. Both coordinatorsof these assassinations became known to the US
government, which chose to keep their identities a secretfor political reasons.
Let me take you back in time four decades and provide
an insider’s view of what really went on, because Ibelieve there are some important lessons to be learned
about handling today’s crises.
In 1973, PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s liaison officer for
Romania, Hani al-Hassan (nom de guerre Abu Hasan), let
us Romanians know that Arafat had sent a commando to
Sudan headed by his top deputy, Abu Jihad (né Khalil alWazir), to carry out an operation codenamed “Nahr alBarad” (Cold River), after a Palestinian training camp
destroyed by Israeli fighter jets eleven days earlier. Abu
Jihad’s task was to take hostage a few American
diplomats in Khartoum whom Arafat wanted to use as
exchange pieces for “freeing” Sirhan Sirhan, thePalestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy.
“S-s-top h-him!” Romanian dictator NicolaeCeauşescu yelled when I reported the news. Because of
his close relationship with Arafat, Ceauşescu was afraidthat his own name might be implicated in that awfulcrime. “S-s-stop h-him!” Ceauşescu repeated.
It was too late. A few hours later we learned that, after
President Richard Nixon refused the terrorists’ demand,
the PLO commando executed three of their hostages: USambassador Cleo A. Noel Jr.; his deputy, George Curtis
Moore; and Belgian chargé d’affaires, Guy Eid.
According to Hassan, the PLO chairman himself ordered,
via radio, that the hostages be shot.
In 2002, I learned quite a few more details about

Arafat’s personal involvement in this brutal assassinationfrom James Welsh, a retired US Navy officer and former
intelligence analyst for the National Security Agency(NSA) during 1972–1974. Welsh gave me original
documents and intercept transcripts showing that in
February–March 1973, NSA had secretly recorded theradio communications between Arafat and Abu Jihad
during the PLO operation “Nahr al-Barad,” which ended
with the killing of Ambassador Cleo Noel. These
conversations were recorded by Mike Hargreaves, an
NSA officer stationed in Cyprus, and the transcript was
kept in a file code-named “Fedayeen.”1
According to Welsh’s documents, Arafat used a Racal
single sideband radio tuned to 7150 kHz to communicate
with Abu Jihad. On March 2, 1973, at around 8 p.m. local
time, Abu Jihad radioed the order to execute the hostages
taken in operation “Nahr al-Barad.” Because an hour later
the international media had still not reported the killing,
Arafat himself reiterated the order, via his radio, to kill
the hostages. Later that same day, Arafat radioed hisgunmen again, telling them to release Saudi and Jordanian
diplomats and to surrender to Sudanese authorities.
“Explain your just cause to [the] great Sudanese Arabmasses and international opinion. We are with you on thesame road.”2
To the best of my knowledge, the United States
government never accused Arafat of this unequivocallyproven crime—either in a court of law, or even in the“court of public opinion.” Nor did Arafat publicly
acknowledge it, although he regarded that atrocious
assassination as a badge of honor. I learned from
Romania’s former prime minister Ion Gheorghe Maurer
that in May 1973, during a private dinner with Ceauşescu
in Bucharest, Arafat excitedly bragged about this coldblooded assassination. Maurer, a Western-educatedlawyer who had just retired as Romanian prime minister,
attended that dinner. “Be careful,” Maurer told Arafat.
“No matter how high-up you are, you can still be
convicted for killing and stealing.” Although a fanaticalcommunist, Maurer had a kind of prurient, superstitious
fear of being caught breaking what he called those twomost fundamental laws of civilization.
“Who, me?” Arafat said, winking mischievously. “Inever had anything to do with that operation.”
Yasser Arafat was a product of the Kremlin’s“science” of disinformation, and he ultimately became anexpert in manipulating this invisible weapon. Arafat –whose real name was Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman
Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, and his nom
de guerre Abu Ammar— was actually a bourgeois
Egyptian nationalist-turned–Palestinian-terrorist by a
KGB disinformation operation in the mid-1960s. As afirst step, the KGB destroyed the official records ofArafat’s birth in Cairo, Egypt, replacing them with

fictitious documents attesting that he had been born inJerusalem and was indeed a Palestinian by birth. In theearly days of his rise to prominence, many Arabists
viewed Arafat’s new birthplace with skepticism. Even
twenty-two years later, one of the best-documented bookson the PLO stated that Arafat “was born in Cairo or Gaza
on 27 August 1929.”3 Eventually, however, it seems that
his fictitious birth certificate manufactured by the KGB
came into its own, for today the international media
generally portray him as a Palestinian by birth. As Mao
Zedong famously said, “a lie repeated a hundred times
becomes the truth.”
Next, the KGB gave Arafat an “ideology” and an“ideological image,” just as it gave them to Indian
communist Romesh Chandra, the chairman of theundercover KGB organization portentously named theWorld Peace Council. In Europe, most of such people
officially came across simply as peace activists, women’s
rights promoters, environmentalists, and the like. Thosekinds of ideological orientations did not, however, havemass appeal in the Arab world. Therefore, the KGB
disinformation machinery portrayed Arafat as a rabid antiZionist—an image that was not at all difficult. For him the
KGB also selected a “personal hero”—the Grand Mufti
Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had visited Auschwitz in thelate 1930s and reproached the Germans for not being
more determined in exterminating the Jews. (In 1985,
Arafat is on record as having paid the mufti homage,saying he was “proud no end” to be walking in his
footsteps.4)
Even while I was still in Romania, I did not know thename of the KGB officer handling Arafat—that was thenormal practice. Although the KGB knew the identities of
all DIE officers, it never disclosed the identies of its own
officers—even the head of the Soviet foreign intelligence
service, General Sakharovsky, traveled to Romania underan operational alias (Aleksandr Sakharov). Many years
later, however, Oleg Gordievsky, a former KGB officer
who defected to Britain, revealed that in the 1970s,
Arafat’s KGB case officer was Lt. Col. Vasily Fedorovich
Samoylenko. The latter was also responsible for secretly
bringing Arafat’s terrorists into the Soviet Union to be
trained at the KGB’s Balashikha special-operations
training school east of Moscow.5
The KGB disinformation department tasked Arafat tocreate and head a terrorist group named Fatah, and in theaftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War it
maneuvered to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO.
Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a
Soviet puppet,6 publicly proposed the appointment.7 The
rest is history.
In 1978, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and his KGB
chairman, Yuri Andropov, involved my former boss,
Nicolae Ceauşescu, in a disinformation plot, the goal ofwhich was to get the United States to establish diplomaticrelations with Arafat. The idea was simple: Have Arafat
pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a governmentin-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Brezhnev
and Andropov believed that newly elected US President
Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait. Moscow gaveCeauşescu the job, because by 1978 he had become
Washington’s most favored tyrant. Ceauşescu accepted it,
because he envisioned that this disinformation plot mightbring the Nobel Peace Prize to both Arafat and himself.
“But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, afterCeauşescu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him.
“We were born as a revolution, and we should remain an
unfettered revolution.” Arafat postulated that thePalestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline tobecome a formal state. That statehood was only
something for a future generation. That all governments,
even communist ones, were limited by laws andinternational agreements, and he was not willing to put
any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinianstruggle to eradicate the state of Israel.
However, my former boss was able to persuade Arafat
to focus on tricking President Carter. Although Ceauşescu
sympathetically agreed that “a war of terror is your only
realistic weapon,” he also told Arafat that if he would
transform the PLO into a government-in-exile and pretend
to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with

money and glory. “But you have to keep on pretending,over and over,” my boss emphasized.
In April 1978, I accompanied Ceauşescu to
Washington, where he convinced President Carter that hecould persuade Arafat to transform his PLO into a lawabiding government-in-exile, if the United States would
establish official relations with him. Three months later, I
was granted political asylum by the United States, andRomania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel
Peace Prize. In 1994, however, Arafat was granted thecoveted prize because he promised to transform his
terrorist organization into a kind of government-in-exile(the Palestinian Authority) and pretended, over and over,that he would abolish the articles in the 1964 PLO
Covenant that call for the destruction of the State of Israel
and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism.
In 1995, however, the number of Israelis killed byPalestinian terrorists rose by 73 percent compared to thetwo-year period preceding Arafat’s Nobel Peace Prize.8
At the end of the 1998–99 Palestinian school year, all 150
new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority
described Israel as the “Zionist enemy” and equatedZionism with Nazism.
In September 2000, Arafat started a second intifada.
By June 2002, there were already a recorded 13,494
incidents of Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, inwhich more than six hundred civilians had lost their

lives.9 Six months later, the number of Israeli civilians
killed by the PLO’s “martyrs” exceeded seven hundred.10
Of course, people can change over the years, but only
if they cut the ties to their past. I did just that. It was awrenching experience, but it gave me an entirely new
perspective. Arafat was never motivated to change,
because well-meaning Western heads of state kept telling
him what a great leader he was. At the signing of the Wye
Accord at the White House on October 23, 1998, forinstance, President Bill Clinton concluded his public
remarks by thanking Arafat for “decades and decades anddecades of tireless representation of the longing of thePalestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at
home.”11
Let us hope that the killer of Ambassador John
Christopher Stevens in Benghazi will not get the Nobel
Peace Prize, nor be given a red-carpet reception at theWhite House.

Yasser Arafat died in Paris on November 11, 2004,
following a short illness. The cause of death was notclear. In July 2012, Swiss reports on tests on Arafat’s
clothing indicated that he may have died of poisoning
with Polo-nium-210. In November 2012, an internationalteam of forensic pathologists opened Arafat’s tomb in
Ramallah on the West Bank and took samples from

portions of his body, to carry out further investigation.12
So far, as mentioned earlier, there has been just one
other known case of death by poisoning with Polonium210, that of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko(2006), who had defected to Great Britain and revealed
some earth-shattering KGB/FSB secrets to the British
foreign intelligence service, MI6. One of those secrets,
which became public, was that Ayman al-Zawahiri, thecurrent leader of al-Qaeda, was trained for half a year by
the KGB/FSB in Dagestan in 1997.13 Another ofLitvinenko’s extremely damaging disclosures that became
public knowledge was that Romano Prodi, a former prime
minister of Italy and the tenth president of the European
Commission, had been a longtime intelligence agent of
the KGB/FSB. Litvinenko reported that he had learned
this information from KGB General Anatoly Trofimov
during the period when he, Litvinenko, was still working
for the KGB/FSB. Trofimov was shot dead in Moscow in
2005.14 In 2002, the Mitrokhin Commission, aparliamentary committee set up in 2002 by the ItalianParliament to investigate alleged KGB ties to Italianpoliticians, concluded that Prodi was “the KGB’s man in
Italy,”15 and that he had been peripherally involved in the1978 assassination of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro,
who was kidnapped and murdered by the KGB-financed
terrorist organization known as the Red Brigades.16
On November 1, 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill—like Arafat—and was hospitalized. Litvinenko’s illness
was later attributed to poisoning with Polonium-210, ahighly toxic isotope known to be used by the former
Soviet Union as neutron trigger, or initiator, for nuclear
weapons. Litvinenko died on November 22, 2006. The
Crown Prosecution Service, on May 22, 2007, called forthe extradition to the UK of Russian citizen and resident
Andrey Lugovoy (a former KGB officer), on charges of
having murdered Litvinenko. On July 5, 2007, Russia
declined to extradite Lugovoy. Overnight, he remarkably
became a member of the Russian Duma, thus receiving
parliamentary immunity!
At the time of this writing, no one knows if Polonium210 will be found in the samples of Arafat’s bones takenfrom his exhumed body. Nevertheless, there is solid
ground for postulating that the KGB/FSB may havegotten tired of Arafat and decided to get rid of him. Arafat
had become the symbol of today’s disinformation andterrorism, and he had started being known as the KGB’s
man—at the top of the KGB community he wasnicknamed “Cheyadbom” (from Chelovecheskaya
Yadernaya Bomba, or human nuclear bomb). Original
documents sneaked out of KGB/FSB archives after thecollapse of the Soviet Union have added fuel to the fire.
Documents in the Mitrokhin Archive describe Arafat’s
close collaboration with my Romanian DIE and with the
KGB in the early 1970s. Other documents disclose the
KGB’s secret training provided to Arafat’s guerrillas, andreveal the supersecret channels used by the KGB toprovide arms shipments to the PLO. Some of these
documents even reveal the supersecret KGB dacha, codenamed “Barvikha-1,” used by Wadie Haddad, the head of
Arafat’s front organization in charge of smuggling
weapons from the Soviet Union. Other KGB documents
smuggled out by Mitrokhin show that KGB chairman
Andropov sought Brezhnev’s approval to use Haddad for
kidnapping the CIA’s deputy station chief in Lebanon.
On May 25, 1970, Brezhnev approved the kidnapping,
and the new chief of Department V (kidnappings andassassinations), Gen. Nikolay Pavlovich Gusev, assigned
Haddad to the task.17 Fortunately, that operation ended in
failure.
Other secret KGB information that became public
showed that, during a visit to Moscow in May 2001,
Arafat forged a secret alliance with Iran, involving Iranian
shipments of heavy weapons to PLO terrorists. This new
partnership was arranged at a clandestine meeting in
Moscow between two of Arafat’s top aides (Fuad
Shobaki, the chief financial officer for military operations,and Fathi al-Razem, the deputy commander of thePalestinian naval police) and an Iranian government
official whose name was not disclosed. In exchange for
Iran’s help, Arafat agreed to provide Iran with access toPalestinian intelligence on Israeli military positions.18
Seven months later, on January 4, 2002, Israeli navy

and air force units captured a freighter in the Red Sea
carrying some fifty tons of offensive weapons that had
been loaded in Iran. The ship, the Karine A, was ownedby the Palestinian Authority (PA) and captained by a PA
naval policeman. The Israeli military took the captured
ship to Israel, where the Israelis publicly exhibited thearms found on it. Most of the weapons displayed wereprohibited to the PA by the Oslo accord agreed to by
Arafat in 1993. Among the latter were long-range, Sovietbuilt Katyusha rockets, long-range mortars, antitank
missiles, and a large quantity of Semtex-type explosive.
Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, the chief of the Israeli Army, said
that if this warfare equipment “had reached the hands of[Palestinian] terrorists,” it might have “drasticallyincreased the terror activity” in the Middle East.19
It is significant that, although Israel and the UnitedStates published undeniable written evidence proving that
Arafat was personally involved in the above Karine A
affair concerning smuggling prohibited arms from Iran,
Arafat had stubbornly denied, including in a widely
publicized personal letter to President George W. Bush,that he had had any knowledge of it.
In 2002, Arafat carried out yet another mass
deception, the operational details of which indicated hestill had KGB/FSB disinformation advisers helping him.
By the spring of 2001, deadly suicide bombings within
Israel had become an almost daily occurrence. Theseattacks culminated with the “Passover Massacre” ofMarch 27. A Palestinian terrorist walked into the dining
room of the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya andexploded a bomb, killing 29 people and injuring 140
others.20 Unwilling to further tolerate the daily murder of
its civilians, Israel launched operation “Defensive Shield”(March 29–April 21, 2001). Its purpose was to dismantle
the PLO terrorist infrastructure, concealed in the city ofJenin, which had become a terrorist headquarters
complete with bomb factories.21
When the Israeli troops rolled into the PLO’s Jenin
terrorist camp in April 2002, they found a whole networkof tunnels and bunkers filled with explosives set todetonate when Israeli troops entered the site. Thirteen
Israeli soldiers died when a fourteen-year-old Palestiniansuicide bomber sparked a series of explosions that
demolished such a building while the soldiers weresearching it.22 Thereupon, Arafat’s Palestinian Authority
successfully launched a three-pronged disinformation
plan that precisely followed the KGB rules forminimizing a national disaster: deny direct involvement in
it, minimize the damage, and when the truth comes out,
insist that the enemy was at fault.
First, Arafat denied any responsibility in that tragedy.
Next, he refused to acknowledge that any Israeli soldier
was killed in that disaster. And when the truth finallycame out, Arafat’s disinformation machinery launched thefalse rumor that the Jenin catastrophe had been caused by
the Israeli soldiers, who had allegedly killed more than athousand Palestinian civilians, who were still buried in the
rubble.23
In May 2002, however, after all the bodies had been
recovered from the Jenin camp, the deputy chief of the
UN office in Jenin, Charles Kapes, reported that only
fifty-four Palestinians had in fact been killed. The Israelis
reported that they had found only forty-six dead in the
rubble, including a pile of five bodies that had been
booby-trapped.
“No matter whose figures one accepts,” concluded
David Holley, a British military expert working forAmnesty International, “there was no massacre.”24 US
Secretary of State Colin Powell also officially announced
there was no evidence of any Israeli massacre in Jenin, as
alleged by the Palestinians.25
In April 2002, former director of central intelligence
James Woolsey dismissed PLO claims that its chairman
had been democratically elected. “Arafat was essentiallyelected the same way Stalin was, but not nearly as
democratically as Hitler, who at least had opponents,”
Woolsey stated.26 He knew what he was talking about, for
he was at the CIA’s helm when Arafat’s PLO began
making its grand conversion from an organization ofbloody terrorists to an alleged governing body ostensibly
holding fair elections. The exposure of the Jenindeception, which had the fingerprints of a KGB-type
disinformation operation all over it, seems to have been
the last drop in Arafat’s glass. It was time for him to go.
A new, more Western-looking leader was poised toreplace the bloodstained, old-fashioned, compromised
Arafat. Few people noticed that Mahmoud Abbas, whotook Arafat’s place and continues to be president of the(newly named) Palestinian National Authority, was also
educated in the former Soviet Union. Abbas graduatedfrom Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, a KGBcontrolled school whose secret task was to create a newgeneration of foreigners dedicated to promoting the
Kremlin’s interests in their home countries. The first 288
students from forty-seven countries graduated in 1965.
Soon after that, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, who had
been chief Soviet adviser to Romania’s Securitate before
becoming the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence boss,
requested my DIE to help find “friendly foreigners” who
could be granted scholarships at Lumumba. To the best of
my knowledge, all foreign students at Lumumba werecooperating, in one way or another, with the foreign
branch of the KGB.
Furthermore, few people realized that soon after
Arafat’s death, the United Nations itself turned into an
open KGB/FSB puppet. On December 2, 2004, UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan endorsed the proposals of
the “High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges andChange,” commissioned by him to build a UN “for thetwenty-first century.”27 The panel recommended that theUnited States and Israel be further isolated by establishing
the rule that only the UN could authorize preemptive wars
against terrorism or any other threats. It is hard to believe,
but true, that the main member of Annan’s blue-ribbon
panel was former KGB general Yevgeny Primakov, aformer Soviet intelligence adviser to Saddam Hussein,
who rose to head Russia’s espionage service for a time—
and to sing opera ditties with US secretary of state
Madeleine Albright while secretly running the infamous
Aldrich Ames spy case behind her back. Anotherprominent member was Qian Qichen, a former Red
Chinese intelligence officer, who had worked under
diplomatic cover abroad, had belonged to the Central
Committee of the Communist Party when it ordered thebloody Tiananmen Square repression in 1989, hadafterward risen to the Politburo, and in 1998 had become
vice chairman of China’s State Council. And then there
was Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab
League, who “misses the balance of power provided by
the Soviet Union”28 and is still unable to condemn—letalone prevent—terrorism.

43
MARXIST PERSONALITYCULTS AND HEAVY WATER

THE LAST SUNDAY IN JUNE was the first really summery dayof the year 1978, enticing almost all of Romania outdoors
to enjoy the warm sun. Even the country’s workaholicpresident, Nicolae Ceauşescu, cut short the meeting he
was holding with his closest collaborators and pushed his
entourage out for a game of volleyball.
“Let’s go home,” Elena announced to her husband,
after his team had, as usual, won the game. She cackled
like a mother hen—and walked like a duck—but her toneof voice left no room for argument.
As soon as the Ceauşescus had safely disappeared, Ihopped into my car. “Home,” I commanded. “Home,” thedriver repeated mechanically, slamming the navy blue
Alfa Romeo into gear and taking off with tires squealing.
“It’s been a while since you last saw your house in the
daylight, hasn’t it, General?”
In Ceauşescu’s Romania, as in all former Soviet bloc
countries, the supreme leader was god, and his
intelligence service was the magic wand that he hoped
would transform the country into his temple. During theprevious months I had been more enslaved to my job thanever before, and I now felt a sudden urge to do something,anything, for myself.
It had been a hectic few weeks. Ceauşescu, whowanted to be portrayed to the world as an independent
nationalist who would breach the wall surrounding theSoviet bloc, had tasked my DIE with launching the lie in
the West that he had been courageous enough to executeone of his senior generals, Ion Serb, after catching him
red-handed passing secret documents to the Soviets. The
general was neither charged with espionage nor executed;
nevertheless, soon a stream of articles on the“courageous” Ceauşescu appeared in Western Europe andthe United States.
Once that fable had been floated, Ceauşescu had
rushed me off to Bangui to prepare a new visit for him to
the Central African Republic, although my real task wasto persuade President Jean-Bédel Bokassa that Ceauşescu
had not only anti-Soviet but also anti-American leanings
and thereby to charm Bokassa into granting the“independent” Ceauşescu concessions for operating someof his diamond mines. As it turned out, that task proved to
be a breeze compared to my efforts to find a beauty salon
there for Elena. During her last visit to Bangui, her
Romanian hairdresser had come down with an intestinal
bug, so this time I—unsuccessfully—had to scour thoseequatorial rain forests for a beauty salon that would do
Elena’s hair. It was all part of my job.
Afterward I had accompanied my boss to Cairo, andeven before we had returned to Bucharest, he packed me
off to West Germany to give a new push to his Fokker
gambit. Then the Soviet KGB’s recruitment of thecommander of the Bucharest military garrison was
secretly recorded on tape by Romaniancounterintelligence, and all hell had broken loose.
Overnight I had to bring Western medical experts to
Bucharest to revive the prostrate Ceauşescu. The
following week I had to ensure that the West was flooded
with the rumor that the hardline communists in Romania
had, under Moscow’s manipulation, rebelled againstCeauşescu’s policy of independence and had forced him
to ask for a secret vote of confidence, which he had barely
won through the promise of higher wages, a shorter

workweek, and larger pensions.
“Scare the [Western] idiots into thinking they mightlose me,” he instructed.
In short, this particular Sunday was the first time I
would have a chance to spend a couple of hours all tomyself, and I felt a sudden urge to indulge myself, even if
it was only by watering the flowers in my garden. As we
sped down Kiseleff Chaussee, the fancy Bucharest avenue
leading to my villa, my mind wandered off, musing that ina few minutes I would be home. I could already picture
myself jumping into the swimming pool—a long,refreshing swim to begin with.
“Did you change the water?” I asked the driver. There
was no chlorine available in Bucharest during those years,
so the handful of elite nomenklatura people who were
lucky to have a swimming pool had to keep replacing thewater.
“I’m sorry, General,” the driver said, nervously
pumping the brake even though the street ahead was asclean as a whistle. “I forgot.” He mopped his forehead
with his sleeve. Even after driving me for five years, hestill broke into a sweat whenever he had done something
wrong, although I cannot remember ever having raised
my voice at him. Maybe that was just the trouble.
The awkward silence in the car was broken by afemale voice blaring out over the radio telephone: “Sixtytwo, report to zero-one. Repeat, sixty-two report to zero-one.” Sixty-two was my code in Ceauşescu’s private radio
telephone network, and zero-one was Ceauşescu’s.
“Sixty-two reporting to zero-one,” I answered. So muchfor my swim.
Without waiting to be told, the driver spun the cararound to the left with a squeal of the tires and floored theaccelerator. Magically, all the traffic lights stretching out
before us at once turned green, as the militia officers
manning them recognized my car.
“Too bad, Comrade General,” my driver sympathized.
Ceauşescu was in his enormous library pacing aroundin circles, hand inside his lapel, and going as fast as his
stubby legs could propel his short frame. He had spent
many hours in front of the mirror, perfecting his
Napoleonic walk. Napoleon, also five-foot-three, was his
idol.
“Who slept with whom last week?” Ceauşescu
shouted across the room the moment he spotted me.
Keeping tabs on the private lives of Romania’s highest
dignitaries was another of my secret assignments.
To become the unquestioned leader, one must know
the weaknesses of one’s subordinates—that constituted
the “kernel of truth” in disinformation operations aimed atdemoting uncomfortable people. The typically Soviet—
or perhaps historically Russian—tendency of the ruler to
distrust everyone around him, and to misuse hisintelligence apparatus to learn the human foibles of thecountry’s top bureaucrats, gave rise to supersecretbugging units assigned to monitor the top nomenklaturain the Soviet Union and some of its closest satellites.
Among those secretly bugged by Ceauşescu were thecountry’s prime minister and his deputies, the members of
the Politburo, and the most important members of thecabinet, such as the ministers of defense, foreign affairs
and foreign trade. Eventually, Ceauşescu even went so far
as to monitor his own children and all the members of his
and his wife’s families.
“What’s new with our man in Dunărea?” Ceauşescu
asked, after I had filled him in on the latest juicy gossip.
I had been waiting for that too. There were few thingsin life more important to Ceauşescu in those days than his
project for heavy water, which he himself had baptizedwith the codename “Dunărea,” the Romanian name forthe Danube. Ceauşescu dreamed of building himself into
the leader of the Third World by making his“independent” Romania a nuclear country, and heavy
water was the first step toward attaining that dream. Our
man in Dunărea was a DIE illegal officer documented asa Western engineer who had allegedly never even heardof Romania. He had gotten himself hired by Atomic

Energy of Canada Limited, where he had been given a
top-secret clearance.
Fortunately, I did have some good news about him
that I could use to stave off another of Ceauşescu’slegendary outbursts of wrath whenever he disliked what
he was hearing. The week before, I reported, we hadbrought the man into Romania “black,” in order to give
him Ceauşescu’s latest orders. The cover for his absencefrom work, I explained, had been a long getaway
weekend on the Spanish island of Majorca, and now he
was already back in Canada.
“No slipups?” Ceauşescu asked. Espionage was his
hobby.
I reported that one of my illegal officers had taken the
man’s place vacationing in Palma de Mallorca, and thatthe tips he had given the hotel personnel had been fat
enough for them to remember him by. The two illegal
officers, I pointed out, could pass for twins.
Ceauşescu allowed a smile to cross his sallow face.
Any deception gave him a high. I said the fellow was as
gung-ho as ever, and in two weeks he would be deaddropping the first batch of undeveloped films containing
blueprints for Dunărea.
“Go-o-od!” Ceauşescu stopped in front of me, grabbed
one of the buttons of my jacket, and lowered his voice.

“Would it be dangerous to have the Dunărea plant built in
Scorniceşti?” He giggled, evidently excited by the idea of
seeing his otherwise unremarkable little native town
elevated to become the heart of Romania’s nuclear
program.
As I remember, I paused for a moment, pretending toadmire the twenty-four-volume sets of his collectedspeeches lining the library walls. Four months earlier,when Ceauşescu had made me responsible for Dunărea,he had signed a top-secret presidential decree charging the
Ministry of Chemical Industry to produce heavy waterindustrially before the end of that five-year plan. Nobody,
however, had dared to tell him that in all of Romania
there was only handful of engineers who had even heard
about heavy water, and I was thinking this might be agood day for me to break the bad news to him.
“There’s just one little problem, though,” I ventured.
“Out with it!” Ceauşescu’s beady eyes shot me a wary
look. “Where’s the shit?” he asked nervously, anxious to
get the bad news out in the open, where he could deal
with it. “Did the Canadian police spot our man inDunărea?”
By then I had learned that with Ceauşescu the best
tactic was to let him guess for himself what the bad news

was, rather than hit him over the head with it. Ceauşescu
loved to watch whodunit movies, but only those in which
he could anticipate the next move—he despised
Hitchcock, whom he could never outguess.
The problem was not with our man in Dunărea, I
answered. He was as clean as a hound’s tooth. I tried to
set the scene to help Ceauşescu along. The Canadians, I
said, needed several hundred experts only to design theirheavy water installations, and that was without counting
the ones involved in constructing, and now in managing,their heavy water plant.
“Got it!” Ceauşescu exclaimed, snapping his fingers.
“You want to say we don’t have experts, right?” His
expression took on a sly glint. “Well, that’s why I torture
myself by putting up with you, mon cher.”Time to get it out, I thought, when I saw Ceauşescu
winking in complicity. It would take Romania, I
explained, a lot less time to build the factory as a joint
venture with the Canadians than if we tried to do it all by
ourselves based only on stolen technology. Here I stopped
to read my boss’s face. Taking the offensive was a goodtactic to use with him, but only up to a certain point. The
trick was not to go beyond that point.
For a moment, Ceauşescu looked puzzled. Then he letgo of my jacket button. “N-No j-joint v-venture!” hefinally yelled. “N-Never! If the C-Canadians could do it,
we should be able to do it b-better!” Canada was only
three hundred years old, he reasoned, raising his voice toa full-throated scream, while Romania had been aroundfor more than two thousand years.
Ceauşescu’s increased stuttering betrayed a toweringrage, which had, as usual, blown up with the suddennessof a summer thunderstorm. High time to beat a retreat:“I’ve got a new movie for you this evening, if you like—one about Napoleon.”“Where is it?” Ceauşescu asked, dropping his stutter.
“In the trunk of my car.”“What are we waiting for?” Ceauşescu led the way tohis movie room with eager step and vigorously swinging
arms. The rhythmic clickety-click as his heel taps hit themarble floor echoed down the corridor after him.
It was long after midnight when I reached my homeagain. Ceauşescu had been unable to sleep, and he had
kept me there for a second movie. Saluting the security
officer guarding my house and the Polish Embassy, I
stared ahead at my dark windows. Mechanically I
unlocked the front door and hung up my jacket. I grabbed
up one of the classified telephones on my desk and dialed
four digits. “You’re free to go home,” I growled at myexecutive officer, Lt. Col. Vasile Pop. I banged down thereceiver, immediately feeling sorry for the poor fellow onthe other end of the line. His life was certainly worse thanmine, as he could never leave the office until after he hadlearned that I had arrived safely home, and in the morning
he had to be at his desk at least half an hour ahead of me.
I was eating a sandwich in the kitchen when a loudjangling noise shattered the silence. It was the ring of the
red telephone connecting me with Ceauşescu.
Involuntarily I gave a shudder. “No, Comrade Ceauşescu,
I’m not asleep … . No, I’m not f*cking anybody. Of
course I’ll be there in the morning … . Nine o’clock? …
Yes, Comrade, I’ll be there at nine.”

In February 2006, I wrote about that final Sunday I had
spent with Ceauşescu in an article titled “Leftwing
Monster: Ceauşescu.”1 He did indeed end up as anegocentric monster, but he was not a monster when hecame to power. I knew him well. Ceauşescu wastransformed into a monster by Marxism and its
disinformation machinery.
The Socialist Republic of Romania has been defined,
both within its borders and in the West, as a dictatorshipbased on the mass appeal of Marxist ideology and on thestrong arm of the Communist Party. In other words,
Socialist Romania—like the other Soviet bloc countries—

has been wrongly regarded, both at home and abroad, as
having a form of government that, although dictatorial,
ruled through a political party and through decisions
based on a political ideology. That was disinformation.
Only a handful of people working in extremely close
proximity to the Romanian leader and other Soviet bloc
rulers, as I was, knew that over the years the Communist
Party became a grab-bag of bureaucrats who, as a matterof fact, played no greater role in running those countries
than did Lenin’s embalmed corpse languishing in the
Kremlin mausoleum.
Seen in its historical perspective, Marxism was such araw, ill-defined and malleable system of government that
one could make of it whatever one wished. Had it
succeeded in France or Germany, Marxism would havecertainly evolved into another Paris Commune or neoPrussian military dictatorship, and it would have come toan untimely end like those other precedents. There was noway for any horde of bureaucrats or even for a huge
military machine to sustain—for seventy long years—aform of government that utterly denied the motivational
forces that have kept mankind alive throughout history:
private property, competition and individual incentive.
It so happened that Marxism triumphed in feudal
Russia, defined by its own luminaries as “a wholeseparate world, submissive to the will, caprice and fantasy
of a single man, whether his name be Peter or Ivan.”2

There, Marxism gradually devolved into a secret andcomplicated, but essentially uncontaminatedsamoderzhaviye, the traditional Russian form of
totalitarian autocracy in which a feudal lord ruled thecountry with the help of his personal political police.
Floods of government publications, agitprop agents andcommunity organizers worked around the clock to
persuade the rest of the world that their country, althoughdictatorial, was governed by a political party that based its
decisions on an idealistic political philosophy. In reality,
every Marxist country ended up being run by one man,
who transformed that country into a monument tohimself.
The outrageous Marxist cult of personality was born.
In some Marxist countries, this cult of the ruler has over
the years even come to give him the right of life and deathover his people. Stalin killed millions with impunity inorder to transform Russia into a monument to himself.
After his Red Army “liberated” Romania, Stalintransformed that country into a monument to himself as
well. Stalin portraits, Stalin statues, Stalin streets, Stalinboulevards, Stalin plazas, and Stalin factories sprouted up
like mushrooms all over the country. Romania even got
its own Stalin city.
In 1947, Stalin forced Romania’s heroic King Michael
to abdicate, decreed that Romania should become aMarxist country, and installed on its throne a little
Romanian Marxist god named Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej.

Soon after that, every Romanian town also acquired its
Gheorghiu-Dej monument, Gheorghiu-Dej street,
Gheorghiu-Dej boulevard, Gheorghiu-Dej plaza, andGheorghiu-Dej square. Before long, quite a few industrial
and agricultural organizations boasted similar names. That
outrageous cult of personality worked for the illiterate
Gheorghiu-Dej, who was able to keep his throne until hedied in 1956. It did not work for Romania, however,which became a kind of European Ethiopia, whose lack of
freedom and depth of poverty aroused worldwide pity andcompassion.
Ceauşescu “unmasked” Dej’s “unprecedented” cult of
personality, and allowed the plebs to cast their eyes on theopulence of Dej’s palace. It was not long, however, beforeCeauşescu proclaimed himself a “lay god” and beganalternately residing in twenty-one lavishly furnishedpalaces, forty-one “residential villas,” and twenty hunting
lodges. Grandiose arches inscribed “The Golden Age: The
Age of Nicolae Ceauşescu” appeared at the entrances tomost Romanian cities. The Romanian media—Ceauşescu’s main disinformation instrument—did its part,naming Ceauşescu the “Most Beloved Son of the People,”the “Guarantor of the Nation’s Progress andIndependence,” and the “Visionary Architect of the
Nation’s Future.”By 1989, Ceauşescu had seized all the top-level
positions in the country and pinned them onto his own
chest like war decorations, thereby establishing a dismal
new feudalism in the middle of the twentieth century.
Among them: president of Romania, leader of theCommunist Party, supreme commander of the armed
forces, chairman of the Supreme Council for Economic
and Social Development, president of the National
Council of Working People, chairman of the Socialist
Democracy and Unity Front. By that time, the personality
cult was extended to Ceauşescu’s wife as well. ElenaCeauşescu became the country’s first deputy prime
minister, chair of the National Council on Science andTechnology, and head of the National Council for Scienceand Education. Her national prominence had grown to thepoint that her birthday was celebrated as a national
holiday, as was her husband’s.
In 1978, when I broke with Ceauşescu, his portraits
were hanging on the walls of every government office—and in Ceauşescu’s Romania everything, from factories toschools to theaters, to movies and churches, were ownedby the government.

44
HOW I BECAME A “FILTHY
JEW TRAITOR”

AFTER I HAD BEEN GRANTED political asylum by President
Carter, the Romanian Supreme Court finally, on July 7,
1999, unanimously adopted Decision No. 41, cancelingthe two death sentences given to me by Ceauşescu in
1978. Decision No. 41 also ordered the Romanian
government to restore my judicial and political rights,
citizenship, military rank and all my properties
confiscated by Ceauşescu. The chairman of the Supreme
Court publicly stated that I had done in 1978 what all of
Romania had done eleven years later—namely, sentencedCeauşescu to death.

To the best of my knowledge, I became the first, andonly, high-level Soviet bloc defector to the United States
to be rehabilitated by his native country’s Supreme Court(my Polish equivalent, Col. Ryszard Kukliński, wasrehabilitated by the Polish government). I believe I am
also the first, and only, “case” in which the government ofa country belonging to the European Union has refused to
implement a decision of its own Supreme Court.
Here’s what happened. In 2003, the Romanianambassador to Washington, Sorin Ducaru (nowRomania’s ambassador to NATO), informed thegovernment of the United States and the American media(through Arnaud de Borchgrave, at that time editor-atlarge of the Washington Times and United Press
International) that Supreme Court Decision No. 41 hadbeen implemented. It was a lie. Soon after, theWashington Times and UPI reported that, as of January
20, 2004, “Romania’s border points still had arrest
warrants out for General Pacepa, should he try to return.”1
In Romania, my case is just the tip of the iceberg. In
2009, that country’s Supreme Court, in Decision No. 293,
declined to cancel a 1974 death sentence given byCeauşescu to another intelligence defector, ConstantinRăuţă, who also committed the “crime” of “betraying”
Ceauşescu’s political police and helping the United Statesto defeat the Soviet evil.2 Răuţă, now an American
citizen, became a reputable NASA scientist, who over the
past thirty years worked on important US aerospace
projects such as Hubble, EOS, and Landsat. He was also
involved in the development of various space defense
systems, making a substantial contribution to the securityof the United States and her NATO allies. At the time ofthis writing, Răuţă is still sentenced to death in Romania,
a country that will soon be protected by a ground-based
ballistic missile defense system in the development of
which, ironically, Răuţă himself played a role.3
Construction of that US interceptor missile facility at aformer air base in Deveselu, Romania, is scheduled to befinished in 2014. Yet, absent a miracle, Răuţă will be still
sentenced to death in that country.
Today’s Romanian government may still consider
anticommunism a crime, but it is nevertheless a NATOcountry. On November 23, 2002, when the Romanians
were officially informed their country was being seated at
the NATO table, a rainbow appeared in the sky over
Bucharest. President George W. Bush, visiting Romania’s
capital at the time, told a cheering crowd, “God is smilingat us.” God was indeed smiling at Romania. From one day
to the next, that country, which has endured a long anddark history of Roman, Ottoman, Phanariot and Soviet
occupations, no longer had to fear foreign domination.

American soldiers, now stationed in Romania, arecommitted to defending that country’s territorial integrity
with their lives.
Yet Romania’s justice system seems incapable offacing up to the fact that the country has been admitted
into NATO. At the same time, its top justicerepresentatives—mostly former communist judges orofficers of Ceauşescu’s Securitate—are chauffeured
around in limousines imported from NATO countries.
In the past five years, 6,284 people sentenced by thecommunists for, in one way or another, helping theUnited States and NATO demolish the Soviet empire
have asked to have their sentences canceled, but only
three have succeeded—because of media pressure.4 Morethan 500,000 patriots killed or terrorized by thecommunists have yet to be rehabilitated. At the sametime, thousands of former Securitate officers andhundreds of thousands of its informants and collaborators
who wrote the bloodiest era in Romania’s history are stillshielded by a veil of secrecy.
Professor Tom Gallagher, one of the world’s leading
experts on contemporary Romania, who teaches theevolution of postcommunist states at Bradford University
in the UK, concluded that Romania had moved from rigid
egalitarianism to superinegalitarianism run by excommunists who pay lip service to democracy. This new
elite has “widened the gap between a parasitic state and ademoralized society.”
In Gallagher’s view, Romania is not yet a democracy,
because “a functional democracy cannot be based on lies,
denial and amnesia.” This is also the subject of his book
Theft of a Nation: Romania since Communism (London:
Hurst, 2004), which concludes that “a Romania under thecontrol of corrupt ex-communists threatens to be adangerous force for regional instability.”
I’ll put it my own way: Today we know all too well
how a democracy can be transformed into a communist
tyranny, but we are still learning how to reverse thatnightmare.
In the 1950s, when I was acting chief of Romania’s
Mission to West Germany, I witnessed how the Third
Reich was demolished, how West Germany’s economy
was rebuilt, and how that country became an establishedparliamentary democracy whose Wirtschaftswunder(economic miracle) made it the leading power in Europe
to this day.
But not until 1998 was the Bundestag able to adopt a
law canceling the sentences given to Claus vonStauffenberg, who continued to be considered a traitor forhaving led a plot to assassinate Hitler. Horst Heyman,president of the Bundestag commission that initiated thislaw, apologized to the German people because theirparliament had needed fifty years to arrive at that point.
Now the Germans who fought Nazism are honored in thegrandiose Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, the country’s new museum of history.
Post-Ceauşescu Romania has changed for the good inmany positive ways. The barriers the Soviets spent overseventy years erecting between themselves and the rest of
the world, as well as between individual Soviet-bloc
citizens, are slowly coming down. Romanian culture isreviving and a new generation of intellectuals is
struggling to develop a new national identity. In 2004,
Romania joined NATO, and in 2007 it was accepted into
the European Union. Nevertheless, it may be that
Romania must wait for a new generation, as was the casein the former Nazi Germany, to look back oncommunism’s crimes with objective eyes.
Condemning the heresies of the past and rehabilitating
its victims seems to be the most difficult step in thetransition from tyranny to democracy. The former
communist ruler of Poland, General Wojciech Jaruzelski,
explained why: “If the victims should become heroes,
what would we be?”Romania’s close proximity to Russia may not help
either. In the 1970s, when I was Romania’s national
security adviser, I accompanied our prime minister on avisit to Pope Paul VI in Rome. If he could grant us one
wish, the pope asked, what would that one wish be?
“Change our geographical location,” the clever prime
minister replied.

Indeed, Romania was the only East European country
not sharing a border with any Western country, andCeauşescu, the snake-oil salesman who had seized thecommunist scepter in 1954, had compounded the problem
with decades of news blackouts and outrageous
disinformation operations.
Even when the Berlin Wall collapsed in November
1989, Romania was still so isolated that within two weeksCeauşescu succeeded in pulling off a grandiose party
congress that, to the fanfare of trumpets, reelected him
and his illiterate wife as the country’s benevolent rulers.
The 1989 fall of the Kremlin’s East European viceroys
was, for the most part, so peaceful that it enriched our
vocabulary with the new term “velvet revolution.” Theexception was Romania, where the upheaval cost 1,104
dead and 3,352 wounded. Romania was also the only
Soviet bloc country whose leader was executed by its own
people. Ponder these differences with reluctant admiration
for Romania, and you will realize that it may have a long
way to go before becoming a truly Westernized country.

Here’s where it gets personal. Currently there is a hardhitting disinformation operation being conducted in
Romania to rehabilitate Nicolae Ceauşescu and, in theprocess, to discredit the American CIA by discrediting me—for whom the CIA arranged asylum in 1978. The story
goes that, according to some undisclosed documents
allegedly found in CIA archives, Ceauşescu was reallyand truly a pro-Western leader who had intended to break
Romania away from the Soviet bloc. Unfortunately, thestory continues, Ceauşescu was executed in 1989 because
the CIA had concealed the truth about him to avoid
having to admit it had granted me political asylum eventhough it knew all along that I had actually been a KGB
agent all my life. (If this tale seems convoluted, that is justthe nature of many disinformation stories. They just haveto be constructed around some “kernel of truth”—thepolitical asylum I received in 1978.)History does repeat itself, and the annals of
disinformation campaigns provide no exception. Recall
the case of Pope Pius XII—originally highly praised by
Roosevelt, Churchill, Einstein, and millions of others forhis righteous outrage against the Nazis and his defense of
the Jews during the Holocaust years, but who was thendemonized by the next generation which bought into the
Kremlin’s disinformation that he had supported Hitler.
Well, maybe now it’s my turn to be demonized by thenext generation.
The current disinformation campaign to rehabilitateCeauşescu purports to be based on a “revelation” made byformer director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey,according to which I had confessed to him, in his CIA
office, that I was a KGB agent. This purported“revelation” was published in the violently anti-Semitic
but very popular newspaper Bursa, which also allegedthat I was a Jidan (in Romanian, the worst pejorative for aJew) who hated the Romanians, as well as a homosexualand a womanizer.5 Former head of the Securitate Lt. Gen.
Iulian Vlad—who was in charge of assassinating me in
the West after I broke with communism, and who wasjailed three years for political homicide after communism
collapsed—now has thrown more fuel on the fire bystating that I had been recruited by the CIA when I was
ten years old.6
Anyone who may have read former director of Central
Intelligence Woolsey’s public endorsements of me andmy bona fides over the years (including his enthusiastic
introduction to this book!) would quickly have realized
the statements about me made in Bursa and by General
Vlad are bold lies crafted in fantasyland. But soon after
Bursa launched the rumor that I was a KGB agent, a selfstyled “American historian” named Larry Watts appearedin Romania to tell more stories about me. Watts had madesomething of a name in Ceauşescu’s Romania and a
fortune there post-Ceauşescu, and not long ago began
traveling around that country to promote the so-called
Romanian translation of a book he had allegedly written
in English, in which he claims to “document”

Ceauşescu’s intention to break away from the Soviet bloc.
But, you see, the noble Ceauşescu was unable to do so
because his closest adviser, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa,
was secretly working for the KGB—whence the title ofWatts’s book, With Friends Like These. It has become abestseller in Romania.
It is noteworthy that Watts’s “original” book in the
English language was published only in Romania andappeared only a year after its Romanian “translation” hadseen the light. That pretty much proves its role asdisinformation. Clearly, Watts’s book was first written in
Romanian, for Romanian readers.
With Friends Like These is the second book Watts has
written for Romanian consumption. His first, Romanian
Cassandra, is an anti-Semitic harangue intended torehabilitate Ion Antonescu, an earlier Romanian dictator
under the Nazis, who was executed in 1946 as a war
criminal. Antonescu was instrumental in the killing ordeportation of some two hundred thousand RomanianJews and gypsies, and his atrocious crimes are powerfully
exposed in the US Holocaust Museum. Romanian
Cassandra is another far-fetched disinformation project.
Romanians are nationalists and Watts is accumulating apersonal fortune by exploiting their nationalist sentiments.
Watts is a nebulous figure. Initially, he claimed to beworking for the CIA, but that did not fly. In reality, Watts

had settled in Romania during Ceauşescu’s reign and had
worked for Ceauşescu’s brother, Gen. Ilie Ceauşescu,
who at the time was political commissar of Romania’scommunist army. Watts settled in Ceauşescu’s Romania
together with another American, Kurt W. Treptow, whobecame the director of a Romanian Culture Institute, but
in the early 1990s Treptow was sentenced to seven years
in jail for pedophilia and expelled from Romania. Watts
married a Romanian citizen and became a Romanian
resident.
Currently, Watts travels around Romania giving
speeches in which he accuses the CIA of hiding the truththat Pacepa was, and still is, a KGB agent. He is
accompanied by former head of the Securitate Lieutenant
General Vlad, sometimes sporting his general’s uniform
and the shiny medals he “earned” for defendingCeauşescu against CIA plots.
I have glanced through Watts’s book but did not read
it—I know my past. The meticulous student ofcommunism Spyridon Mitsotakis did, at my request,
spend several months studying With Friends Like These,
after which he wrote me: “There is nothing in that bookshowing you had been a KGB agent.” According toSpyridon, Watts simply compiled all the articles about the
KGB that I had published in the past twenty years,
reaching the conclusion that only someone who had

worked for the KGB could have known so much about it.
In 2012, Bursa ignited a campaign to collectsignatures on a petition demanding that the Romanian
government open a criminal investigation against me forhaving been involved in the supersecret kidnapping in thelate 1970s of Vladimir Dapĉević, a Yugoslav émigré
living in Belgium. The kidnapping of Dapĉević was oneof the best-kept secrets in Romania until 1987, when I
revealed it in Red Horizons–and later in Programmed toKill as well. I was not involved in that despicablekidnapping, which was conceived by Iosif (Broz) Tito andCeauşescu and carried out by the Securitate’s antiterrorist
unit, a domestic outfit that had never been under mycommand. I did learn about it, however, and after I
defected I revealed it both to the CIA and to the rest of theworld, for it vividly illustrated the criminality ofcommunist leaders.
The 1979 conclusion of the yearlong Romanianinvestigation of my “betrayal,” a hundred-page reportpublished in the White Book of the Securitate afterCeauşescu was executed, accused me of everythingimaginable, but not of being involved in any
assassinations.7 To the contrary, it stated that I sabotaged
such operations, as the one against Axente Teusan, aRomanian defector living in Austria. That is true. In July
1978, just days after defecting, I prevented three otherDIE assassinations in the USA (against Ion Iacobescu,
Dumitru Dumitrachescu, and Constantin Răuţă—whose
designated assassin was arrested by the FBI).8 I would not
wonder, however, if the authors of the current
disinformation aimed at rehabilitating Ceauşescu willinsert fictitious documents in the DIE archive to amend
my past as well. Changing people’s pasts to match theruler’s future interests has long been a key disinformation
tactic.
Older Romanians who once lived under Ceauşescu’s
reign of terror have treated Watts’s allegations with scorn,in the same way the people who once witnessed Pius
XII’s strong defense of the Jews during the Holocaust
treated Stalin’s 1945 allegations that he was “Hitler’sPope” with scorn. A new Romanian generation has,
however, started believing that Ceauşescu was indeed anational hero sent to the scaffold because Pacepa was a
Jidan and not a Romanian, who betrayed his boss at thedirection of the KGB and the CIA.
Currently, the Romanian state television system isbusily spreading these allegations around, and more
people are believing them. Whenever an article about me
is published in the Romanian media, a number of people
pop up with comments describing me as a “traitor” and a
Jidan who hates Romania. Small wonder that in March
2009, the Bucharest house in which I had been living untilI defected, which had afterwards become a kind of
pilgrimage site, was quietly demolished overnight.9
Let me point out once again that in 1947, the Soviet
disinformation machinery accused King Michael—who
during the war had single-handedly turned Romania
against Nazi Germany—of secretly being a Western andEastern spy. That worked, and Romania went communist.
The current disinformation campaign aimed atrehabilitating Ceauşescu at my expense also seems to beworking. During the December 2012 parliamentaryelections, over 60 percent of the votes went toCeauşescu’s former communists.

For full disclosure, I should mention that, soon after I was
granted political asylum, President Carter did suggest that
I may have been a KGB agent. In July 1978, in myeagerness to blurt out what I knew about the innerworkings of the Soviet bloc’s disinformation machinery, I
immediately reported that Ceauşescu’s glorious image inWashington had been handcrafted by the KGB and theDIE. I also reported that President Carter’s brother, Billy,
who was in the process of becoming a paid Romanian
intelligence agent, was helping that process. That was notgood news for President Carter—who just three months

earlier had publicly hailed Ceauşescu as a “great national
and international leader.”10 Therefore, President Carter
alleged that my defection had been concocted by the KGB
to destroy his excellent relations with Ceauşescu.
Sane minds prevailed, but President Carter prohibitedme from publishing anything, including my own
memoirs. Years later, Roger Kirk, who was the USambassador to Romania when I defected, published his
memoirs, Romania Versus the United States: Diplomacyof the Absurd, 1985–1989, written together with Mircea
Raceanu, a Romanian diplomat sentenced to death byCeauşescu, now a highly regarded American citizen. This
book describes a September 1978 meeting between
Romania’s foreign minister and Matthew Nimetz,
President Carter’s personal envoy, who indirectly
apologized to Ceauşescu for granting me political asylum.
Nimetz also conveyed to the Romanian tyrant that the US
administration would “do our utmost to assure thatpublicity on the Pacepa case is avoided completely, or
kept at a bare minimum.”11 Roger Kirk attended thatmeeting, and in his book he also provided a transcript of
the classified cable he sent to Washington after thatmeeting.
The Carter administration did indeed prohibit me frompublishing anything for the rest of my life. Eventually,
however, I found my way out of that trap. In September

1985, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) helped me to send
William Casey, the new director of central intelligence, adraft of my future book Red Horizons and a memo inwhich I asked why the US administration wanted to
exchange my golden Romanian cage for one of its own
making.12
In a letter dated December 17, 1985, Reagan’s CIA
Director Casey wrote that he found the manuscript of Red
Horizons “very interesting” and added that it would be
effective in providing a clearer picture of what was really
going on inside Romania. “The president has read it andwas impressed,” he added.13 On July 18, 1986, Casey also
agreed with my memo: “I must commend you for thethoughtful and constructive effort that went into preparing
this document.”14
During a subsequent seventh-floor dinner at CIA
headquarters in Langley, attended by most of the CIA
division chiefs, Deputy DCI Robert Gates apologized to
my wife and to me for all those wasted years. That CIA
dinner was followed by many years of mutually
productive cooperation with the CIA.
Red Horizons was published a few months later, andcontained several pages describing the DIE recruitment ofBilly Carter, who was soon forced to register officially as
a foreign agent.

Romania is a marvelous country, that once had themisfortune of falling under the spell of Marxism,
disinformation and glasnost. I love my native country. I
treasure my first fifty years of life there, my youthful
dreams, my relatives, my good friends, and the graves of
my parents. I started my life from scratch at the age offifty, in order to help Romania’s courageous people ridthemselves of one of the most disgusting tyrants history
has ever known. I was heart and soul with my Romanianfellows during the burning days of the December 1989
popular rebellion. I cheered with them when the borders
were thrown open, and I am extremely proud of my native
country’s freedom of the press. With all my heart, I want
to see my fellow Romanians freeing themselves from thespell of Marxism and disinformation, and for Romania toreenter the democratic world to which it once belonged.
That is another reason I wrote this book.

EPILOGUE

IN 1978, when I broke with communism, I left in myoffice safe a slip of paper on which General Aleksandr
Sakharovsky, head of the Soviet bloc espionage
community, had written, “Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed
saepe cadendo”—a drop makes a hole in a stone not by
force, but by constant dripping. That was how
disinformation worked: drop by drop by drop. It would
take time, but wherever you could not use a drill, that was
the best way to make a hole.
This book, written together with Professor Ronald J.
Rychlak, a leading authority on international law, thehistory of religions, and Pius XII, was conceived with theintention of laying out in clear language the innerworkings of that gutta for all to see. Before going further,
however, I want to express my deep gratitude to Ron.
Without his outstanding expertise in the fields of religion
and law and his unequaled aptitude for research, this bookwould never have seen the light of day. Its chapters
describing Pius XII’s real past, those vivisecting the KGB

show trials against other high Catholic prelates, and thosescrutinizing The Deputy are solid proof of Ron’s uniqueknowledge. When I broke with the Soviet bloc evil, I was,of course, unable to take any papers with me that could
document all I knew about the Kremlin’s immense
disinformation machinery and its supersecret operations.
Ron proved to be superbly helpful at filling that void,
spending years to document my information. The
voluminous endnotes to this book are testament to his
perseverance.
Disinformation has become the bubonic plague of ourcontemporary life. Marx used disinformation to depict
money as an odious instrument of capitalist exploitation.
Lenin’s disinformation brought Marx’s utopian
communism to life. Hitler resorted to disinformation toportray the Jews as an inferior and loathsome race so as torationalize his Holocaust. Disinformation was the tool
used by Stalin to dispossess a third of the world and totransform it into a string of gulags. Khrushchev’s
disinformation widened the gap between Christianity andJudaism. Andropov’s disinformation turned the Islamic
world against the United States and ignited theinternational terrorism that threatens us today.
Disinformation has also generated worldwide disrespect,and even contempt, for the United States and its leaders.
During the Cold War, disinformation began infecting
the shores of the United States itself. By 2004, when our
war in Iraq encountered difficulties, it became a kind of

unofficial US policy. Although that war was broadly
authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators ofboth parties, the media scorned it as “Bush’s war.” Soon,“Bush lied, people died” became the slogan of the
Democratic Party, whose leaders suddenly forgot thatthey themselves had voted for that war. Democratic
senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, called
President Bush a miserable failure. The doormat at theentrance to the office of Democratic Party national
chairman Terry McAuliffe featured a picture of the US
president and the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”
I did not have the privilege of being born in thisunique land of freedom, but I grew up with the picture of
the US president hanging on the wall of our house in
Bucharest. My father, who spent most of his life working
for the General Motors affiliate in Romania, loved
America, but he never set foot in this country. For him,
America was just the place of his dreams, thousands ofmiles away, and the American president was its tangible
symbol. At the end of WWII, we had President Trumanon the wall of our home. For us, and for many millions
around the world, he had saved civilization from thebarbarism of Nazism, and he had restored our freedom—
for a while. From the Voice of America we learned that
America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was assimple as that.
I still regard the American president as the symbol ofthis greatest country on earth. To me, he embodies theessence of our unique democracy: a government of thepeople, by the people, and for the people. The president of
the United States is not a figurehead, as in parliamentarydemocracies. The US president is the country’s chief
executive officer, its chief diplomat, chief guardian of its
economy, and commander in chief of the most powerful
military force on earth. The US president also heads thebest intelligence community in the world, a cooperative
federation of sixteen government agencies that are vitalfor the nation’s security and the peace of the world.
In 2007, the Wall Street Journal published my article
titled “Propaganda Redux,” in which I exposed the
Democratic Party’s noxious use of disinformation to
denigrate the president of the United States in an effort towin national elections.1 Criticizing the country’s president
is as American as apple pie. Portraying him as the enemyof his own country is, however, an un-American
phenomenon smuggled into the United States by the KGB
disinformation machinery during the Cold War. My DIE
was one of the smugglers.
In the Soviet empire’s sanctum sanctorum, to which I
once belonged, portraying the head of a country as its
own enemy was called “political necrophagy,” as I
explained in an earlier chapter. It constituted a separate,
highly classified branch of the “science” ofdisinformation. Although Marxism loudly proclaimed thatthe deciding role in history was to be played by “thepeople,” all of the Marxists sitting on the Soviet-bloc
thrones firmly believed that only the leader counted. Fromthe lips of Khrushchev himself, I heard over and over:“Change the public image of the leader, and you change
history.”
As I noted previously, the Kremlin’s politicalnecrophagy was launched into the world on February 26,
1956, when Khrushchev exposed “Stalin’s crimes” in afour-hour “secret speech.” He was successful indestroying whatever remained of Russian reverence for
Stalin. After Khrushchev, political necrophagy became
the rule in the Kremlin. Brezhnev accused Khrushchev of
having destroyed the unity of the communist world. When
Gorbachev came along, he accused Brezhnev of having
devastated the Soviet economy. Gorbachev even had
some of Brezhnev’s relatives arrested, in an obvious
attempt to prove that the Soviet economy had beenbankrupted by corrupt individuals, not by Marxism. For
his part, Yeltsin accused Gorbachev’s perestroika of“leading the country to ruin,” and then Putin blamed
Yeltsin for the “demise of the Soviet Union, the greatest
catastrophe of the century.”2
In my experience, political necrophagy is atreacherous, double-edged sword. The samedisinformation technique used by leaders to consolidate
and magnify their own power by defaming theirpredecessor is inevitably turned against them by their

successor. This has long been the way among Soviet bloc
communist leaders. At the risk of repeating myself, allow
me to remind you that Khrushchev’s death led toBrezhnev’s denunciation of his predecessor forundermining Russia’s traditional reverence for the
Kremlin, even deeming him unworthy of burial in the
Kremlin Wall alongside previous Russian leaders andrefusing even to pay for Khrushchev’s grave marker.
Likewise, when Ceauşescu was executed in 1989,
Romania’s Supreme Court determined that so seriously
had this tyrant subverted Romania’s traditional regard forits leaders that he merited neither a coffin nor a grave, andinstead dumped his corpse into a bag and abandoned it ata stadium.
In my other life, I spent decades scrutinizing the US
from Europe and learned that international respect for
America is directly proportionate to America’s own
respect for its elected leader. In the 1950s, when I was
acting head of the Romanian Mission in West Germany, I
often heard people on the street saying that the “Amis”(German nickname for the American occupation forces)
had made the difference between day and night for them.
“Night” meant communist East Germany, of course,
whose citizens were scraping along under economic
privation and Stasi brutality. But that was then. The lies
about American presidents spread during the Cold War by
the Kremlin’s disinformation machinery eventuallyignited a dislike or even hatred of America in a good partof Europe and the rest of the world. By 1978, when I
broke with communism, the Soviet bloc disinformation
machinery had allegedly collected some 700 million
signatures on various international appeals blaming
America for all the evils of the world— even for thefamine in Ethiopia.
Now political necrophagy has spread to the UnitedStates and is eroding our own international prestige.
During 2002, a group of 128 American intellectuals who
opposed the notion that the “war on terrorism” was a “justwar” sent a letter to their European counterparts callingfor “a sane and frank European criticism of Bush’s war
policy.”3 Soon, European governments and public opinion
began denigrating the United States with almost the same
ferocity they’d had during the Vietnam War. France andGermany accused the US of torturing the al-Qaeda
prisoners held at its military prison in Guantanamo Bay,Cuba. The British newspaper Mirror alleged that theUnited States was “killing innocents in Afghanistan.”4
The Paris daily Le Monde published a front-page article
by Jean Baudrillard (a revered figure among American
humanities professors over the last twenty-five years)
asserting that “the Judeo-Christian West, led by the US,
not only provoked the [September 11, 2001] terrorist
attacks, it actually desired them.”5
Robert Kennedy—not one of my favorite people—

once said: “I do not run for the presidency merely to
oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run
because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous
course and because I have strong feelings about whatmust be done.”6 Kennedy understood what the presidency
was all about, whatever we may think of what he planned
to do if given the mandate.
America’s own respect for this unique republic and forthe will of its people has been severely damaged by the“science” of disinformation. Helping my fellow
Americans to restore this respect is another goal of thisbook.

The United States is the leader of the Free World, but it iscertainly not a perfect country. As another proud
American once put it, America, like all nations, is acollection of human beings, and human beings arenotorious for occasionally making bad decisions, being
selfish, or ignorant, or unwise.7 But this imperfect
America has almost single-handedly kept peace, freedom
and democracy alive in the world for the last hundredyears. At the beginning of the twentieth century, theworld’s democracies numbered fewer than a dozen. Since
this imperfect United States of America became therecognized leader of the world, 80 percent of the countries
on Planet Earth are either democracies or proto-democracies.8
This imperfect United States of America has also
become the propelling force of the world’s science andtechnology. Out of the 4.5 million patents issued since1790 throughout the world, the United States owns morethan half of them—nearly 2.5 million.9 Out of the 629
Nobel Prizes for medicine, chemistry, physics, andeconomics earned across the entire globe, the UnitedStates owns 305.10 The United States also leads the worldin Internet innovations, music, movies, and numerous
other fields that require enlightened, outside-the-box
thinking. From Apple to DreamWorks Studios to
Amazon, the United States is the world’s innovator.11
The United States has been a beacon for the whole
free world. What is its secret? To all those immigrants
who stepped off the boat onto Ellis Island, speaking no
English and carrying ten dollars in their pockets, it was
the unparalleled freedom they found in their new country.
On March 22, 2003, one of these immigrants—thiswriter—published an open letter to the Iraqi generals who
were still fighting our troops. “Do as I did,” I told them.
“Turn your weapons against your country’s tyrant. Breakaway from your tyrannical dictator before it is too late.
Expose his crimes against humanity to the world, as I
have done with those committed by Ceauşescu. Catchyour fugitive tyrant, as my fellow Romanian generalscaught Ceauşescu in December 1989, when he went into
hiding in an attempt to escape the revolutionary wave
sweeping communist dictators off the face of Eastern
Europe. Make Saddam pay for his crimes, as Ceauşescu
did for his—with his life.”12This book is another open letter, this time written
jointly with Professor Rychlak (whose ancestors had
immigrated from Poland) and addressed especially to our
fellow Americans. Let us reject the Marxist redistributionof wealth, which has transformed so many once-noble
countries into lands looking like giant trailer camps hit bya hurricane, with their leaders roasting in Dante’s Inferno.
Indeed, all Marxist redistributionists who have ever risen
to lead a country have ended up in hell—all, from Trotsky
to Stalin, Tito to Zhivkov, Enver Hoxha to Mátyás
Rakosi, Sékou Touré to Nyeree, Khrushchev toCeauşescu. All had their days of temporary glory, but all
ended in eternal disgrace. A few remnants, like the Castro
brothers, are still hanging on, but they certainly have aplace in hell reserved and waiting for them.
Let us, once and for all, also reject Marxism’s“science” of disinformation, its glasnost, and its politicalnecrophagy that has been used so destructively over theyears to squash freedom and bankrupt countries. Let us
recognize them for what they are—and expose them withall our might—when such deceitful campaigns rear theirugly heads. Let us return to our own American
exceptionalism and its traditions of patriotism, honesty
and fairness. The United States of America is the greatest
country on earth. Let us keep it that way for future
generations.

NOTESPRELUDE
1. Scott Swett, “Fanning Imaginary Flames: A Look Backat the Great Church Fire Propaganda Campaign,”
American Thinker, June 11, 2011.
2. Michael Fumento, “A Church Arson Epidemic? It’s
Smoke and Mirrors,” Wall Street Journal, July 8, 1996.
3. Swett, “Fanning Imaginary Flames.”
4. Ibid.
5. Fumento, “A Church Arson Epidemic?”
6. Swett, “Fanning Imaginary Flames.”
7. Arthur Weinreb, “Poll: Over 40% of Canadian teens
think America is ‘evil’,” Canada Free Press, June 30,
2004.
8. “Grecian Formula for Anti-Americanism,” Wall Street
Journal, February 7, 2003 (Internet edition).
9. Nicholas Kralev, “German Leader Links Bush’s ‘Style’with Hitler’s,” Washington Times, September 20, 2002
(Internet edition).
10. Warren Hoge, “A Speech That Khrushchev or Arafat or
Che Would Admire,” New York Times, September 24,
2006.
11. Tom Baldwin, “Schools are still crumbling in ‘corridorof shame’ haunted by the old South,” Times of London
Online, January 25, 2008 (Internet edition).
12. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Swordand the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret
History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999),487-493.
13. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, “Russian
Orthodox Church chooses between ‘ex-KGB
candidates’ as patriarch,” Times of London Online,
January 26, 2009, citing Andrew and Mitrokhin, The
Sword and the Shield.
14. Astolphe, Marquis de Custine, Journey for Our Time:The Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custine, edited
and translated by Phyllis Penn Kohler (Washington,
DC: Regnery Gateway, 1987), 171.
15. Ibid at 7.

CHAPTER 1
1. Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen, The

Encyclopedia of Espionage (New York: Gramercy
Books, 1997), p. 276. In Romania Pacepa knew onlythat Ignatyev had disappeared from sight. The DIE
assumed that Ignatiev had been killed.
2. Polmar and Allen, p. 180. While in Romania, Pacepa
was given to understand that Dzerzhinsky had died ofheart failure shortly after giving a speech before theplenum of the Central Committee. Apparently hisargument with Stalin immediately followed that speech.

CHAPTER 2
1. Yevgeny Yevdokimov, “Russia comes to understand
Mikhail Gorbachev,” Center for Defense Information
Russia Weekly, No. 143, March 2, 2001, p. 5.
2. Glasnost, Britannica Concise, as published on<http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article9365668/glasnost.
3. <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glasnost>
4. <www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?
q=glasnost&submit.x=31&submit.y=21>
5. Tolkovyy SlovarRusskogo Yazyka (Explanatory
Dictionary of the Russian Language), ed. D.N.
Ushakov (Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia State Institute,1935), Vol. I, p. 570.
6. Yevgenia Albats, The KGB: The State within a State

(New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994), 23.
7. Zhores Medvedev, Gorbachev (New York: Norton,
1987), p. 37.
8. Vladimir Solovyov and Elena Klepikova, Behind theHigh Kremlin Walls. (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1987),
pp. 173–76.
9. Christian Schmidt-Häuer, Gorbachev: The Path toPower (London: I. B. Tauris, 1986), p. 64.
10. David B. Funderburk, Betrayal of America: Bush’s
Appeasement of Communist Dictators Betrays
American Principles (Dunn, NC: Larry McDonald
Foundation, 1991), p. 15.
11. Yevgeny Yevdokimov, “Russia comes to understand
Mikhail Gorbachev,” Center for Defense Information
Russia Weekly, No. 143, March 2, 2001, p. 5, Internet
edition, <www.cdi.org/russia/143.html>.
12. Cal Thomas, “20/20 hindsight and insight,”
Washington Times, March 24, 2002, Internet edition.

CHAPTER 3
1. Adina Anghelescu, “Arsenalul Securitatii pentru
Carlos” (The Securitate Arsenal for Carlos), Ziua,
Bucharest, September 29, 2000, Internet edition. This
article published the original Securitate report No.
0010748 of June 22, 1981, which discharged from theinventory the explosive, weapons and ammunition
given to “Carlos” in 1980.
2. “Plesita, o bruta securista” (Plesita, a Securitate beast),
Ziua, Bucharest, February 19, 2000, Internet edition.

CHAPTER 4
1. Congressman Frank R. Wolf with Anne Morse,
Prisoner of Conscience: One Man’s Crusade for
Global Human and Religious Rights (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2011), p. 46.
2. Time, March 13, 1989, p. 20.
3. The author has the original of that CIA letter.
4. “The defection of General Ion Mihai Pacepa,” Radio
Romania International, April 4, 2011.
<http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?
lang=2&sec=40&art=121082>.
5. Wolf with Morse, Prisoner of Conscience, p. 51.
6. Stan Weeber, “A New Paradigmatic Work on the JFK
Assassination,” H-Net Reviews in the Humanities andSocial Science, October 2009.

CHAPTER 5
1. Barry Meier, “Most Iraqi Treasures Are Said to Be

Kept Safe,” New York Times, May 6, 2003.
2. Custine Journals, p. 161.
3. Ibid at 14.
4. Ibid at 7.
5. Alexander Rose, “Biography: Royal Rake,” The
Washington Post Book World, May 6, 2001, p. 4.
6. Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya (Great Soviet
Encyclopedia) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye
Nauchnoye Izdatelstvo (State Scientific Publishing
House), 27 June 1952, Second Edition), vol. 13, p. 566.
7. Glenn Frankel, “Sneers from Across the Atlantic: AntiAmericanism Moves to West Europe’s Political
Mainstream,” Washington Post, February 10, 2003.
8. Sartre continued to support the Soviet bloc foreign
intelligence community. During Pacepa’s years in
Romania, he knew specifically that Sartre wasconsidered an intelligence connection in the Soviet-andRomanian-sponsored terrorist war against “American
imperialism.”
9. Régis Debray, “The French Lesson,” New York Times,
February 23, 2003 (Internet edition).
10. Paul Berrman, “The Passion of Joschka Fischer,” The
New Republic, August 27–September 3, 2001, p. 12.
11. Herbert Romerstein, Soviet Active Measures andPropaganda, Mackenzie Institute Paper no. 17(Toronto, 1989), pp. 14-15, 25-26. WPC PeaceCourier, 1989, no. 4, as cited in Andrew andGordievsky at 629.
12. WPC Rules and Regulations, adopted during its 1996
Congress in Mexico, <www.wpc-in.org>.
13. Ibid.
14. 14th World Trade Congress, New Delhi, India, March
25–28, 2000.
15. Beijing declaration of the World Conference of Women,
September 15, 1995. Law Professor Mary Ann
Glendon led the Holy See’s delegation at this meeting.
At the end, she gave an important statement noting theHoly See’s several reservations to the final declaration.
16. 8th March International Women’s Day<http://www.un.org/events/women/women00.htm>.
17. November 17th, International Students’ Day, tocoincide with Day of Action for Peace, International
Union of Students.

CHAPTER 6
1. Izvestiya TseKa KPSS (Reports of the Central
Committee of the CPSU), No.3, March 1989.
2. Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen (New York:
Random House, 2005), passim, esp. 248.
3. Textul decretului de decorare a Regelui Mihai de catrepresedintele Truman (The text of President Truman’s
Decree for decorating King Michael), Scînteia, May 14,
1945, p.1.
4. “Solemintatea Decorarii M. S. Regelui Mihai de catre
Generalisimul Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin” (Theceremony for decorating H. M. King Michael byGeneralissimo Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin), Scînteia,
July 21, 1945, p. 1.
5. “Guvernul Sovietic a Daruit M. S. Regelui MihaiI,doua Avioane de Turism” (The Soviet Government
donated two tourism airplanes to H. M. King Michael),Scînteia, July 22, 1945, p. 1.
6. Sorin Rosca Stanescu and Cornel Dumitrescu, Autopsia
unei Inscenari Securiste (The Autopsy of a Securitate
Framing), Bucharest: Omega-Ziua, 1999.
7. Pacepa, Red Horizons at 357-359.
8. During most of those years his case officer was Viktor
Vladimirov, a onetime chief of the NKVD station in
Helsinki, who was promoted to the rank of general forhis handling of Kekkonen. Christopher Andrew andOleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story (New York:
Harper Collins, 1990), 432-433.
9. Joseph J. Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (NewYork: Carroll and Graf, 2001) at 173.

CHAPTER 7

1. See Edward N. Luttwak, New Dynamics of the Soviet
Empire: From Optimism to Pessimism, in Soviet
Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Robbin Frederick
Laird and Erik P. Hoffman, eds.), Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 1986 at p. 61 (“Now fossilized,
Marxism-Leninism has become… an official religion,
since its propositions have become dogmas; Soviet
Marxism-Leninism now has its ceremonies, rituals andidols, chiefly the figure of Lenin himself – whose bust
presides over all schoolrooms, offices and places ofpublic assembly.”)
2. John Costello and Oleg Tsarev, Deadly Illusions (NewYork: Crown, 1993), p. 24.
3. John Toland, Adolf Hitler (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1976), p. 548.
4. Alexander N. Yakovlev, A Century of Violence inSouth Russia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2002), p. 165.
5. Country Studies: Russia-The Russian Orthodox
Church, U.S. Library of Congress, <lcweb2.loc.
gov/frd/cs>, accessed April 3, 2008.
6. Gabriel Adriany, Die Kirche in Nord, Ost undSüdeuropa, in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, VII,
(Herder Freiburg, 1979) p. 515.

CHAPTER 8

1. David E. Murphy, What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of
Barbarossa (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2005) at xv.
2. Hitler’s proclamation justifying the action is reprinted
in A History of the Third Reich, vol. 4 Primary Sources(Jeff T. Hays, ed., San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press,
2003) at 125. His thoughts on the need for Germanliving space are reprinted in ibid at 26.
3. The day that this statement was made, December 8, thefirst Jews were gassed at Chelmno, Poland.
4. Hitler’s propaganda minister from 1933 on, Joseph
Goebbels, also committed suicide. He remained hiddenin Hitler’s bunker until May 1, 1945, when he poisoned
his six children before he and his wife took their own
dose of cyanide. Soviet forces later found all thebodies.
5. Nomination Facts, Official Website of the Nobel Prize,<www.Nobelprize.org>.
6. Jan Olav Smit, Angelic Shepherd: The Life of Pope
Pius XII (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1950) at 174.
7. The Ukrainian Weekly, No. 18, Vol. XVII, March 28,
1949, 1.
8. Orientales Omnes was issued December 23, 1945.
9. Orientales Omnes, 59.
10. Alberto Giovanetti, Pio Parla alla Chiesa del Silenzio(Milano: Editrice ancona, 1959), German translation,

Der Papst spricht zur Kirche des Schweigens(Recklinghausen: Paulus Verlag, 1969), p. 131.
11. Robert W. Stephan, Death to Spies: The Story of
SMERSH, doctoral thesis, American University,
Washington D.C., 1984, 61-64.
12. Andrew and Gordievsky at 343.
13. Hugh Thomas, Armed Truce: The Beginnings of theCold War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986) at 220221.
14. Country Studies, Bulgaria in World War II, Library ofCongress,<lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Bulgaria.pdf>.

CHAPTER 9

1. Giovanni Sale, Il Novecento tra genocidi, paure esperanze (Milan: Jaca Book, 2006) at 214. See also
Cardinal Walter Kasper, “Recent Developments in
Jewish–Christian Relations,” Speech at Liverpool Hope
University (May 24, 2010)<http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/uploads/documents/21ea7
Hanna Diskin, The Seeds of Triumph: Church and Statein Gomulka’s Poland (Budapest: Central European
University Press, 2001) at 48-49 (Soviet bloc
propaganda against the Catholic Church and the Pope).
George Weigel, All War All the Time, First Things,

April 2011 at 30.
2. A translation of this whole speech, as it was broadcast
on Vatican Radio, can be found in “The Catholic
Church and the Third Reich: Pope Pius XII Surveys an
Heroic History,” The Tablet (London), June 9, 1945.
3. The full text of the address appears in Margherita
Marchione, Pope Pius XII: Architect for Peace (NewYork: Paulist Press, 2000) at 143-152. See also Officeof the United States Chief Counsel, vol. I, at 285-86;
William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (Greenwich:
Fawcett Publications, 1962) at 324-25 (footnote);
Purdy at 43.
4. Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (NewYork: Hawthorne Books, 1967) at 131; see Ernst von
Weizsäcker, Memoirs of Ernst von Weizsäcker
(Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1951) at 297.
5. Lapide at 131.
6. Eugenio Zolli, Why I Became a Catholic (New Hope,
KY: Roman Catholic Books, 1997) at 187.
7. Wartime Correspondence Between President Roosevelt
and Pope Pius XII (New York: Macmillan, Myron C.
Taylor, ed., 1947) at 113.
8. Anton J. Gahlinger, I Served the Pope (The Mission
Press, Techny, IL: 1952), 6. See “Churchill Talks with
Pope on Peace; Vatican Quarters Gratified at Outcome

Said to Promise a Profound Effect on Terms,” NewYork Times, August 26, 1944.
9. Anne O’Hare McCormick, Vatican Journal 1921–1954(New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1957) at 123(from a New York Times dispatch of September 6,1944). For his part, Pius described Churchill as very
able and large-minded. Ibid.
10. “German Martyrs,”Time, December 23, 1940 at 38;
Lapide at 251 (quoting Einstein in Time Magazine).
11. “Acknowledging the Men and Women of Wisdom,”Wisdom, September 1957, at 2.
12. Charles R. Gallagher, “Personal, Private Views: A
newly discovered report from 1938 reveals Cardinal
Pacelli’s anti-Nazi stance,” America, September 1,
2003. See also Will Swift, The Kennedys Amidst theGathering Storm (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Books, 2008) at 361 (Kennedy gave FDR a letter fromthe pope “denouncing Hitler’s betrayal of Christianvalues”).
13. In 1945, Fabian von Schlabrendorff, a Protestantmember of the German resistance, wrote a
memorandum to U.S. General William (Wild Bill)
Donovan, in which Schlabrendorff reported that Müller
“had orders from the Catholic Church to negotiate withrepresentatives of the Protestant Church in order toharmonize their measures in the struggle against
Hitler.” Memorandum to General Donovan from

Fabian von Schlabrendorff. See also Schlabrendorff,
The Secret War against Hitler. Pius became linked to
the work of noted Protestant resistance leader, Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, who eventually joined a conspiracy toassassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer’s close friend and coresister Eberhard Bethge wrote to him of having had an
audience with the Pope. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Lettersand Papers from Prison 214 (Eberhard Bethge, ed.,Collier Books, New York, enlarged ed., 1971). In acollection of letters, Bethge explained that this obliquereference related to meetings with Pope Pius XII’sclose assistants Monsignor Robert Leiber andMonsignor Johannes Schönhöffer “who had been let inon the conspiracy.” Ibid at 267, n. 152.
14. Secret message from the British Legation to the Holy
See, January 12, 1940, British Public Record Office,FO 800/318 (reporting on a planned German
offensive); Personal and Confidential Message fromthe British Legation to the Holy See, February 7, 1940,
British Public Record Office, FO 371/24405 (reportingon the planned attack on Belgium and future plans for
an invasion of France). One of Müller’s reports
concerned a speech Hitler made at the S.S. Ordensburg(youth leader training center) at Sonthofen, where hehad screamed that he would crush the Catholic Church
under his heel, as he would a toad. Harold C. Deutsch,
The Conspiracy Against Hitler in the Twilight War(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1968) at

338-339.
15. Telegram from the Ambassador in Italy (Phillips) to theSecretary of State, dated Feb. 28, 1940, in UnitedStates Department of State, Foreign Relations of theUnited States, Diplomatic Papers, 1940, vol. I(General), United States Government Printing Office(Washington, DC, 1959) at 126 (discussing the securityof France and England, the mood in Germany and in
the German military, Germany’s resources in the eventof a long war, and Italy’s attitude towards war).
16. Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity (New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995) at 91.
17. Testimony of Dr. Giuseppe Müller, January 24, 1969,
before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of the Vicariate of
Munich, on the beatification of Pius XII (Eugenio
Pacelli), Part II, page 755.
18. Gilbert (1981) at 59; Deutsch at 338-39. Le cardinal
Maglione au nonce à Bruxelles Micara et àl’internonce à La Haye Giobbe, May 3, 1940, Actes etDocuments, vol. 1, p. 436, no. 293.
19. See Wright at 1930; Charles Rankin, Pius the Man and
His Efforts for Peace, in The Pope Speaks at 113.
20. Messaggi del Santo Padre, ai Sovrani del Belgio,
dell’Olanda e del Lussemburgo, L’Osservatore
Romano, May 12, 1940.
21. Cianfarra at 226-27; Hatch & Walshe at 152; Charles

Rankin, “Pius the Man and His Efforts for Peace,” in
The Pope Speaks at 114.
22. Hatch & Walshe at 152.
23. Lapide at 137.
24. The Tablet (London), October 24, 1942, at 202(quoting the Jewish Chronicle).
25. Ibid.
26. The Ciano Diaries at 537, 538. According to Ciano,
Mussolini wanted to break a few wooden heads, but hehad been dissuaded from doing so because the prestigeof the Church is very high. Ibid at 538-39.
27. The Catholic News, November 21, 1942, reprinted in
Secretariat for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs,
National Conference of Bishops, Catholics Remember
the Holocaust, United States Catholic Conference(Washington, 1998) at 17.
28. “Holy Father Extends Thanks to American Catholics
for Aid,” The Catholic News, November 21, 1942.
29. British Public Records Office, INF 1/893.
30. Pius XII’s letter to Bishop Preysing, April 30, 1943.
Actes et Documents, vol. 2, doc. 105, pp. 318-27. Pius
frequently encouraged Preysing in his resistance work.
See A l’Evêque de Berlin, December 15, 1940, Actes etDocuments, vol. 2, page 180, no. 58; A l’Evêque deBerlin, April 30, 1943, Actes et Documents, vol. 2,
page 318, no. 105; A l’Evêque de Berlin, September 5,

1943, Actes et Documents, vol. 2, page 342, no. 112.
See also Lubac at 145; O’Carroll at 89. In fact, Pius
was the only world leader who took the resistanceseriously. Charles Ford, “Invidious Comparisons,”
First Things, January 2000, at 67.
31. The original Italian version was published in theofficial Acta Apostolicae Sedis of 1943 (volume 35,
pp.5-8). For an English version, see Pius XII: Selected
Encyclicals and Addresses 275-97 (London: Catholic
Truth Society, 1949).
32. Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Positio,
appendix 25 at 282. See also Fisher at 13 (Pope Pius
frequently used the word stirpe (race) to identify theJews and no one could be in any doubt about his
attitude.)33. British Public Records Office, FO 371/34363 59337(January 5, 1943); Telegram from the Minister in
Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State, Jan. 5,1943, in Foreign Relations of the United States,
Diplomatic Papers, 1943, vol. II (Europe), UnitedStates Government Printing Office (Washington, 1964)
at 91.
34. New York Times, December 25, 1942.
35. See Telegram from the German Ambassador (Bergen)to the Reich Minister, dated January 26, 1943, NARA,
T-120, Roll 361, at 277668-70 (Ambassador vonBergen, on the instruction of Foreign Minister

Ribbentrop, warned the Pope that the Nazis would seek
retaliation if the Vatican abandoned its neutral
position.)
36. Quoted in Rhodes at 272-73 (citing German archives:
A.A. Abteilung Inland, pak. 17, vol. I, January 22,1943); see also Holmes at 140. In fact, a Protestantminister who helped circulate this statement wassentenced to prison for spreading a subversive anddemoralizing document. He was also accused of having
a critical view of the war and of being spirituallyattracted to Jewish environments and sympathetic
toward Jews. “For Berlin, Pius XII was a Subversive:
Radio Operator´s Experience of Spreading Papal
Christmas Message,” Zenit News Agency, May 14,
2002.
37. Notes de la Secrétairerie d’Etat, May 5, 1943, Actes etDocuments, vol. 9, page 274, no. 174. On August 30,
the United States Secretary of State expressed doubt
about the whole matter, sending a message that “there
exists no sufficient proof to justify a statement
regarding executions in gas chambers.” Ibid.
38. The Tablet (London), June 12, 1943, at 282, n.1. Thissection was suppressed in Italy and Germany.
39. Toland at 864; Holmes at 132; O’Carroll at 131;
Burleigh (2007) at 252-53.
40. “Glimpse at How Religious Houses Helped the Jews:
Research Presented on Wartime Efforts in Rome,”

Zenit News Agency, September 18, 2006.
41. This was reported by Senator Adriano Ossicini, founderof the Christian Left in Italy, who was arrested in 1943
due to his opposition to the Fascist regime. More
Echoes on Pope Pius XII, Nazi Holocaust, CatholicWorld News, June 27, 1996. (On the eve of one
massive police sweep… the hospital received directorders from Pope Pius XII to admit as many Jews as
possible immediately.)
42. From Hitler’s Doorstep (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, Neal H. Peterson, ed., 1966).
43. See Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Positio(Summarium) Testimony of P. Guglielmo Hentrich,before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Rome, on thebeatification of Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli).
44. Lapide at 168. This was apparently not an insubstantial
amount. According to one account, the future pope
inherited $100,000 in the mid-1930s.
45. Carroll-Abbing (1965) at 48.
46. Graham, Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Hungary in1944 at 5-6.
47. Lapide at 133.
48. Holmes at 158. Lapide later increased his estimate ofJewish lives saved to between 700,000 and 860,000.
Lapide at 269.
49. Lapide at 226.

50. John Thavis, “Many Jews Once Defended Pius andDocumentary Evidence Supports Him,” Inside the
Vatican, April 1998, at 30.
51. Le National Jewish Welfare Board au Pape Pie XII,July 21, 1944, Actes et Documents, vol. 10, page 358,
no. 272.
52. Herbert L. Mathews, “Happier Days for Pope Pius:
Shadows of war are lifting for a Pontiff whose greatest
interest is world peace,” New York Times, Oct. 15,
1944, at 8.
53. Le National Jewish Welfare Board au Pape Pie XII.
54. F. Murphy at 64.
55. Kevin Doyle, “Robert Graham, S.J.,” First Things,
June/July 1997.
56. M. Davis at 101.
57. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, One Step Forward Two Steps
Back (The Crisis in Our Party) (1904)<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/inde

CHAPTER 10
1. Darko Zubrinic, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac and Saving
the Jews in Croatia During the WW2 (Zagreb, 1997),<http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/jews.html>; Dennis
Barton, Croatia 1941–1946 (The Church in History
Information Centre 2006); Zenit News Agency, March

10, 1999; Ronald J. Rychlak, “Cardinal Stepinac andthe Roman Catholic Church in Croatia during WorldWar II,” The New Oxford Review, November 2009.
2. Peter C. Kent, The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII(Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University
Press, 2002) at 163.
3. Prior to the German invasion of Yugoslavia (April 6,
1941), the diocese of Maribor consisted of 654,000
members, 254 parishes, 474 members of the secularclergy, and 109 members of the regular clergy. Within
three months of the German invasion, the Gestapo
arrested, killed, or expelled 85 percent of the clergy. Of
the original 254 parishes, only 91 remained, eachheaded by a single priest. The others were closed or
taken over by German authorities. The district of Ptuj
originally had 30 parishes and 57 priests. It was left
with just one active and two retired priests to ministerto 80,000 Catholics. Similarly, in the diocese of
Ljubljana, the area occupied by the Germans had 128
parishes. By the end of June, 1941, 137 priests had
been killed, 74 were expelled and 37 others had fled.
That left only nine priests to minister to 215,000
Catholics. Cianfarra at 266.
4. The full original name of the organization was Ustaša Hrvatska revolucionarna organizacija or UHRO
(Ustaša - Croatian revolutionary organization). In 1933,
it was renamed as Ustaša - Hrvatski revolucionarnipokret (Ustaša - Croatian revolutionary movement).
The name comes from the word ustati which means “torise” or “to stand up.” Accordingly, ustaša meant an
insurgent or a rebel. It did not have fascist connotations
during the party’s early years. On the formation of
Croatia, see Krišto, The Catholic Church in Croatia
and Bosnia-Herzegovina, vol. 1, at 39, 51-53.
5. Heffron, Croatia’s Fearless Defender.
6. Gitman at 51. “[W]e have an abundance of public
sermons by the Archbishop of Zagreb which illustrate
how direct he was in criticizing both the National
Socialist ideology and the Croatian government’s
policy.” Krišto, The Catholic Church in Croatia at 60.
7. Krišto, The Catholic Church in Croatia at 72. A
surprising inconsistency in the evaluation of Stepinac
appears on the very same page of one book that islargely critical of Pope Pius XII and the Catholic
Church. Michael Phayer writes: “The bottom line isthat neither Stepinac nor Pius XII publicly condemned
the Ustaša government. To do so might haveprecipitated the end of the regime….” Later, on thesame page, Phayer writes: “While many of the clergy
supported Pavelić’s bloody ‘crusade,’ Archbishop
Stepinac persevered in criticizing Ustashe crimes.”
Phayer (2008) at 12.
8. Gitman at 70.

9. Alexander, The Triple Myth at 95; Barton.
10. Zubrinic.
11. Rychlak, Cardinal Stepinac and the Roman Catholic
Church in Croatia.
12. Stephen Lackovic, The Case against Tito
(memorandum, 1947) at 23. See also Le cardinal
Maglione au visiteur apostolique à Zagreb Marcone,
February 21, 1942, Actes et Documents, vol. 8, page442, no. 289.
13. Rick Hinshaw, “Cardinal’s Past,” Chicago Tribune,
October 17, 1998, at 26.
14. Pattee at 283-86 Six days earlier he had given a similar
sermon:All of them without exception, whether they belong
to the race of Gypsies or to another, whether they are
Negroes or civilized Europeans, whether they aredetested Jews or proud Aryans, have the same right tosay, ‘Our Father who art in heaven’…. the Catholic
Church condemns… every injustice and every
violence committed in the name of the theories ofclass, race or nationality. One cannot exterminate
intellectuals… as Bolshevism has taught… One
cannot extinguish… Gypsies or Jews because one
considers them inferior races.

Gitman at 70.
15. Gitman at 70 (quoting General Glaise von Herstenau,);
Zubrinic; Barton.

16. Weigel, Witness to Hope at 73.
17. Le grand rabbin Herzog au délégué apostolique à
Istanbul Roncalli, February 28, 1941, Actes etDocuments, vol. 10, page 161, no. 83.
18. Le grand rabbin Herzog au visiteur apostolique à
Zagreb Marcone, February 28, 1941, Actes etDocuments, vol. 10, page 161, no. 84.
19. Ibid. See Krišto, The Catholic Church and the Jews at
42.
20. On the territory of the Zagreb Archbishopric alone,
between 1945 and 1948 over 70 percent of the Catholic
Church’s agricultural land was taken away throughagrarian reforms. Apart from land, the reform “alsoresulted in the confiscation of the Church’s buildings,
agricultural reserves, livestock, farming machinery, andtools.” Akmadža at 97.
21. In the spring of 1945, the Catholic Church operated anumber of private schools in Croatia. by October 2,
they were all closed. Akmadža at 99.
22. “Stepinac cried out against all injustice, especiallyagainst racism.” “Vatican Book Justifies Cardinal
Stepinac: Example of Opposition to Fascism, Nazism
and Communism,” Zenit News Agency, March 10, 1999
(quoting author Gianpaolo Mattei).
23. Matijević at 139.
24. Akmadža at 89.

25. Ibid at 90.
26. It is not clear why Tito first had Stepinac arrested andonly later spoke with him. It is possible that Tito
wanted to see the extent of his influence among thepeople and the Church or to see whether he could
soften the archbishop up and then get him to cooperateon the issue of creating an independent Catholic
Church in Croatia. Ibid at 91.
27. Raymond at 191.
28. Prcela at 53-54 (reprinting the charges). One possible
reason for Tito’s decision to prosecute Stepinac wasthat in July of that year, the Ĉhetnik leader Draža
Mihailović was tried and executed, so it was important
for the authorities to create a balance in order to not
provoke a Serb revolt. Akmadža at 95.
29. Matijević at 120. See The Black Book of Communism at
388-407.
30. Akmadža at 96.
31. Matijević at 135 (In June 1945, Zagreb’s Mufti, Ismet
Muftić, was tried along with some Ustashe officials,
and he was sentenced to death). “The Orthodox were toa point discredited by their collaboration with the
Chetniks, but were not liquidated, because the Party’s
leadership perceived the Church’s conduct in war aspatriotic.” Ibid at 139.
32. Ibid at 117, 121. Orthodox leaders were treated“somewhat more ruthlessly for collaborating with HPC,
then [later] with the Chetniks.” Ibid at 122.
33. “Archbishop Behind Bars,” Time, September 30, 1946.
34. As Time magazine later reported: “the world wasshocked by the cynical mockery of Stepinac’s twelveday trial for collaboration with the Nazi puppet regime
during the war.” “The Silent Voice,” Time, February
22, 1960.
35. Barton.
36. Prcela at 55. Hurley was an interesting character andthe subject of Gallagher, Vatican Secret Diplomacy.
37. Josip Stilinovic, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac—A true
Catholic nationalist!, The Catholic World Report(1998) <http://irishnationalism.net/forum/showthread.php?t’5048>.
38. Lackovic at 3. Barton. During the communist era it was
dangerous even to mention his name. Stilinovic.
39. Aide for the Archbishop, Time, October 14, 1946;
Bozanić at 308 (“Pope Pius XII immediately
condemned the process, referring to the procedure in
the court room as a bad legal process, ‘Il tristissimo
processo,’ which in Italian not only means grievous,
but a miserable process.”)
40. Aide for the Archbishop, Time, October 14, 1946. Atthe trial, Stepinac did not focus attention on himself,“rather he concentrated on the Church, and he knewthat the trial was not so much about him, rather thecommunists wanted to harm the Church and religion.”
Krišto, An American View at 227.
41. Stepinac’s full statement can be read at<http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/reply.html>.
42. The New York Times wrote that, “The trial ofArchbishop Stepinac was a purely political one with theoutcome determined in advance. The trial and sentenceof this Croatian prelate are in contradiction with
Yugoslavia’s pledge that it will respect human rights
and the fundamental liberties of all without reference torace, sex, language and creed. Archbishop Stepinac wassentenced and will be incarcerated as part of thecampaign against his church, guilty only of being theenemy of Communism.” New York Times, October 13,
1946. Cardinal Francis J. Spellman, probably mostimportant American Catholic prelate during and after
the war, said: “the only thing Cardinal Stepinac is
guilty of was his love for God and his homeland.”Savor. The American Jewish Committee also
responded, saying: “[Stepinac] was one of the very raremen in Europe who raised his voice against the Nazis’
tyranny at a time when it was very difficult anddangerous for him to do so.” Barton.
43. Krišto, The Catholic Church in Croatia at 85-86.

44. This film was played at the Archdiocese of Zagreb’s
celebration of the 10th anniversary of the beatificationof Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac on September 19, 2008.
45. Pattee at 211.
46. Ibid at 211-12.
47. Alexander, The Triple Myth at 113.
48. Barton.
49. Akmadža at 95; Prcela at 7.
50. “Deal Rejected,” Time, July 23, 1951. Much later, Timemagazine gave another, consistent account of thismatter:
In grim Lepoglava Prison, Stepinac occupied a cellwith an adjoining chapel, got good food and all the
books he wanted. Unlike Hungary’s Cardinal
Mindszenty, Archbishop Stepinac issued no
pronouncements against the regime. He sat silent, andin the free world his silence sounded as a cry of
reproach. Tito would gladly have been rid of him.
Through a U.S. newspaperman he offered him his
freedom if he would agree never again to practice his
priesthood in Yugoslavia. Replied Stepinac bluntly:“I am completely indifferent concerning any thoughtsof my liberation. I know why I suffer. It is for therights of the Catholic Church. I am ready to die each
day for the church. The Catholic Church cannot be,
nor will it ever be, the slave of any regime.”“The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960.

51. Marcus Tanner, Croatia: A Nation Forged in War(Yale University Press, 1997).
52. Time reported his release as follows:
The iron-barred gates of Lepoglava Prison swung
open. Out walked Communist Yugoslavia’s No. 1
ideological prisoner, Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac,
the gaunt, peasant-born primate of his country’s
7,000,000 Roman Catholics.
He did not walk into freedom. By order of the Tito
government, Archbishop Stepinac had been
conditionally released, after serving five years of a
16-year sentence on a trumped-up charge of wartime
collaboration with the fascists. Actually, he was on
his way to a roomier internment: his native village of
Krasic, where, as a government communiqué said,“the former archbishop” would have to limit himself
to the duties of a simple priest.

“Dust in the Eyes,” Time, December 17, 1951.
53. Ibid. In March 1952, Tito told a delegation from theFirst Congress of the Association of Yugoslav Students
that “We released Stepinac so that we could knock a
propagandistic weapon out of the Vatican’s hands, theweapon that Stepinac is a ‘martyr.’ Now they haveproblems because Stepinac is out.” Akmadža at 95.
54. “The Guest of Dishonor,” Time, December 29, 1952(“Tito was mad at the Vatican for conferring the
Cardinal’s red hat on his archenemy, Archbishop

Aloysius Stepinac, who served five years in a Tito jailand is now restricted to his home village”).
55. Traudl Lessing, Stepinac Speaks, Catholic Digest(April 1953) at 33.
56. Bozanić at 314-15.
57. Ibid at 314.
58. Encyclopedia of World Biography (2004); “Capsules,”Time, August 3, 1953 (“Armed with radioactive
phosphorus supplied by the AEC, two top U.S.
specialists flew to Yugoslavia to treat Cardinal Stepinac
for polycythemia”).
59. “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960. In 1954,
143 Catholic priests signed a memorandum denouncing
the government of Yugoslavia for persecution of
Catholics. Matijević at 125.
60. “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960.
61. Today, behind the altar, one can see a cut-out piece ofthe floor that was planned to be Stepinac’s final resting
place.
62. “The Silent Voice,” Time, February 22, 1960.
63. Savor; Barton. Hinshaw at 26. Stepinac’s innocence is
now recognized by virtually all scholars. For acollection of documents vindicating Stepinac, see
Proces Alojziju Stepiincu (Marina Stambuk-Skalic, et.
al. eds.) Krscanska sadasnjost: Zagreb, 1997. For

Stepinac’s anti-Nazi wartime sermons, see Propovijedi,
govori, poruke (J. Batelja and C. Tomic, eds.), AGM:
Zagreb, 1996; and Three Sermons Against Racism byArchbishop Stepinac (Church in History Information
center: Birkenhead, 1998). See also Aleksa Benigar,
Alojzije Stepinac, hrvatski kardinal (Ziral, Zagreb, 2nded., 1993); Ivan Muzi’c, Paveli’c i Stepinac (Logos:
Split, 1991) (the archbishop’s struggle against Pavelif);
Vatican Book Justifies Cardinal Stepinac: Example of
Opposition to Fascism, Nazism and communism, Zenit
News Agency, March 10, 1999; Alain Finkielkraut,Msgr. Stepinac et les deux douleurs de L’Europe, Le
Monde, October 7, 1998 (rebuking critics of Stepinac).
64. Alexander at 147; Barton. “He was a man who wasdisliked by the Nazis as well as the Communists forrefusing to compromise the interests of the Catholic
Church to the regimes of the moment. Stepinac wasaware of the fact that both the Nazis and theCommunists were plotting to kill him.” Gitman, at 70.
65. Alexander at 138; Barton.
66. Sabrina P. Ramet, Balkanski Babilon 113 (Zagreb:
Alinea, 2005). See also Tanner at 180; Barton.
67. Falconi probably was confused by the contradictoryevidence that he found. Consider this observation froman early review critical of the book: “there are excellent
citations in the book, especially by Pius XII, giving all
the defense needed. But these are patronizinglyexplained away on psychological grounds.” Whitall N.
Perry, Book Review: The Silence of Pius XII, by Carlo
Falconi, 5:1 Studies in Comparative Religion (Winter,
1971).
68. Consider: Chapter 1: The Collapse of Yugoslavia in
1941; Chapter 2: Croatia in the Twenty Years of
Yugoslav Rule; Chapter 3: How the NDH was
Received by the Catholics; Chapter 4: The Persecutionof the Orthodox Serbs; Chapter 5: The Croatian
Catholic Episcopate Between Intransigence of Principle
and Adaptation to Reality; Chapter 6: The Vatican was
Aware of Ustaše Crimes; Chapter 7: The Contradictory
Attitude of the Vatican Towards Forced ‘Re-Baptism’and the Persecution of the Orthodox Serbs.
69. “Some of the heaviest-handed documentation comes in
the 134 pages on the Croatian episode.” Whitall N.
Perry, Book Review: The Silence of Pius XII, by Carlo
Falconi, 5:1 Studies in Comparative Religion (Winter,
1971).
70. Savor; Barton. Stepinac’s innocence is now recognizedby virtually all scholars. See generally Stepinac: A
Witness to the Truth. For a collection of documents
vindicating Stepinac, see Proces Alojziju Stepiincu(Marina Štambuk-Skalić, et. al. eds.) Kršćanska
sadašnjost: Zagreb, 1997. For Stepinac’s anti-Nazi
wartime sermons, see Propovijedi, govori, poruke (J.

Batelja and C. Tomić, eds.), AGM: Zagreb, 1996; andThree Sermons against Racism by Archbishop Stepinac(Church in History Information center: Birkenhead,1998). See also Aleksa Benigar, Alojzije Stepinac,
hrvatski kardinal (Ziral, Zagreb, 2nd ed. 1993); IvanMužić, Pavelić i Stepinac (Logos: Split, 1991) (thearchbishop’s struggle against Pavelić); Vatican Book
Justifies Cardinal Stepinac: Example of Opposition to
Fascism, Nazism and Communism, Zenit News
Agency, March 10, 1999; Alain Finkielkraut, Msgr.
Stepinac et les deux douleurs de L’Europe, Le Monde,
October 7, 1998 (rebuking critics of Stepinac).
71. “Assembly Condemns Communist Treatment of
Cardinal Stepinac and Andrija Hebrang,” BBC
Summary of World Broadcasts, February 17, 1992.
The newly elected Croatian parliament rehabilitatedCardinal Stepinac by annulling the results of all
Bolshevik-style trials under the former Yugoslav
communist regime. The parliament specifically statedthat the only reason for the cardinal’s conviction was
Stepinac’s refusal to lead a schism.

Stilinovic.
72. Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope at 47, 169, 173, 251, 254, 259,
262, 321, 352.
73. Krišto went on to explain: “Ronald J. Rychlak

responded at length to Cornwell in Hitler, the War, and
the Pope…. For understandable reasons, not even
Rychlak knew that both Falconi and Cornwell based
their judgments on the Catholic Church in Croatia andon Pope Pius XII on falsified documents from the
Yugoslav secret police.” Krišto, The Catholic Church
and the Jews at 44, note 150.
74. Historians rely on documents to understand what
happened at a given time. Great credibility is attributed
to contemporaneous written evidence. In most cases,that makes perfect sense. As this episode reveals,
however, when governmental agencies engage in
intentional disinformation campaigns,
contemporaneous written evidence may be very
misleading. Non-contemporaneous fictionalized plays,
like The Deputy, are even more misleading.
75. Rychlak was a speaker at this event. See Rychlak,
Cardinal Stepinac and the Roman Catholic Church in
Croatia.

CHAPTER 11
1. There were dozens of KGB operational manuals on
different topics, divided by the various branches(counterespionage, countersabotage, etc.). All wereclassified “top secret.” Some manuals, like the one on
disinformation or on illegal operations, were classified

“Top Secret of Special Importance.” See Bittman at 4950.
2. Unless indicated otherwise, throughout this book, thespecific facts in Cardinal Mindszenty’s life are takenfrom his book Memoirs, translated by Richard andClara Winston (New York: Macmillan, 1974).
3. Mindszenty at 5.
4. Ibid at 8.
5. See Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2010) at
248–52.
6. Investigative Reports (Bill Kurtis, A&E Network).
7. Gilbert (1981) at 266 (citing Report of Veesenmayer toRibbentrop, 6 July 1944, Nuremberg Trial Documents,
NG 6584).
8. Lapide at 153.
9. Gilbert (1987) at 50; see Blet at 189–99.
10. Le Nonce à Bucarest Cassulo à Mgr. Tardini, October
2, 1944, Actes et Documents, vol. 10, page 428, no. 68.
11. Lapide at 161.
12. Mindszenty at 83–84.
13. See Freemantle at 136 (“With disinformation, as withevery other espionage activity, the Soviet Union
heavily utilizes its satellite services.”); See Bittman at
29 (similar).
14. Robert McG. Thomas Jr., “Hanna F. Sulner, 81, Expert

Drawn into Mindszenty Plot,” New York Times,
January 19, 1999.
15. Mindszenty at 87.
16. Thomas Jr., “Hanna F. Sulner, 81.
17. Mindszenty, 114-117.
18. Steve O’Brien, “Shooting the Cardinal”: Film and
Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case,” Seattle Catholic,
January 11, 2005, as printed in<http://seattlecatholic.com/article_20050111.html.>
19. Both movies are available on DVD. The Prisoner does
not identify the cardinal who is persecuted, and it
seems to draw upon elements from several of these
post-war communist trials.
20. Mindszenty, Wikipedia.

CHAPTER 12
1. Cardinal Beran died in Rome, at age 80. He is buried in
the grotto of St. Peter’s Basilica. In 1998, theArchdiocese of Prague opened his beatification
process.
2. Wyszyński is sometimes seen as controversial in thatsome of his comments appear to have been antiSemitic. On the other hand, it is not clear whichstatements were actually made by him and which ones

were advanced by Soviet officials who wanted todiscredit him. See Stefan Wyszyński, The Culture of
Bolshevism and the Polish Intellectuals, in Polish
Perspectives on Communism (Lexington Books,
Bogdan Szlachta, ed. 2000).
3. Ibid at 96.
4. Diskin at 70-71. Wyszyński did not travel to Rome forthe ceremony because he feared that the communist
regime would not let him return. Ibid at 79.
5. On the relationship between the Polish government, theVatican, and the Church in Poland, see ibid at 20, 28(noting that Pius XII was responsible for some of thetension between the communist government and theHoly See).
6. Ibid at 97.
7. Ibid at 108.
8. Ibid at 182-84.

CHAPTER 13
1. At that time almost all Soviet satellite countries werecalled “people’s republics.”
2. Communist confidence in the “spark” went back to
Lenin, who had named his revolutionary newspaper
Iskra (The Spark), although he had actually borrowed

the concept from the Russian Decembrist uprising of
1825.
3. See Rychlak (2010) at 93-94.
4. Andrew & Gordievsky at 463-464.
5. This French operation is confirmed in Andrew andGordievsky at 463-464.
6. Al Webb, “Synagogues burn as Europeans rage,”
Washington Times, April 22, 2002 (Internet edition).
7. See Parkes (“There was no need to invent antiSemitism in Russia. It existed already.”).
8. POGROM. Government-organized, reactionarychauvinistic uprising of the ruling classes, massslaughter as a group of some element of the population,accompanied by murders, destruction and theplundering of properties. [Example:] Jewish pogroms
in tsarist Russia. Tolkovyy Slovar Russkogo Yazyka(Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language),
D.N. Ushakov, ed. (Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia
State Institute, 1935) vol. III, 352.
9. William Korey, Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat, and theDemonology of Zionism, The Hebrew University ofJerusalem (1995),<http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/studies2.html>.
10. The Okhrana had been founded in 1881 by Alexander
III. It replaced the Department of State Police, which
failed to save the life of his father, Tsar Alexander II.

11. Sakharovsky seems to have shared traditional Russiananti-Semitism. He told Pacepa that the Jews themselvesbore the guilt for becoming a symbol of hate for theRussian tsars. After 1492, when some of the Jews
expelled from Spain began settling in Russia, they
became involved in the tax collection andadministration of large estates where peasants worked.
Those were among the few occupations open to Jews in
tsarist Russia, and they did not make Jews loved intheir new country.
12. Philip Grave, “The Protocols: A Literary Forgery,” TheTimes, London, August 16, 17, and 18, 1921,<www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?
documents/protocols/protocols.zion>.
13. “Jewish Massacre Denounced,” New York Times, April
28, 1903, p 6.
14. George Legget, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police
114 (Oxford University Press, 1981), quoted in Andrew
and Gordievsky at 44.
15. The Communist International, also known as theComintern, was an international communist
organization founded in Moscow in 1919. The
Comintern pledged to fight “by all available means,including armed force, for the overthrow of theinternational bourgeoisie and for the creation of aninternational Soviet republic as a transition stage to thecomplete abolition of the State.”

16. Encyclopedia of Marxism, Marxist Internet Archive,<www.marxists.org/glossary/people/z/i.htm>.

CHAPTER 14
1. Chronicle at 609.
2. Elizabeth Spalding, Harry S. Truman: Faith, Freedom,and the Cold War, Grand Valley State University, theHauenstein Center for Presidential Studies (September
15, 2009) at 2. The correspondence between the twoworld leaders was published in 1953 under the title:
Correspondence between President Truman and Pope
Pius XII.
3. Kent (2002).
4. On July 15, 1948, L’Osservatore Romano published adecree about communism, which excommunicatedthose who propagate “the materialistic and antiChristian teachings of communism.” This was widelyinterpreted as an excommunication of the Communist
Party of Italy, but the party was not mentioned in thedecree.
5. See J. Hughes at 255 (“Faced… with the most powerfulCommunist party in the Western world, the Pope in1949 approved a decree of the Holy Office which
excommunicated those who voted for communist
candidates in Italian elections”); F. Murphy at 14, 64;

M. Davis at 93 (the Church was the only organizedgroup strong enough to combat the “new strength of theLeft”); Ibid at 94, 97 (noting that despite theexcommunication decree, about one-third of the Italian
Catholics voted for Communist candidates). See also
Dunn at 142-43.
The persecution in Hungary was a factor in the
Vatican’s decree of condemnation of Communism in
1949, which many of the East European Church
leaders did not like because the Vatican decree did
nothing to assuage communist persecution. In fact, it
gave the communists a reason to intensify pressure
against the Churches. The Polish Catholic leaders, inparticular, thought the condemnation wascounterproductive…. Nonetheless, the decree allowed
the Vatican to vent its anger over the situation in
Eastern Europe and it aroused world public opinion,
particularly in the West, to the struggle that
confronted civilization and helped crystallize
Catholic voting ‘blocks into bastions ofanticommunism and solidify Catholic support for theUnited States in the Cold War and to its effort tocontain communism. It also put Italians on notice that
the Communist Party in Italy, which was a potent
political force, was unacceptable as a governing
agent.

Ibid. In March 1937, Pope Pius XI had issued theencyclical Divini Redemptoris (Of the Divine
Redeemer, better known by its subtitle, On Atheistic

Communism), in which he attacked the communismthat was beginning to spread throughout the world. He
wrote that communism was historically evil, that
communist governments were out to destroy religion,
were Godless, were violent, denied the individual andthe family, and reigned by terror. Pius XI concluded
that “Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one
who would save Christian civilization may collaborate
with it in any undertaking whatsoever.”6. Acts Apostolicae Sedis, 1951, p. 217.
7. Ibid., p.456 and 558.
8. Diskin at 168.
9. The Tablet of London, March 16, 1963. See alsoGraham (1996).
10. See, e.g., Mikhail Markovich Scheinmann, Der Vatikan
im Zweiten Weltkrieg (Dietz: Berlin, 1954; firstpublished in Russian in 1948). For an analysis of Soviet
propaganda, see generally Graham (1996).
11. Gary B. Nash, Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Allen
F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, and Carla
Gardina Pestana, The American People, Concise
Edition Creating a Nation and a Society, combined
volume, 6th Edition (New York: Longman, 2007).
12. Elizabeth E. Spalding, The First Cold Warrior: Harry
Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal
Internationalism 1 (Lexington: University Press ofKentucky, 2006).
13. The American Committee for Freedom for the Peoplesof the USSR was started in 1951, and its broadcast
station became known as Radio Liberty. For more on
VOA during this period, see David F. Krugler, The
Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda
Battles, 1945–1953 (Columbia: University of Missouri
Press, 2000); for more on RFE/RL, see Arch
Puddington, Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War
Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty(Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000).
14. See Rychlak, (2010) at 146-47, 158-63.
15. Marilyn J. Matelski, Vatican Radio: Propagation by
the Airwaves (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995).

CHAPTER 15
1. See Koehler at 26.
2. Gleb Yakunin, Wikipedia,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Yakunin>.
3. Keith Armes. Chekists in Cassocks: The Orthodox
Church and the KGB,
<http://www.spiritoftruth.org/orthodoxchurch.pdf>.
4. Reaction within the Catholic Church,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology.
5. Ibid.

6. James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, (NewYork: Orbis Books, 1990) p. 27.
7. Marta H. Mossburg, “Reverend Wright brings his antiAmerican crusade to Baltimore,” The Baltimore Sun,
June 21, 2011 (Internet edition).
8. See Humberto Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite
Tyrant (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005).
9. Debray initially taught at the University of Havana, inCastro’s Cuba. He later became an adviser to theSocialist French president François Mitterrand. Debray
dedicated his life to exporting Cuban-styleCommunism throughout Latin America, but in 1967 a
U.S.-trained, Bolivian special forces unit captured him,along with Che’s entire guerrilla band. Che wassentenced to death and executed for terrorism and massmurder. Debray was sentenced to 30 years in jail, but
he was released after three years following theintervention of French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. In
February 2003, Debray published “The French Lesson”
in the New York Times (which described Debray as “aformer adviser to President François Mitterrand” butomitted to mention that he had spent years in jail for
terrorism). Régis Debray, “The French Lesson,” NewYork Times, February 23, 2003 (Internet edition).
10. This picture of Che was originally introduced to theworld by a KGB operative under cover as a writer—I.
Lavretsky, in a book entitled Ernesto Che Guevara,which was edited by the KGB. I. Lavretsky, Ernesto
Che Guevara (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976).
The KGB entitled the picture Guerrillero Heroico(Heroic Warrior) and disseminated it throughout SouthAmerica—Cuba’s area of influence. Italian millionaire
publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, a Communist
romantically involved with the KGB, flooded the restof world with Che’s picture printed on posters and Tshirts. From one day to the next, the terrorist Che
became an international leftist idol. Feltrinelli became aterrorist himself, and he died while planting a bomb
outside Milan in 1972.
11. A. O. Scott, “Saluting the Rebel Underneath the TShirt,” New York Times, December 12, 2008; Humberto
Fontova, Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant (Regnery
Publishing, Inc. 2005).
12. “World: Che: A Myth Embalmed in a Matrix of
Ignorance,” Time, October 12, 1970.
13. Humberto Fontova, “Che Guevara and the ObamaCampaign,” Human Events, February 18, 2008,<http://www.humanevents.com/2008/02/18/cheguevara-and-the-obama-campaign/>.

CHAPTER 16
1. Fedor Burlatsky, Khrushchev: Sketches for a PoliticalPortrait, Literaturnaya Gazeta, February 24, 1988,

cited in Andrew and Gordievsky at 424.
2. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers, translated
and edited by Strobe Talbot 337 (Boston: Little, Brown
and Company, 1970).
3. Richard Felix Staar, Foreign policies of the Soviet
Union (2001) at 79-88.
4. U.S. Congress, House Select Committee onIntelligence, Soviet Covert Action: The Forgery
Offensive, 6 and 19 Feb. 1980, 96th Cong., 2d sess.,
1963. Washington, DC: GPO, 1980. A 1074-page book
documents that Metropolitan Nikodim, who in 1975
became vice president of the World Council ofChurches, served as an undercover officer of the KGB.
Gerhard Besier, Armin Boyens and Gerhard
Lindemann, Religion, state and society in the twentiethcentury (LIT Verlag Münster, 2008),<http://www.voiceofthebelievers.com/wcc_kgb.htm>.
Nikodim died in 1978, and the Kremlin appointed
Metropolitan Kirill as vice president of the CPC. Kirill(Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev) worked for the
KGB under the code name “Mikhailov.” In February
2009, Kirill was “elected” patriarch of Russia. Tony
Halpin, “Russian Orthodox Church chooses between‘ex-KGB candidates’ as Patriarch,” The Times of
London, January 26, 2009.
5. A 1962 KGB document signed by General Oleg
Gribanov, chief of the KGB’s Second ChiefDirectorate, which was responsible for religiousorganizations, attested that Agayants was correct.
Andrew and Mitrokhin at 487. Recently-released KGB
documents show that one half of all the Soviet Union’sclergy were agents or undercover KGB employees until
at least the end of the Gorbachev era. Keith Armes,
Chekists in Cassocks: The Orthodox Church and the
KGB, Boston University<http://www.spiritoftruth.org/orthodoxchurch.pdf>.
6. For details about the supersecret illegal officers see
Pacepa, Programmed to Kill at 133-164.
7. Erich Ludendorff had been a leader of the German
Army, especially at the end of the First World War. He
was a strong supporter of the Nazi Party and agreed to
become head of the German Army in Hitler’s
government. In his report Pius noted Catholic leaders
who set a good example by standing up for the Jews.
8. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Nunz. Monaco d.B.
396, Fasc. 7, Pos. XIV, Baviera, p. 75.
9. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Nunz. Monaco 365,
Fasc. 7, Pos. XIV, Baviera, p. 83.
10. “John XXIII on the Communists,” New York Times,
April 14, 1959.

CHAPTER 17

1. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Nunz. Monaco 365,
Fasc. 7, Pos. XIV, Baviera, p. 83. Khrushchev initiateda campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church,
forcing the closing of about 12,000 churches. He
renewed his crusade against religion in 1958. See
Koehler at 7.
2. See Bittman at 107.
3. Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye, the First Chief
Directorate of the KGB.
4. William Totok, The Stalinist Trial against the
Vatican’s “Spies” (Iasi, Romania: Polirom, 2008), 199.
The four catholics were Msgr. Josef Nischback, rectorof the Catholic Cathedral in Timisoara; Dr. Theol.
Franz Kräuter, archivist of the Catholic diocese ofTimişoara; Sr. Hildegardis Wulff, cofounder of the
Benedictine order of St. Lioba, who had dedicated herlife to working with Volksdeutsche women in Romania;
and Sr. Patricia Zimmermann.
5. In his NRO article Moscow’s Assault on the Vatican,
Pacepa mistakenly stated that Archbishop Augustin
Pacha was exchanged for the two DIE officers. In fact,
Archbishop Pacha was released from jail but died in
Romania shortly thereafter.
6. Pacepa’s account was approvingly cited by Walter
Cardinal Kasper. See World Jewish Congress, Recent
Developments in Jewish–Christian Relations, Speech of

Cardinal Walter Kasper at Liverpool Hope University(May 24, 2010).
7. During his lifetime, it was thought that Casaroli waspro-communist. His posthumously published memoirs
show that he permitted this perception to exist because
it helped him with international relations. In reality, he
was concerned about Catholics behind the Iron
Courtain, but he was also anti-communist. Agostino
Casaroli, The Martyrdom of Patience (2007). See also
Koehler at 24 (suggesting that those around Casaroli
may have been too sympathetic to communisim, andthat affected his reputation). This helps explain thesurprising amount of confidence that Pope John Paul IIplaced in him. See Ronald J. Rychlak, “The Enduring
Legacy of John Paul II,” Catalyst, December 2010.
8. On the repression of the Catholic Church in Romania,
see Crozier at 101.
9. Romanian history scholar Nicolae Dorel Ceuca, relying
primarily upon the diplomatic archive of the Romanian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, found that while Romania
banished the Apostolic Nunciature early in the 1950s,by the 1960s, diplomats on both sides were trying torestore official connections. From the Vatican’s side,these discussions were mostly led by Cardinal Casaroli.
See <http://www.cnaa.md/en/thesis/5348/>.
10. No such loan was ever made. The Vatican archives that
could confirm or disprove the Romanian request aresealed. The Vatican Secretariat of State reports that:
it would seem extremely unlikely that Romania
would have asked for a loan from the Vatican. No
relations existed between the government and the
Vatican after the expulsion of the Apostolic Nuncio
in 1946 and the closure of the Nunciature in 1950.
Furthermore such a petition would be inconsistentespecially when one considers the severe persecutionthat the Catholic Church, especially the Greek
Catholic Church, endured during the Communist
regime.

Letter to Ronald Rychlak from Monsignor Gabriele
Caccia, Assessor, Vatican Secretariat of State,
February 2, 2008.
11. Freemantle at 106-107. See also George Weigel, All
War, All the Time, First Things, April 2011, at 32 (Two
Lithuanian KGB agents studied at the Gregorian
University and two others infiltrated Vatican meetings.)
12. Koehler at 10.
13. Not long after the release of Cornwell’s book, Hitler’sPope, the Vatican issued a statement on Cornwell’s
work in Rome. It denied Cornwell’s claim to have been
the first person to have access to the archives that heused and denied his claim that he had worked formonths on end in them. The Secretariat of State had
authorized Cornwell to consult the archive of thesection on Relations with States, which he did for some

three weeks. The topic of his research was relations
with Bavaria (1918–1921); Austria, Serbia, andBelgrade (1913–1915). Cornwell was neither the first
nor the only one to consult the archives of those years.
He had no access to the “closed period,” beginning in
1922. Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Positio,
appendix 25 at 265. When he was asked about theseclaims in Brill’s Content magazine, Cornwell replied asfollows: “Nowhere in the book do I claim that I spentmonths on end in the Secretariat of State archive. The
quote is taken from a sub-editorial conflation in a
newspaper article and was an error of strict fact that
actually turns out to be essentially true.” Cornwellcompletely neglected to mention that the newspaper
article was one that he had written about his book!
Moreover, he repeated the claim in a piece that hewrote about his book for Vanity Fair magazine. The“sub-editorial conflation” language was edited out of
the Brill’s Content piece when it was published.
14. Fr. Peter Gumpel, relator of Pius XII’s sainthood cause,
remembered a young German priest who was in Romeat the appropriate time. He drove a sports car that
seemed incongruous with his status, and few people
seemed to know his background. Fr. Gumpel also said,
however, that he was unaware of anyone who managed
to get into the archives and steal any documents.
15. The KGB, like its Romanian counterpart, theSecuritate, was divided into two separate and very
different entities: the domestic political police and theforeign intelligence service. The domestic branch of the
KGB was a public organization, with local branches,
known to everybody and feared by everybody. The
foreign intelligence service was an unlisted, ultrasecretinstitution known only to a very small number of highranking communist nomenklatura involved in political,
economic or religious relations with the West.
16. This is not to be confused with the respected Romanianhistorian Francis Pall.
17. Viata Crestina (Christian Life), I/nr. 6 (328), p. 20;
II/nr. 7 (329). See also Glia, London, June 15, 1950);
Aurel Sergiu Marinescu, “O contrbutie la istoria
Exilului Romanesc” (A contribution to the History of
Romanian Exile), vol.VIII” Bucuresti, ed. Vremea,
2008, pp. 87, 91-92.
18. William Totok, Episcopul, Hitler si Securitatea (TheBishop, Hitler and the Securitate), (Bucharest: Polirom,
2008).
19. A Contribution to the History of Romanian Exile(Bucharest: Vremea, 2008), vol. 8:87.
20. Remus Mercia Birtz Blog,<http://remusmirceabirtz.wordpress.com/.
21. Father Sergio Pagano, prefect of the Vatican SecretArchives, has explained that during the years Pacepa
describes “the letters of Pius XII were no longer in theVatican Secret Archives. The documents they wereinterested in were to be found in the archive of theSecretary of State.” Zenit News Service, Relator of
Pius XII’s Case Is Wary of Report: Father Gumpel
Urges Prudence Over Defector’s Tale, February 18,
2007. Father Gumpel, relator of Pope Pius XII’ssainthood cause, speculated that Soviet spies,
unfamiliar with how things work in the Vatican, might
have confused “the Vatican Secret Archives with theArchive of the Secretary of State.” Ibid.

CHAPTER 18
1. German Wikipedia, Erwin Piscator, September 19,
2009, <http://de.wikipedia.org>.
2. Karol Jozef Gajewski, “Winning the War over Pius
XII,” Inside the Vatican,<<http://www.insidethevatican.com/articles/reviewpiusxii.htm>>.
3. Leo Kerz, Brecht and Piscator, 20:3 Educational
Theatre Journal 363 (October 1968).
4. Willett at 41.
5. Ibid at 131.
6. Ibid at 132.
7. Inostrannyy Otdel, or Foreign Department, which atthat time was integrated into the Soviet political police,the NKVD (Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del,
People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs).
8. Piscator, German Wikipedia, <http://de.wikipedia.org>.
9. Smith.
10. The Proletarian Theatre: Its Fundamental Principles
and Its Tasks (1920), quoted by Smith, page 8.
11. Terence Smith, “Performance, Space and Technology,
Stanford University Drama Department,” November
1998.
12. Willett at 50-51. See also Smith at 6.
13. Willett at 53.
14. Ibid at 55.
15. Ibid at 104.
16. Ibid at 121 (quoting Franz Jung).
17. Ibid at 75.
18. Ibid at 96.
19. Ibid at 121.
20. Willett at 122, quoting the postscript to the Soviet
edition of Piscator’s play Das Politische Theater(Moscow 1934).
21. Erwin Piscator, “The Theatre Can Belong to Our
Century, in The Theory of the Modern Stage,” (Eric
Bentley, ed. 1997) at 471-3.
22. Willett at 122.
23. Ibid at 123.

24. Willett at 124.
25. Ibid at 126.
26. Quoted in Smith, page 9.
27. La Vern J. Rippley, Brecht the Communist andAmerica’s Drift from Capitalism 14:3 TwentiethCentury Literature 143 (October 1968).
28. Information on Erwin Piscator at Akademie der Künste,
Berlin, September 19, 2009<http://www.adk.de/de/archiv/archivbestamd/darstellendekunst/kuenstler/Erwin-Piscator.htm>.
29. Thomas at 165.
30. “Revival in Manhattan,” Time, December 23, 1940.
31. Willett at 165.
32. Ibid (Wolf tells Piscator that the Party would want him
to run a theater in Germany; “I know of no objection to
you on the part of the Party.”)
33. Piscator, German Wikipedia, September 19, 2009<http://de.wikipedia.org>.
34. Leo Kerz, Brecht and Piscator, 20:3 Educational
Theatre Journal 363, 368 (October 1968).
35. Willett at 180.
36. Biography of Erwin Piscator in German, from theStiftung Archiv der Akademie der Künste, Berlin,
September 19, 2009, published at<http://www.adk.de/de/archiv/archivbestand/darstellendekunst/kuenstler/Erwin-Piscator.htm>.

CHAPTER 19
1. Pierre Joffroy, A Spy for God: The Ordeal of Kurt
Gerstein, N. Denny translator (New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1969).
2. Judy Stone, Interview with Rolf Hochhuth, Ramparts,
Spring 1964, reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at50.
3. Hochhuth (1964) at 331.
4. Ward at 29, 34.
5. Erwin Piscator, Introduction to The Deputy (Clara
Mayer trans.) in The Storm over The Deputy at 15.
6. From an entry on Wikipedia.
7. Hinkle at 67.
8. Hochhuth (1964) at 328.
9. Ibid at 304.
10. Character Assassination, America, March 7, 1964,
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 39.
11. Editorial: Character Assassination, America, March 7,
1964, reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 39.
12. Fisher at 11.
13. Judy Stone interview, in The Storm over The Deputy at
51.
14. Friedrich Heer, The Need for Confession,Commonweal, February 20, 1964, in The Storm overThe Deputy at 166.
15. Judy Stone interview, in The Storm over The Deputy at
51.
16. Rychlak, Righteous Gentiles, at 181-92.
17. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, The Timeless Christian191-93 (Franciscan Herald Press, 1969).
18. Levai at 5-6 (quoting Albert Wucher, “DerStellvertreter und die historische Wirklichkeit,” in the
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Munich April 19, 1963).
19. Michael Feldkamp, Hochhuth Exposed, Association ofContemporary Church Historians, July/August 2007
(John Jay Hughes trans.).
20. Ibid.
21. Who Brought Down Pius XII?: L’Osservatore Director
Blames Communists, Church Division, The Wanderer,
June 25, 2009 (discussing Vian’s 2009 book, In Difesa
di Pio XII: Le Ragioni della).
22. Ibid.
23. Conway (1973) at 147.

CHAPTER 20
1. See Reviews, XII:2 World Theatre 140 (Summer 1963)(“somewhere between a spoken report with scenes ofgreat realism… and a fast paced discussion”). The
review went on to note the difficulty of producing theplay “from a text which if performed in total would
have lasted six or seven hours.” Ibid; Sidney F.
Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage: A Look at
the Major Productions of ‘The Deputy,’” 28:3
Educational Theatre Journal 347, 353 (Oct., 1976)(“How then should we judge Hochhuth as aplaywright? The formal shape of his script suggests that
he wishes to be judged by traditional dramaticstandards, and by these standards one cannot speak
well of him”).
2. Stephen Kinzer, “For a German Gadfly, a New Play, a
New Furor,” New York Times, March 11, 1993.
3. Kustow at 136 (noting that Le Monde newspaper
thought that Semprum’s edit of the story was superior
to Piscator’s).
4. Gary Prevost, “Review: The Autobiography ofFederico Sanchez and the Communist Underground in
Spain by Jorge Semprun,” 75:3 The American Political
Science Review 819 (Sep., 1981).
5. See Kathleen A. Johnson, The Framing of History:
Jorge Semprun’s La Deuxième Mort de Ramon
Mercader, 20 French Forum 90 January, 1995.
6. Kustow at 18-19, 24.
7. Ibid at 25-26.
8. Ibid at 87 (“In Moscow the box-office was mobbed, alltickets were sold in hours”).

9. Ibid at 87. See also Peter Brook, The Empty Space 2022 (New York: Athenaeum, 1982). The Kustow
biography also contains a photograph (taken around1953) of Brook, his wife Natasha Parry, and Fidel
Castro. A commentator from the era noted that
“Brook’s work on plays by other authors, must, on thewhole, be regarded as the most positive result ofBrechtian influence on the art of stage directing in
England.” Martin Esslin, Brecht and the English
Theatre, 11:2 The Tulane Drama Review 63, 66(Winter 1966). Brecht, of course, was a noted
communist playwright.
10. Albert Hunt and Geoffrey Reeves, Peter Brook 104(Cambridge University Press, 1995). From 1737 until
1968 the Lord Chamberlain licensed plays in London
and certain other areas. This effectively made him theofficial censor of theatrical performances. See also
Kustow at 131 (discussing one of Brook’s few failures
on stage – a play that warned about “the West” using ahighly intelligent robot for destructive purposes.)
11. See Dan Isaac, “Theatre of Fact,” 15:3 The Drama
Review: TDR 109 (Summer, 1971). Brook essentiallyused symbolic designs for his production. “The stage
was kept bare, no backdrops were used. Each of theactors had an identical blue suit over which he put
some distinguishing costume piece, such as a Nazi
armband or a priest’s cassock. This design stressed theinter-changeability of oppressor and oppressed in themodern age.” Sidney F. Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for
the Stage: A Look at the Major Productions of ‘The
Deputy,’” 28:3 Educational Theatre Journal 347, 352(Oct., 1976).
12. Kustow at 87.
13. See Simon Trussler, “Shakespeare: The Greatest Whoreof Them All Peter Hall at Stratford 1960–1968,” 13:2
The Drama Review 169 (Winter, 1968). See also
LaVern J. Rippley, Brecht the Communist andAmerica’s Drift from Capitalism 14:3 TwentiethCentury Literature 143 (October 1968).
14. St. Denis was no stranger to the use of media forpolitical purposes. In World War II, he directed theBBC’s Radio Diffusion Française (established by
DeGaulle’s government in exile) under the pseudonymof Jacques Duchesne.
15. Irving Wardle, “London’s Subsidized Companies,”
11:2 The Tulane Drama Review 105, 111 (Winter1966).
16. Patterson at xi.
17. Ossia Trilling, The New English Realism 7:2 The
Tulane Drama Review 184, 190 (Winter 1962).
18. Glenn Loney, “Theatre Abroad: Oh to Be in England:
A London Theatre Album” 19:1 Educational Theatre
Journal 87 (Special English-Irish Theatre Issue, March

1967).
19. Ibid.
20. In England, the title is usually translated as The
Representative, but sometimes as The Vicar. The
program from the original London production says: “Itis not, as has been widely construed and rumoured, agratuitous and vicious attack on the Catholic Church—almost every page proves this accusation to be absurd.”
Director Clifford Williams included an essay in which
he wrote: “I have examined all the facts which the playcontains and I have found no instance of Hochhuth
deliberately distorting verifiable information.” PopePaul VI’s defense of Pius XII was also reprinted
therein. See Rychlak (2010) at 296.
21. Michael Coveneny, “Obituary: Robert David
MacDonald,” The Guardian, May 24, 2004.
MacDonald adapted at least three of Hochhuth’s plays:
The Representative (or The Deputy), Soldiers, andJudith. David Irving’s web photo of Irving, Hochhuth,and MacDonald together.
<http://www.fpp.co.uk/Irving/photos/Hochhuth/image3.html
22. See Thomas G. Gulick, “UNESCO, Where Culture
Becomes Propaganda,” The Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder #233, December 13, 1982; Hook at 447(contrasting a UNESCO seminar with a legitimate
academic or scientific seminar). In the 1950s, twoformer UNESCO officials identified UNESCO’s

ancestor as: “The Soviet All Union Society for Cultural
Relations with Foreign Countries,” whose goals
included “the world union of intellectual forces for thetriumph of genuine world culture,” so as to inspire
intellectuals to “fight the war danger [and] agitate forpeace.” Walter H.C. Laves and Charles A. Thompson,
UNESCO: Purpose, Progress, Prospects, (Indiana
University Press, 1957). As early as 1952, the Knights
of Columbus urged their fellow Americans to give a“close and careful scrutiny” to the operations of
UNESCO. “Knights of the Church,” Time magazine,
September 1, 1952; see William R. Kintner and Joseph
Z. Kornfeder, The New Frontier of War: Political
Warfare Present and Future (Chicago: Henry Regnery
Company, 1962). Years after MacDonald worked there,
the KGB reportedly still had several agents on
UNESCO’s payroll, at least one of whom was working
as a translator. Steve Farrell, “Coalition or Bust! Virtue
or Vice?,” Meridian Magazine (2002). The UnitedStates eventually withdrew from UNESCO over its
perceived anti-West bias.
23. Andrew and Mitrokhin at 466; Oleg Kalugin,Spymaster: My Thirty-Two Years in Intelligence andEspionage against the West (New York: Basic Books,2009) at 123, 192–93; Milton Rosenberg, An American
Trapped in a Communist Paradise: An Historical
Autobiography 45 (Moose Hide Books, 2003); “KGB:
Russia’s Old Boychiks,” Time, February 6, 1978.

24. “Piscator had the courage to tackle this difficult subject
from a text which if performed in total would havelasted six or seven hours.” XII World Theatre 140(Summer 1963) (calling the play “somewhere between
a spoken report with scenes of great realism… and afastly paced discussion”).
25. Michael Coveneny, “Obituary: Robert David
MacDonald,” The Guardian, May 24, 2004.
26. In 1971, MacDonald became a codirector of the
Citizen’s Theatre in Glasgow, Scotland. He ran thistheater in much the same way Piscator operated his
Freie Volksbühne. Plays were often political, andtickets were priced so that the workers could attend.
“For years, a sign declaring “All seats 50p” blazed overwhat was then a slum area:” Obituary: Robert David
MacDonald, The Daily Telegraph, May 21, 2004. See
Interview: The Citizens Company in Glasgow: “FourHundred Miles from Civilization,” 5:1 Performing Arts
Journal 50 (1980) (“Our theatre is actually socialist
theatre in the sense that it’s the only theatre in Britain
which has a seat price that enables absolutely anybody
to come in. And I think that’s a kind of practicalsocialism.”) While some critics considered the Citizen’s
Theatre exciting and influential, “others disapproved ofwhat they saw as high camp, mannered performances
and a preference for Left-wing European dramatists.”
The Daily Telegraph, May 21, 2004.

27. Douglas Chalmers, Communist Party of Great Britain:
Scottish Committee Archive 1960s to 1990s, Glasgow
Caledonian University Archives,<http://www.gcal.ac.uk/archives/cpgb/history5.html>.
28. LaVern J. Rippley, Brecht the Communist andAmerica’s Drift from Capitalism 14:3 TwentiethCentury Literature 143 (October 1968).
29. Patterson at 1. Joan Littlewood and Arnold Wesker
were among those most openly involved in classstruggle. See “Interview: The Citizens Company in
Glasgow: ‘Four Hundred Miles from Civilization,’” 5:1
Performing Arts Journal 50 (1980) (interview with
Robert David MacDonald, Philip Prowse, and Giles
Havergal) (“A lot of British theatre is socialist andpolitical, or at least the playwrights speak as if they
write in those terms.”).
30. Theodore Shank, “Political Theatre in England,” 2:3
Performing Arts Journal 48 (Winter 1978). See also
Larraine Nicholas, “Fellow Travellers: Dance andBritish Cold War Politics in the Early 1950s,” 19:2
Dance Research: The Journal of the Society for Dance
Research 83, 85 (Winter 2001).
31. See C. Chambers (2004) at 233, n. 17.
32. Like Piscator, he also had a program supplement
discussing the charges against Pius XII.
33. Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage” at 347, 35152. (“Reviewers generally thought that thisconcentration on the documents worked against the
text.”)
34. “Obituary: Clifford Williams, Theatre director with
comedic talent and an awesome staging flair,” The
Independent, August 23, 2005.
35. Phyllis Hartnoll and Peter Found, Theatre Workshop, in
The Concise Oxford Companion to the Theatre (1996).
It had grown out of a group known as “The Red
Megaphone” which had an overtly political manifesto.
Dominic Shellard, British Theatre Since the War 60-61(Yale University Press, 1999). The Theatre Workshop
was an “acknowledged influence” on Peter Hall (andthus the Royal Shakespeare Company). C. Chambers at
12. Hall even invited Littlewood to direct for thecompany. Ibid. At about this same time, he did hire
John Bury away from the Theatre Workshop to be theRoyal Shakespeare Company’s main designer. Ibid at
34-35; Martin Esslin, “Brecht and the English Theatre,”
11:2 The Tulane Drama Review 63, 65 (Winter 1966).
36. Along with Peter Brook, Littlewood was among themost important theatrical personalities in the UK at thistime. Shortly before her death in 2002, she said: “I’ve
always been a communist.” “Obituary: Joan
Littlewood,” The Daily Telegraph, September 26,
2002.
37. Jerry Tallmer, You Can’t Print That! (but he did, hedoes), Thrive, vol. 1: 9, January 1 - 31, 2006. See

Lowry at 1 (“Communism – a New Religion”); ibid at
146 (more on communism as a religion); John C.
Bennett, The Demand for Freedom and Justice in theContemporary World Revolution, in Religion andCulture, at 330 (same).
38. Rolf Hochhuth, “The Berlin Antigone,” Evergreen
Review, May 1964 at 70.
39. Evergreen Review, August-September 1964, at 97.
40. According to the book, in June 1942, 17-year-old
Rudolf Vrba was shipped to Auschwitz. Fighting
against starvation, typhus, and almost unbelievablebrutality, he kept a complete record of Nazi horrors.
Finally he managed to escape and bring his message tothe outside world. See Rudolf Vrba & Alan Bestic, I
Cannot Forgive : The Amazing True Story of a 17 Year
Old Jewish Boy Who Defied the Germans at Auschwitz
and Escaped to Alert the World to the Nazi Horror
Camps! (New York: Bantam Books, 1964). Apparently
Vrba performed poorly under cross examination at a
Canadian trial over Holocaust denial, and he admitted
that he had taken “artistic license.” Queen v. Zündel, 2
S.C.R. 731 (1992). He is now often cited by Holocaust
deniers as an example of how people make things up
about the Holocaust.
41. She wrote several plays he produced, including The
Children’s Hour (1934), The Little Foxes (1939), andWatch on the Rhine (1941). See Paul Kengor, Dupes:How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated
Progressives for a Century (Wilmington: ISI Books,
2010) at 222.
42. Time, July 7, 1947.
43. Time, September 16, 1946.
44. Time, July 7, 1947.
45. New York Times, October 17, 1998, p. A-15. Regarding
outbursts during productions, see Kustow at 136.
46. John Simon, “The Deputy and Its Metamorphoses,”
The Nation, March 16, 1964, reprinted in The Storm
over The Deputy at 109, 115. Robert Brustein, writingin The New Republic explained: “The New Yorkproduction of his play… preserves no integrity at all,and I have confined my discussion to the printed text
because the Broadway performance is beneathdiscussion. Robert Brustein, “History as Drama,” The
New Republic, March 14, 1964, reprinted in The Storm
over The Deputy at 23.
47. David Horowitz, “World Shares Guilt in Jews’
Murder,” Ohio Jewish Chronicle, March 20, 1964.
48. David Horowitz, who grew up in New York City as theson of two lifelong communists, was a founding
member of the New Left. During the 1960s he was not
at Ramparts until after the controversy surrounding The
Deputy. See David Horowitz, Radical Son (New York:The Free Press, 1997). Lionel Abel, who wrote aboutthe play in Dissent magazine (Spring 1964), is usuallyconsidered a Trotskyite. Alan Wald, “Farrell andTrotskyism” 22:1 Twentieth Century Literature 90, 93(Feb. 1976); John F. Diggins, “Four Theories in Searchof a Reality: James Burnham, Soviet Communism, andthe Cold War” 70:2 The American Political Science
Review 492 (June 1976). See Lionel Abel, “Stalin’s
Advocate,” 2 Politics 146 (May 1945).
49. See Rychlak (2010) at 302–3.
50. Tevi Troy, Book review, The Weekly Standard, March
8, 1999 (reviewing Max Lerner: Pilgrim in thePromised Land, by Sanford Lakoff, University of
Chicago Press, 1998).
51. Mona Charen, Useful Idiots - How Liberals Got It
Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America 89(Regnery, 2003).
52. New York Post, October 18, 1963.
53. Gary Dorrien, “Michael Harrington: Socialist to theEnd,” Christian Century, October 11, 2000 at 1002.
54. George Packer, “Interesting Times: Democratic
Socialism Revisited,” The New Yorker, March 6, 2009,<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2009/03
soci.html>.
55. Lauren Weiner, “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?,”First Things, January 2010, at 29, 30 (referring to Pete
Seeger writing in the Daily Worker under an alias).

56. Carl Edmund Rollyson & Lisa Olson Paddock, Susan
Sontag: The Making of an Icon, (New York: W. W.
Norton & Co., 2000), 130.
57. Susan Sontag, “All the World’s a Stage,” Book World,
March 1, 1964, reprinted in The Deputy Reader at 222.
58. Franklin Foer, “Susan Superstar,” New York Magazine,
Jan 7, 2005 (“Sontag—with her championing ofEuropean modernism, her unabashed intellectuality,and her left-wing ideological commitments….”).
59. Guy Scarpetta, Susan Sontag: Dissidence as Seen fromthe USA, 76 Tel Quel 28 (Summer 1978), reprinted inConversations with Susan Sontag (Susan Sontag &Leland A. Poague, ed., University Press of Mississippi,
1995).
60. See Ewart Turner, “No Letup for Der Stellvertreter,” inThe Deputy Reader at 184.
61. Fritz J. Raddatz, Karl Marx. A Political Biography(Little, Brown and Company, 1978).
62. The Marx-Engels Correspondence: The Personal
Letters, 1844-77 (Fritz J. Raddatz, ed. Little-hampton
Book Services Ltd. 1981).
63. German Wikipedia, Fritz J. Raddatz, June 14. 2011<http://de.wikipedia.org>.
64. Patrick Sullivan, Author Eric Bentley still shaping
theater, Metro Active, September 24, 1998
<www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/09.24.98/bentley-9838.html>.
65. Eric Bentley, Bentley on Brecht (Northwestern
University Press, 2nd ed. 2007). He wrote several otherbooks on communist subjects, including: Bernard
Shaw: A Reconsideration (1947); Brecht Commentaries(1981); and Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts from
Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, 1938–1968 (1971).
66. See Daniel Robert Epstein, Costa-Gavras Interview,UGO Online,<http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/costagavras(“I saw the play back in 1964 in Paris. My scriptwriter,
Jorge Semprún, wrote an adaptation back then. It was
the play to see back then, and it was a huge
controversy. I wanted to make the film in the 1970s,
but the rights were taken.”) See Rychlak, “The Church
and the Holocaust,” The Wall Street Journal (Europe),
March 28, 2002 (reviewing Amen).
67. “Gavras doesn’t march behind the banner of politicalcinema. All cinema is political, he says, even action
movies showing ‘heroes saving the Earth only with agun’.” Maya Jaggi, “French resistance: Costa Gavras,”
The Guardian, April 4, 2009. “‘My mother used to say
stay away from politics, because my father went toprison. But we can’t not be involved. By not taking a
position, you take a position.’” Ibid.

CHAPTER 21
1. I. F. Stone, “What Some People Have Forgotten About
God’s ‘Deputy,’” I. F. Stone’s Weekly, March 9, 1964,
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy, 234-35.
2. I. F. Stone, “Pius XII’s Fear of Hitler,” I. F. Stone’s
Weekly, November 1964.
3. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, at 146-152.
4. Romerstein and Breindel at 434-439.
5. Judy Stone, “Interview with Rolf Hochhuth,”Ramparts, Spring 1964, reprinted in The Storm over
The Deputy, 42.
6. For instance, it talks about the Dominicans petitioning
the pope in 1287, resulting in an encyclical that led toarrests, looting of Jewish wealth, and preparation of theJews for deportation. Hermann Sinsheimer, Shylock:
The History of a Character 38 (New York: BenjaminBlom, Inc., 1947, reprinted 1963). Similarly, it argues
that “Christians of the Middle Ages [were] habitualpersecutors of unprotected people” and that Pope Leo
the Great (444-61) banned money lending. Ibid at 121.
7. In June 1964, George L. Mosse wrote a piece on The
Deputy for an influential left-wing magazine, The
Progressive. That periodical opposed the growth of the
U.S. military, opposed the United Nations police action
to prevent a communist takeover of Korea, andopposed U.S. intervention to prevent a communist
takeover in South Vietnam. In 1954, it published ahuge exposé of McCarthyism, and it was sympathetic
to the revolutionary dictatorship of Marxist Fidel
Castro, who seized power in Cuba in 1959. All of theseare defensible positions, but they also indicate at least
the possibility of Soviet influence.
8. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 226.
9. Haynes and Klehr, Verona at 220-221.
10. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield at
226.
11. Ibid.
12. Pacepa, Programmed to Kill, passim.
13. Mark Lane, the author of Rush to Judgment and A
Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane Replies to the Defendersof the Warren Report, helped New Orleans district
attorney Jim Garrison arrest a local man (Clay Shaw),whom Garrison accused of conspiring with elements of
U.S. intelligence to murder Kennedy in order to stop
his efforts to end the Cold War. Garrison’s On the Trailof the Assassin inspired Oliver Stone’s movie JFK.
Soviet documents from the Mitrokhin Archive later
revealed that Lane received funding from the KGB.
14. Journalists were very important to the Soviet’s efforts.
The KGB recruited journalists in part for their accessto inside information and sources on politics andpolicy, insights into personalities, and confidential
and non-public information that never made it into
published stories. Certain journalistic working habits
also lent themselves to intelligence tasks. By
profession, journalists ask questions and probe; whatmight seem intrusive or suspect if done by anyone
else is their normal modus operandi. Consequently,
the KGB often used journalists as talent spotters for
persons who did have access to sensitive information,and made use of them to gather backgroundinformation that would help in evaluating candidates
for recruitment…. There was also much less risk thata journalist having contact with a government official
or engineer would attract the attention of security
officials than would a KGB officer under Soviet
diplomatic cover. And even if security officials did
notice such a meeting, it would be much easier toprovide a benign explanation for contact with a pesky
American journalist than with a Soviet diplomat.

Harvey Klehr; John Earl Haynes, and Alexander
Vassiliev, I. F. Stone, Soviet Agent—Case Closed,
Commentary (May 2009). Perhaps most importantly,“the KGB could use journalists for ‘active measures’—the planting of a story in the press or giving a slant to astory that served KGB goals.” Ibid. See also John Earl
Haynes and Harvey Klehr, “Spies Among Us,”
WashingtonDecoded.com, June 19, 2009 (“Journalists
were particularly well-suited for agency because manyof the tasks they were asked to carry out—providing

inside information, serving as couriers, talent-spotters,
and checking on the background of potential sources—were, or could be made to seem, a normal part of theireveryday work”).
15. Kalugin (1994) at 53.
16. Ibid (discussing racial “trouble” in the United States).
This is very close to what Ramparts editor Warren
Hinkle did when he invited numerous publications to apress conference/party in support of The Deputy. See
Rychlak (2010) at 301-02.
17. Weiner, “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?,” at 29, 30(quoting folk singer Dave Van Ronk). See also Kengor.
18. Weiner, Where Have All the Lefties Gone? at 54.
19. Ibid at 53. When Soviet handlers controlled American
communists, the Americans were at the beck and call of
their handlers. See Miller at 16.
20. “Not Only the Deputy,” The Minority of One, April
1964; M.S. Arnoni, American Dialog, July-August,
1964.
21. “Not Only the Deputy,” The Minority of One, April
1964.
22. Ibid.
23. Robert Gorham Davis & George N. Shuster, “Of Gross
Ends and a Man’s Choice,” New York Times Book
Review, March 1, 1964.
24. “Obituary: Robert Gorham Davis,” New York Times,

July 17, 1998. See also “Obituary: Hope Hale Davis,
100; Author, Writing Teacher, Feminist andCommunist,” Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2004
(obituary of Davis’s widow).
25. Cooney at 282. He said that the play had been written
to “drive a wedge between Christians and Jews.” Ibid.
26. Hinkle at 58.
27. Ibid at 58; Editor’s Mailbag, Ohio Jewish Chronicle,
March 20, 1964 (discussing Jews who protest The
Deputy). See Israelis Defend Name of Pope Pius XII,
Jewish Chronicle, October 11, 1963 (discussing the
Jewish reaction to the play’s opening in London). See
Trude Weiss-Ros-marin, Second Thoughts on “TheDeputy,” Ramparts, Summer 1964 at 95 (emphasis inoriginal) (detailing how the play insulted Jews). As oneof the play’s most important early supporters
explained: “The serious rejoinders to Hochhuth’s
charges against the Pope were handled by the Jews,
which was the reason for the surprising defense of Pius
XII by B’nai B’rith.” Hinkle at 58. See also Alfred
Kazin, The Vicar of Christ, The New York Review ofBooks, March 19, 1964, reprinted in The Storm overthe Deputy at 102, 105.
28. He apparently was offended in late 1963 by some
Jesuits who agreed to write articles responding to
criticisms of the Church. After seeing the criticisms,
they backed out of their commitment, leaving Ramparts

without sufficient content for the next issue. Ramparts
editor Warren Hinkle explained: “The holy beatingthese holy men gave Ed Keating was to prove pivotal in
the leftward development of Ramparts.” Burns at 321.
29. Hinkle at 50-51.
30. Burns at 321.
31. Hinkle at 50-51.
32. Edward M. Keating, “The Voice of Pius Was Silent,”
This World, March 1, 1964; Edward M. Keating &Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, “Book Reviews,” Ramparts,
Summer 1964; Edward M. Keating, “Book Review,”
San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 1964. See also
Edward Keating, The Scandal of Silence: A Layman’s
Powerful Critique of the Catholic Church in America(1965).
33. “French Cardinal Condemned Nazis,” New York Times,
Feb. 26, 1964, p.41.
34. Tisserant, Interview, Informations Catholiques, April
15, 1964. See also O’Carroll at 14, 69.
35. According to at least one account, Ramparts’ reporting
led to “the biggest security leak of the Cold War.” Sol
Stern, “The Ramparts I Watched: Our storied radical
magazine did transform the nation—for the worse,”
City Journal (Winter 2010).
36. Bennett’s most important publication at that time was
the book, Christianity and Communism Today (1948,

rev. 1960). He was known for supporting civil rights,
protesting the Vietnam War, opposing nuclear
weapons, and (later) advocating for gay and lesbianrights. In 1961, Time magazine wrote: “Dr. Bennett haslong warned Christians against thinking that God is
automatically on the side of the West.” “Whose Side is
God On?,” Time, Nov. 10, 1961. The article went on toquote him:
The very atheism of communism is a judgment upon
the churches, which for so long were unconcerned
about the victims of the Industrial Revolution andearly capitalism and which have usually beenornaments of the status quo, no matter how unjust it
has been. The temptation to turn the cold war into aholy crusade is ever with us….

37. Zahn was a conscientious objector to World War II andcofounder of Pax Christi USA. His most famous workat the time was German Catholics and Hitler’s War(1962). That book led to some serious clashes with
Catholic leaders and his departure from (the Jesuit)
Loyola University. Griffin, a convert to Catholicism,
was best known for his work on racial strife in the
United States and his book Black Like Me (concerning
his trip through southern states disguised as an AfricanAmerican).
38. This was a typical approach of the KGB, which would
place stories in small papers and journals, hoping that

other outlets would pick them up. See Yury B. Shvets,
Washington Station: My Life as a KGB Spy in America
13, 39 (Simon & Schuster, 1994); Kalugin (1994) at 53.
39. Burns at 321.
40. “A Bomb in Every Issue,” Time, January 6, 1967.
41. Ibid.
42. Sol Stern, “The Ramparts I Watched: Our storied
radical magazine did transform the nation— for theworse,” City Journal (Winter 2010).
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Burns at 321.
47. David Horowitz, “Spy Stories: The Wen Ho Lee
Cover-Up,” FrontPageMagazine.com, October 3, 2000.
48. Burns at 321. See S. Steven Powell, Covert Cadre:Inside the Insitute for Policy Studies (Green Hill
Publishers, 1987).
49. Memo to the White House re Ramparts, case no. EO1996-00609, pub. date 5/19/1966; release date
11/4/1997 (noting dramatic expansion and communist
ties of key personnel). Memorandum to Bill Moyers,
White House from Richard Helms, DD/CIA (Subject
Del), case no. EO-2004-00392, pub. date 5/19/1966;
release date 5/17/2004 (same document).

CHAPTER 22
1. See Edgar Alexander, “Rolf Hochhuth: Equivocal
Deputy, Study of the anti-Semitic and Anti-Catholic
mental baggage of a playwright,” America, October 12,
1963.
2. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, “Second Thoughts on The
Deputy,” Ramparts (Summer 1964) at 95.
3. Ibid.
4. “Pius XII & The Jews,” Time, November 1, 1963.
5. Interview with Rolf Hochhuth, Ramparts (Spring 1964),
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 42.
6. Ward at 37.
7. John Simon, “The Deputy and Its Metamorphoses,”
The Nation, March 16, 1964, reprinted in The Storm
over The Deputy at 109, 115.
8. Hinkle at 58.
9. Weiss-Rosmarin at 95.
10. Hinkle at 58.
11. Among Preminger’s many films are Exodus (1960),
dealing with the establishment of the modern state ofIsrael, and The Cardinal (1963), loosely based on
Austrian Cardinal Innitzer.
12. Robert C. Doty, “‘The Deputy’ is here,” New YorkTimes, February 23, 1964.

13. Ibid at 49.
14. Ibid at 43.
15. Judy Stone interview, in The Storm over The Deputy,
46-47.
16. Ibid at 64-65.
17. Ferencz later became a significant promoter of theInternational Criminal Court. One of the co-authors of
this book (Rychlak) met him several times at theUnited Nations while serving as a delegate of the Holy
See to meetings on the ICC.
18. Matthew Brzezinski, “Giving Hitler Hell,” Washington
Post, July 24, 2005.
19. See Edward Crankshaw, Khrushchev: A Career (NewYork: Viking, 1966) at 154 (“Khrushchev showed
himself to be a fairly crude anti-Semite in later years.”)
20. For details see Radu Ioanid, The Ransom of the Jews:
The Story of Extraordinary Secret Bargain between
Romania and Israel (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2005), with
an afterword by Pacepa.
21. The Case of the Anti-Soviet Block of Rights andTroskyites, 369-430 Red Star Press (1937).
22. Will Englund, “Ex-Soviet Scientist Says Gorbachev’s
Regime Created New Nerve Gas in ‘91,” Baltimore
Sun, September 16, 1992.
23. J. Michael Waller, “Post-Soviet Sakharov: Renewed
Persecution of Dissident Scientists and the AmericanResponse,” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of PostSoviet Democratization, vol. 2, no. 1 (1994).
24. Lev Fyodorov, “KGB-Led Chemical Weapons CoverUp?,” Crossroads: A Monitor of Post-Soviet Reform,(April 15, 1993) at 4.

CHAPTER 23
1. Solomon Volkov and Dmitri Shostakovich, Testimony:
The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich (Limelight, 2004)
at xxv.
2. Ibid at xxx, 95 (“An artist whose portrait did notresemble the leader disappeared forever. So did thewriter who uses ‘crude words.’”).
3. Moshe Dector, The Profile of Communism, A Fact-byFact Primer (Collier Books, 1961) at 121.
4. M. Swift at 92.
5. Volkov and Shostakovich at xxx-xxxi.
6. M. Swift at 92.
7. Ibid quoting N. Vladimirov, Cultural Facilities in the
USSR, (Moscow, n.d.) p. 26.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid at 93. Trade associations were employed to ensurethat the artists complied with the state’s demands.
The Russian Association of Proletarian Writers(1920–1932) and its “musical” offshoot, the Russian
Association of Proletarian Musicians (1923–1932),
arose as instruments of the cultural policies of theParty. The influence of these unions was almost
overwhelming at the end of the 1920s and into theearly 1930s. They often turned out to be greater
royalists than the king, and were disbanded by Stalin
when he decided that the organizations had served
their function.

Volkov and Shostakovich at 112 (footnote).
10. M. Swift at 198.
11. Volkov and Shostakovich at 255 (suggesting that manyof them had painted portraits of Stalin that displeased
the leader).
12. M. Swift at 198.
13. Leon Harris, The Moscow Circus School 4-5(Kingsport Press, 1970). The nation’s foremost
magician, E.F. Kio, was also praised for having
rejected the bourgeois approach taken by earlier
magicians. Y. Dmitriyev, Kio and His Predecessors in
The Soviet Circus: A Collection of Articles (Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1967).
14. M. Swift at 101.
15. Volkov and Shostakovich at 146.
16. Ibid at 270.
17. Ibid at 80 (footnote) & 95 (Lenin called opera a “pieceof purely upper-class culture.”)18. Ibid at 114, 127 (“Approving programs and lists was ahobby of his.”)19. Ibid at 64. Stalin also banned Shakespeare. Ibid at 87.
20. Ibid at 3-4 (footnote).
21. Ibid at 190. This became a problem when one of thenation’s highest-ranking churchmen, the Metropolitanof Moscow, planned to give a talk on the radio.
The Metropolitan arrived at the radio station andwalked straight up to the microphone. They grabbed
him by the sleeve and pulled him away. “Your
Eminence, where’s the text of the speech?” The
Metropolitan was taken aback. “What speech?” They
began explaining that they meant the…well, not the
speech, but the whatever-you-call-it…. In otherwords, if the Metropolitan was planning to speak
now, where was the approved and signed text?
The Metropolitan, they say, took umbrage and statedthat he never read his sermons from a piece of paper.
This was a scandal; what to do? They asked theMetropolitan to wait a bit and rushed to call thebosses, but no one wanted the responsibility.

Ibid at 191. Eventually, the question made its way up
all the way to Stalin. He decided to let theMetropolitan speak unhindered.
22. M. Swift at 101.
23. Ibid at 149.

24. Ibid at 162-63.
25. Volkov and Shostakovich at xxxvi.
26. Niels C. Nielsen, Solzhenitsyn’s Religion (Nelson,
1975) at 54.
27. Volkov and Shostakovich (photo page facing page 87).
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid at 128.
30. See Ibid at xxxiii.
31. Ibid at 128 (Stalin “livid” about being left out of film),
149.
Stalin loved the movies. It didn’t take long for Stalin
to see every Soviet film made; Stalin had thefollowing aesthetic theory. Of all the pictures
produced, only a small fraction was any good, andeven fewer were masterpieces, because only a few
people were capable of making masterpieces. Stalin
determined who could create a masterpiece and who
couldn’t, and then he decided that bad films weren’t
needed, nor were the good ones. He needed only
masterpieces. If the production of cars and airplanes
could be planned, then why not plan the production
job masterpieces? It’s no more complicated,particularly if you’re dealing with film, since film isalso an industry.

Ibid at 249.
32. Ibid at 249-50.

33. Lauren Weiner, “Where Have All the Lefties Gone?,”First Things, January 2010, at 29, 30 (mentioning Pete
Seeger, Lee Hays, Millard Lampell, Burl Ives, Josh
White, Saul Aarons, Bernie Asbel, Will Geer, andWoody Guthrie).
34. Ibid.
35. Volkov and Shostakovich at 214-15.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid at 215, 316.
39. Ibid at 209. Stalin appreciated the power of the arts tomove people, but he did not really appreciate the talentof the artists. One composer explained: “Stalin used tocall all of us cogs. One cog does not differ fromanother, and cogs can easily replace one another.” Ibid
at 212; see Ibid at 215-16. That mindset is why the
Kremlin had little concern about falsifying writings, bethey poems, folk songs, or plays.
40. M. Swift at 256-57.
41. Ibid at 289-90.
42. Ibid at 291. There were numerous Soviet artists who
regarded the:interference of the Party and State in their art as acolossal nuisance, and who would like nothing morethan to be allowed simply to be artists. However, theSoviet performer is not left alone. Once a Soviet

ballet artist joins a theatrical collective, his in-service
ideological training continues through the theatrical
Komsomol or Party unit if he is a member. His
mentality is further formed by lectures sponsored by
the All-Russian Theatrical Society, by Rabis, or
simply by the talks and discussions which take placein every theatre.

Ibid at 291.
43. Dector, Profile of Communism at 133.
44. M. Swift at 292.

CHAPTER 24
1. M. Swift at 293.
2. David Irving Propagandists’ Poster Boy, AntiDefamation League (2001) <http://www.adl.org>.
3. Gordon Craig, The Germans 72 (New York: G.P.
Putnam’s Sons, 1982).
4. Ibid at 72.
5. Richard Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow 166 (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1989).
6. D.D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York:W.W. Norton, 2001), 46.
7. Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust 111 (NewYork: Free Press, 1993).
8. Ibid at 231.

9. English translation of the Soviet Note of April 25,
1943, severing unilaterally Soviet-Polish diplomatic
relations, published online by the Polish government on
December 19, 2005.
10. Time, May 10, 1968.
11. Declassified Secret Memorandum: Soldiers, to Mr.
John Peck & Sir E. Peck from J.E. Jackson, January 10,
1969 (‘Soldiers’ – IRD Contribution) (citing the
October 22, 1967, edition of Zycie Literackie (LiteraryLife) and an article by Olgierd Terlrcki), reprinted in
Rychlak (2010) at 419.
12. Rainer Taëni, Modern German Authors, Rolf Hochhuth(London: Oswald Wolff, 1977) at 140, 149. Prchal“was vindicated in court and damages were awarded.”David Frost, An Autobiography (New York:
HarperCollins, 1993) at 416. For details on the verdict
against Hochhuth, see “Pilot of General Sikorski’s
Aircraft Claims Libel Damages from German
Playwright,” The Times of London, May 3, 1972, at 3;“£50,000 Award to General Sikorski’s Pilot,” TheTimes of London, May 4, 1972, at 1; “$130,000
Awarded to Pilot for Libel in Hochhuth Play,” NewYork Times, May 4, 1972, at 48. Thompson at 17-18.
13. Martin Esslin, Rolf Hochhuth, in Justin Wintle, Makers
of Modern Culture 233 (New York: Facts on File,1981).
14. Thompson at 112. David Irving sued Thompson overthe book, arguing that the book was libelous, but the
publisher defended by asserting that the allegations
were true. Witnesses signed off on their statements, andIrving dropped the case. He eventually had to pay the
defendants’ costs. He did, however, send an unsigned
note out to British newspapers trying to impugn
Thompson’s character. When asked by the press, headmitted that he had written it and noted that his
initials, “djci,” were at the bottom of the note. Susan
Barnes, “David Irving: Portrait of a Gentleman,” The
Sunday Times Supplement, London, September 6, 1970.
15. As a biographer wrote, he “is not slow to come toconclusions, which he does without fear or favour.”Taëni at 19.
16. Carlos Thompson, an Argentine-born German writerand actor, made his first film at age 16. In the 1950s, he
was the epitome of the Latin lover. Among his movies
were: Valley of the Kings, starring Yvonne de Carlo,
and The Flame and the Flesh, in which he played
opposite Lana Turner. He also starred in El Tunel,based on the novel by the noted Argentine writer
Ernesto Sabato. In 1957, he married writer Lilli Palmer,
the former wife of actor Rex Harrison. Thompson said
that the book “imposed itself” upon him and that
Hochhuth “has only himself to blame for it.”
17. Thompson at 266. Whether it is truly “one big stepfurther” is a matter of debate.

18. Ibid at 134 (statement of Prince Lubomirski).
19. Ibid at 149. See Harry de Quetteville, “Did British
double agent Kim Philby murder Polish war hero
General Sikorski?,” London Telegraph, July 1, 2008.
20. Thompson at 192.
21. Ibid at 193.
22. Ibid at 133 (statement of General Marian Kukiel).
Thompson reported that one of Hochhuth’s main
shortcomings was that he was so busy ‘knowing’ that
he did not have the time or the energy to travel a bit
and find out what was really what. Ibid at 125.
Thompson continues: All humour aside, this symptom
promised anything but laughs. Colonel John
Codrington of the British Intelligence said:
Hochhuth says that Intelligence killed Sikorski. Well
if that is the case, then you are talking to the man who
would have done the job. I was Assistant Chief ofStaff to Governor Mason Macfarlane. I was in chargeof Military Intelligence. I repeat, if we had arranged
to kill Sikorski, I would have been the one to do it.

Ibid at 287. Codrington said: Hochhuth simply doesn’tknow what he is talking about. Ibid at 278.
23. Ibid at 95.
24. Ibid at 100.
25. Ibid at 101.
26. Ibid at 130. When asked about Hochhuth’s claims that

witnesses were faking amnesia, Kukiel called it a silly
invention. He added: I am sorry that such a good writeras David Irving should allow himself to be dragged into
Hochhuth’s theory.)
27. Ibid at 213.
28. Ibid at 214.
29. Time, May 10, 1968.
30. Prof. Dr. Wolfram Wette, “Der Fall Filbinger” (The
Filbinger Case), lecture on September 14, 2003,
wettewolfr@aol.com.
31. German Wikipedia, Rolf Hochhuth,<http://de.wikipedia.org>.
32. David Irving, Confidential Draft of Memoirs, 156<http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/memoirs/prison_1.html>.
33. Ibid at 156.
34. As Thompson related to one of the witnesses heinterviewed:
Hochhuth’s obsession is that both Irving and myself
will be killed any day now by a secret organization
which he calls The Old Firm, which is run, so he told
me in Zurich, by a retired British General. In fact,
he’s said to me that Sikorski’s murderers are “all still
active” and bumping off people with taxis in thestreets of London, or pushing them under trams andbuses.

Thompson at 90. Hochhuth also feared that the British

were spying on him. Ibid at 92.
35. When Thompson decided to do further investigationthat might reveal Hochhuth’s fabrications, Hochhuth
called Thompson’s wife and said that Thompson’s life
was in danger. Ibid at 77, 85-86. Thompson did notknow whether Hochhuth believed the threat was real or
it was just a ploy designed to stop him from carryingout further investigation.
36. T. Feitknecht, K. Lüssi, Ein Spannungsreiches
Vierteljahrhundert: Der Briefwechsel Rolf
Hochhuth/Golo Mann (German book collecting
correspondence between Hochhuth and Mann).

CHAPTER 25
1. See Rychlak (2010) at 272-73 (transcript of Wolff’s
testimony).
2. See generally Dan Kurzman, A Special Mission:
Hitler’s Secret Plot to Seize the Vatican and Kidnap
Pope Pius XII (Perseus Book Group, 2007); Rychlak,
Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2000) at 265 (quoting
Wolff’s testimony on the subject).
3. While visiting Rome in April 2010, coauthor Rychlak
was shown a copy of the minutes of the meeting that
Pius XII had with the Curia in which he set forth plans
for what should happen if the Nazis were to kidnap

him.
4. Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen 374-79(New York: Random House, 2005).
5. See The Black Book of Communism.
6. Ivan Serov, Wikipedia, September 10, 2009.
7. John Barron, Breaking the Ring (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1987), at 318.
8. Benjamin B. Fischer, The Katyn Controversy: Stalin’s
Killing Field, Central Intelligence Agency, Center of
the Study of Intelligence, CSI publications, Winter1990.
9. Hochhuth (1964) at 125-140.
10. Ibid at 348.
11. Andrew and Mitrokhin at 91-92, 102, 146, 165.
12. Wikipedia, Arvid Harnack, May 26, 2010.
13. Patricia Marx, An Interview with Rolf Hochhuth,
Partisan Review, vol. 31, no. 3, Summer 1964, 368,
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 52-65.
14. Carlos Thompson, in his book The Assassination of
Winston Churchill (Gerards Cross: Colin Smyth, 1968),
describes his extensive research in an effort to identify
Hochhuth’s alleged sources for the material uponwhich his Soldiers was based, the retired British
Intelligence man and the Polish lady. Thompson
convincingly concludes they probably did not exist.
15. Patricia Marx, An Interview with Rolf Hochhuth,Partisan Review, vol. 31, no. 3, Summer 1964, 368,
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 52-65
16. See Bittman at 77 (Soviets sent money to pro-Moscow
publishing houses).
17. Ibid at 177.
18. The Storm over the Deputy at 13. See also Taëni at 14(more in accord with Piscator’s account).
19. Erwin Piscator’s introduction to The Deputy in theGerman edition published by Rowohlt, Hamburg, 1963;
translation by Clara Mayer published in The Storm over
The Deputy, 11.
20. The Storm over The Deputy at 14-15.
21. Ibid at 14.
22. German Wikipedia, Erwin Piscator, September 19,
2009.
23. Taëni at 14. See ibid at 20 (“It really is doubtful
whether The Representative would ever have seen thelight of day if it had not come into the hands of such a
famous producer as Erwin Piscator”); Ibid at 135(similar).
24. Ward at 17 (“I have learned that the poet always mustbe active in politics. That he is always responsible. The
Deputy is politics”).
25. Willett at 180.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid at 182.

28. In the play’s afterword, Hochhuth admitted that “theaction does not follow the historical course of eventsand I allowed my imagination free play.” Hochhuth(1964) at 287, 348.
29. See Sidney F. Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for theStage: A Look at the Major Productions of The
Deputy,” 28 Educational Theatre Journal 347.
30. Robert P. Lockwood, “Deconstructing The Deputy,”
Catalyst, June 2000. Lockwood explains:
For the most part, this was based on the pope’s
opposition to the Allied demand for unconditional
German surrender. He believed such a demand would
only continue the horror of the war and increase thekilling. That stand was later interpreted as a desire on
the pontiff’s part to maintain a strong Germany as abulwark against communism. Hochhuth’s charge ofpapal silence fit that revisionist theory.

31. “The characterization of Pacelli as a money-grubbing
hypocrite is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous.
Importantly, however, Hochhuth’s play offends themost basic criteria of documentary: that such stories
and portrayals are valid only if they are demonstrably
true. Cornwell (1999) at 375.
32. Ward at 38 (calling this “the most striking example” of
Hochhuth’s “departure from ‘Realism’” and noting that
Hochhuth rejected the Mengele comparison).
33. Leo Kerz, “Brecht and Piscator,” 20:3 Educational

Theatre Journal 363, 369 (October 1968) (Kerz was
the set and lighting designer and the recipient of theletter).
34. “Hochhuth does what no man can do; he inserts himself
into the mind of Pius and draws only the worst
conclusions. He is guilty of the worst kind of
McCarthyism, and only the staggering immensity of his
charge has kept people from seeing this fact.” JamesO’Gara, “The Real Issue,” Commonweal, February 28,
1964, reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 219,
221. Twenty-five years after Piscator’s production,
German director Claus Peymann (known for “a radical
style which had its roots in the political dreams of thelate sixties”) produced The Deputy in Austria tocoincide with a visit by Pope John Paul II. Peymannsaid that he did not like the play, but he produced it as apolitical challenge. Gitta Honegger, “Tales from theImperial City,” 11:2 Performing Arts Journal 45, 50(1988).
35. See “Reviews,” XII:2 World Theatre 140 (Summer
1963) (“somewhere between a spoken report withscenes of great realism… and a fast paced discussion”).
The review went on to note the difficulty of producing
the play “from a text which if performed in total would
have lasted six or seven hours.” Ibid.; Sidney F.
Parham, “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage: A Look at
the Major Productions of ‘The Deputy,’” 28:3

Educational Theatre Journal 347, 353 (Oct., 1976)(“How then should we judge Hochhuth as aplaywright? The formal shape of his script suggests that
he wishes to be judged by traditional dramaticstandards, and by these standards one cannot speak
well of him”).
36. Lest this discussion be taken as trying to diminish
Piscator’s unquestioned talent as a director, thispassage from the set designer for the Berlin productionof The Deputy is worthy of consideration:
Piscator’s production of The Deputy, apart frombecoming the biggest postwar theatre event andbecause of it, started a debate which affected andrevised the views of philosophers, clergy, politicians,
and historians in every corner of the world. It touched
upon the conscience of the Catholic Church and,without a doubt, influenced what happened at the last
Ecumenical Council. Piscator had caught up with
Brecht and proved that the theatre can contribute to
the shaping of history as well as being shaped byhistory.

Leo Kerz, “Brecht and Piscator,” 20:3 Educational
Theatre Journal 363 (October 1968).

CHAPTER 26
1. Reprinted in Crankshaw at 559-618.

2. Harry Schwartz, “We know now that he was a giant
among men,” New York Times, September 12, 1971.
3. Barron at 313-19.
4. Ibid at 318.

CHAPTER 27
1. Victor L. Simpson, Italian Panel: Soviets Behind thePope Attack, Associated Press, March 2, 2006;
Freemantle at 107-08; Koehler at 116-22. In 2009
journalist and former army intelligence officer John
Koehler published Spies in the Vatican: The Soviet
Union’s Cold War against the Catholic Church. Using
mainly East German and Polish secret police archives,
Koehler concluded that the attempt was “KGBbacked.”
2. In 2006, the Mitrokhin Commission (an Italianparliamentary commission set up to investigate alleged
KGB ties to opposition figures in Italian politics)
supported once again the Bulgarian theory. The
commission reported that “leaders of the former Soviet
Union were behind the assassination attempt,” andalleged that “the leadership of the Soviet Union took
the initiative to eliminate Pope John Paul” because of
his support for Solidarity. “Soviets Had Pope Shot for
Backing Solidarity,” Daily Telegraph, March 3, 2006.

3. Weigel offers little new information regarding Soviet
involvement in the 1981 assassination attempt, but hedoes note that most Poles and many close friends of thepope felt that the Soviets were not innocent. He also
makes clear that Western democracies did not lookvery hard; they were afraid of what they would find.
See also George Weigel, “All War All the Time,” First
Things, April 2011, at 34.
4. The dishonesty was uncovered by Prof. RobertGorman, who presented a paper on this topic at the
October 2001 meeting of the Society of Catholic Social
Scientists.
5. Thomas Merton, Dancing in the Water of Life (SanFrancisco: Harper, 1998), 84.
6. “Vatican Chronicles: A Different Read,” Brill’sContent, April 2000, at 60, 120.
7. Pacepa, Red Horizons, second edition, pictures
following page 206.
8. John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Fight to reveal thesecrets that threaten the Vatican, The (London) Sunday
Times, September 12, 1999. See also Rychlak (2010) at
282, 428, 430-431.
9. See Rychlak (2000) (epilogue).
10. Marx interview, reprinted in The Storm over The
Deputy at 54-55. In another interview, Hochhuth said
that in 1958, while he was working on the Gersteinstory, the West German newspapers and radio suddenly“declared that a holy man had died,” and Hochhuth
commented that, “the Germans loved Pius …and theycalled him the German Pope.” Judy Stone interview,
reprinted in The Storm over The Deputy at 49-50.
11. Rychlak (2000) at 292-293, 435.
12. Cornwell (2008) at XII.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.

CHAPTER 28
1. Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit.
2. Carroll, Constantine’s Sword.
3. Zuccotti, Under His Very Window.
4. Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust.
5. Kertzer’s The Popes against the Jews is highly
dependent on the work of Italian scholar Giovanni
Miccoli. Justus George Lawler recently completed amanuscript (Working title: Were the Popes against the
Jews?) that dissects Kertzer’s arguments.
6. Wistrich (2002).
7. Cornwell, Breaking Faith.
8. Katz, The Battle for Rome. See also Katz, Black
Sabbath; Katz, Massacre in Rome.

9. Goldhagen (2002).
10. Zuccotti somehow tries to diminish this intervention byreporting that it “should be described not as an official
diplomatic protest of the roundup but as a desperate
plea for Weizsäcker’s intervention to save the victims.”
Under His Very Windows at 160.
11. See Day at 22 (listing him among the anti-Nazi German
leaders who were willing to risk their lives to topple theregime).
12. Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows at 159; cf. Notes duCardinal Maglione, October 16, 1943, Actes etDocuments, vol. 9, page 505, no. 368. Even critic
James Carroll gave Maglione’s entire text in his book,
Constantine’s Sword, at 525-526.
13. Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows at 103. Zuccotti
accused Valeri of manufacturing papal interventions onbehalf of the Jews. See also Blet at 234-35.
14. Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows at 63.
15. Summi Pontificatus, para. 48. See Rychlak (2010).
16. See, e.g., Daniel J. Goldhagen, “What Would Jesus
Have Done?,” The New Republic, January 21, 2002.
17. David Dalin, “Pius XII and the Jews,” The Weekly
Standard, February 26, 2001, at 31-39. See also Ronald
J. Rychlak, “Misusing History to Influence the Future,”
Forum Focus (Summer 2002).
18. The origin of this story seems to be in the followingstatement: There is finally the report that in the months
preceding his death he was given Hochhuth’s play The
Deputy to read and then was asked what one could doagainst it. Whereupon he allegedly replied: “Do against
it? What can you do against the truth?” Hannah Arendt,
Men in Dark Times 63 (New York: Harcourt Brace,1968).
19. Felicity O’Brien, Letter to the Editor, The CatholicTimes [Manchester, England], July 20, 1997.
20. Private correspondence from Loris Francesco Capovillato the relator of Pius XII’s sainthood cause, dated May
18, 2002.
With regard to the actions in favor of the Jews,
affected particularly in Istanbul in the years 1935–
1944, which was recognized and praised by Hebrew
communities in Jerusalem, Istanbul, and the UnitedStates, it is obligatory to recognize that Roncalli wasand declared himself the executor of the thought andthe directives of Pius XII. He repeated, in fact: The
papal representative is the eye, the ear, the mouth, theheart and the effective hand of the Pope.

Ibid. Capovilla also said that Roncalli’s rescue efforts
on behalf of Jews make sense only if they are referredabove everything else to Pius XII, of whom Roncalli
was the careful and most faithful interpreter. Any
strictly personal action, even though it be heroic, ofRoncalli himself, would otherwise be inconceivable.

Ibid.
21. McGurn at 99.
22. Pius died on October 9, 1958. Pope John XXIII knelt inprayer before Pius XII’s tomb on the ninth of eachmonth. The New Catholic Treasury of Wit and Humor
193-94 (New York: Meredith Press, 1968, Paul
Bussard, ed.).
23. John XXIII, Discorsi vol. I, p. 101.
24. McGurn at 36, 39.
25. Discorsi I, at 101; Days of Devotion at 12 (“PopeJohn’s programme and its concern for the modern
world naturally enough found much of its inspiration inPope John’s predecessor under whom he served for 19
years, and from whom came much of the intellectual
foundation on which the Council is built. No one wasmore generous in acknowledging this debt than PopeJohn himself.”)
26. John Cornwell, “Hitler’s Pope: The fight to reveal thesecrets that threaten the Vatican,” The Sunday Times(London), Sept. 12, 1999, at l.
27. Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2000 (online edition).
28. Ibid. In The Pontiff in Winter, Cornwell refers to his
own inside-the-Vatican, deep throat: Monsignor Sotto
Voce. Taking Cornwell at his word, and accepting his
description of Monsignor Sotto Voce, The Pontiff in
Winter is based upon an “inside account” from adisgruntled and burned-out Vatican official who trades
secrets for a good meal and a couple of bottles of wine.
The great advantage for Cornwell, of course, is that thislets him write almost anything, and unlike Hitler’sPope, no one can prove it is false. It is very similar toclaims made by Hochhuth in the 1960s.
29. “Pope Stared Down Communism in Homeland,”
CBCNEWS, April 2005
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/obit/pope/communism_homeland.html
30. See Ronald J. Rychlak, “Guess Who’s Back?,” Catalyst(Jan.-Feb. 2002) (reviewing Breaking Faith); Ronald J.
Rychlak, “A Broken Faith: John Cornwell’s New
Book,” St. Austin Review, July/August 2002.
31. Cornwell presented the excommunication of Sri
Lankan theologian Fr. Tissa Balasuriya as an exampleof the harshness of John Paul’s “authoritarian rule.”
Balasuriya was excommunicated for theologicalaberrations, barely mentioned by Cornwell, that
included the assertion that Christianity is on the samelevel as other religions, the denial of the virgin birth ofChrist, and the rejection of the Holy Trinity. See
Ronald J. Rychlak & Fr. Kevin Slattery, “A Clear-Cut
Case for Excommunication,” New Oxford Review,
April 1997. Cornwell used the excommunication toargue that John Paul was insensitive and out-of-touchwith the modern world. He did not, however, evenmention the extended negotiations between Balasuriya

and the Vatican that preceded the excommunication.
More incredibly, he failed to mention that one year
after the excommunication was imposed, it was lifted.
At that time, Balasuriya signed a statement expressing
regret for perceptions of error in his work and agreed tosubmit future writings to bishops for approval prior to
publication. This resolution to the matter, unknown tomost readers of Breaking Faith, severely undercuts
Cornwell’s thesis and his credibility!
32. He has not hidden his disappointment with Pope
Benedict XVI: “The Pope is emerging as an ultrareactionary.” John Cornwell, Profile: Pope Benedict
XVI, New Statesman, February 12, 2009. In an exampleof trying to change the past, Cornwell presents himself
as a great fan of Pope John Paul II, contrasting the late
Pope to Benedict XVI.
33. Similarly, James Carroll’s resolution to this history, as
set forth in Constantine’s Sword (pages 555-58),
involves the convening of Vatican III, at which (inaddition to rejection of papal infallibility, ordination of
women, election of bishops, and relaxation of sexualrules) the Church would acknowledge errors in thegospels, learn to preach against those errors, and reject
the belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
34. Alan Cowell, “Demonstrators and Devout Greet thePope in Germany,” New York Times, June 24, 1996,
section A; page 3.

35. Arnaldo Cortesi, “Cardinals Irked by Soviet Charge,”
New York Times, October 20, 1958.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Catholic Star Herald, July 7, 2010.

CHAPTER 29
1. Max Holland, The Kennedy Assassination Tapes (NewYork: Knopf, 2004), pp. 94-96.
2. Ibid., p. 99.
3. Ibid., pp.148-149.
4. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
Report, p. 99.
5. Andrew and Gordievsky, p. 462.
6. Barron, Breaking the Ring, pp. 148, 212.
7. Epstein, Legend, p. 71.
8. Warren Commission (WC) Report, p. 390.
9. Ibid., p. 256.
10. Edward J. Epstein, Legend: The Secret World of Lee
Harvey Oswald (New York: Reader’s Digest Press,
1978), pp. 72-73.
11. Ibid., pp. 77-79.
12. WC Report, p. 684.

13. Donovan testimony, WC Vol. 8, pp. 289-303.
14. Epstein, Legend, pp. 85-86.
15. Ibid., p. 89.
16. Francis Gary Powers, with Curt Gentry, Operation
Overflight: The U-2 spy pilot tells his story for the firsttime (New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1970), p. 357.
17. Warren Commission Exhibit (WCE), 315.
18. Powers, pp. 99-111.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., p. 118.
21. David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The U-2 Affair (NewYork: Random House, 1962), p. 54.
22. “George de Mohrenschildt,” Spartacus Educational,<http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm

CHAPTER 30
1. This event was reported on at length in the official
Romanian newspaper, Scinteia, October 24, 1962, p. 1.
2. William Hyland and Richard Wallace Shyrock, The
Fall of Khrushchev (New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1986), p. 56.
3. Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers: The Last
Testament, translated and edited by Strobe Talbot(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974), pp. 83-84.

(This is the second volume of Khrushchev’s memoirs
and will henceforth be referred to as Khrushchev II.)
4. Khrushchev I, p. 338.
5. Ibid., p. 392.
6. Documents on International Affairs: 1957 (London:
Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1960), p. 39.
7. Joseph L. Nogee and Robert H. Donaldson, Soviet
Foreign Policy Since World War II (New York:
Pergamon Press, 1984), p. 121.
8. David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The U-2 Affair (NewYork: Random House, 1962), pp. 57-58.
9. Arnold L. Horelick and Myron Rush, Strategic Powerand Soviet Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1966), p. 43.
10. Khrushchev II, p. 533.
11. PBS, Khrushchev’s biography, <http://www.pbs.org>.
12. Sergei N. Khrushchev, Nikita Khrushchev and theCreation of a Superpower (Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2000).

CHAPTER 31
1. Alex von Tunzelmann, “Oliver Stone’s JFK: A basket
case for conspiracy,” The Guardian, April 28, 2011.
2. Barron, KGB, p. 430.

3. Warren Commission Exhibit 2486.
4. Testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine, Warren Commission
Vol. 3, pp. 12-13.
5. Warren Commission Exhibit 1400.
6. Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Marina and Lee (NewYork: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 496.
7. Epstein, Legend, p. 16.
8. HSCA Report, p. 151.
9. Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy(New York: Basic Books, 1993) p. 394.
10. HSCA Report, p. 152.

CHAPTER 32
1. Max Holland, “How Moscow Undermined the Warren
Commission,” Washington Decoded, March 30, 2007,<www.washingtondecoded.com>.
2. “Book Review: The Mitrokhin Archive and the secrethistory of the KGB,” New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/andrewsword.html.
3. Biography of Joachim Joesten,
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/Joesten/Joestenbio.html
4. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 226227.

5. Max Holland, “How Moscow Undermined.”
6. Attributed to Armand Moss, Information,
Disinformation, pp. 93 ff.
7. Perlo’s review was found athttps://www.createspace.com/3998409.
8. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, 275.
9. Jesse E. Curry, Retired Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry
Reveals His Personal JFK Assassination File, Selfpublished, 1969, p. 74, affidavit of Dallas police officer
Thurber T. Lord on August 20, 1964.
10. Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, Spies, 271-272.
11. “I.F. Stone on the Kennedy Assassination,” December
9, 1963,<Spartacus.schoolnet.co.UK/USAStoneW.htm>.
12. I. F. Stone, “What Some People Have Forgotten About
God’s ‘Deputy,’” I. F. Stone’s Weekly (March 9, 1964),
reprinted in The Storm over the Deputy, 234.
13. Judy Stone, “Interview with Rolf Hochhuth,”Ramparts, Spring 1964, reprinted in The Storm over the
Deputy, 42.
14. Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The
Assassination of President Kennedy (New York:
Norton, 2007), p. 1000.
15. Ibid., 1012-1013.
16. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 228229.

17. Brian Latell, Castro’s Secrets (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2012), 103, 215-216.
18. Latell, 138-141.
19. John Barron, Operation Solo: The FBI’s Man in the
Kremlin (Washington: Regnery, 1995), passim.
20. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, 287289.
21. Latell, 204-205.
22. Ibid., 141-144.
23. “How Powers’s plane was shot down,”<http://www.webslivki.com/u11.html> (Russian).
24. Sergey Khrushchev, “The Day We Shot Down the U-2:
Nikita Khrushchev’s son remembers a great turning
point of the Cold War, as seen from behind the Iron
Curtain,” American Heritage Magazine, Volume 51,
Issue 5.
25. Morton Kelly, “Gary Powers and the U-2 incident,”
About.com.guide, American History, published as<http://americanhistory.about.com/od/coldwar/a/gary_powers.htm

CHAPTER 33
1. Oriana Fallaci, Interviste con la Storia, quoted in Claire
Sterling, The Terror Network 114 (New York: Reader’sDigest Press, 1981).
2. For addition information see Ion Mihai Pacepa,

“Russian Footprints,” National Review Online, August21, 2006.
3. Craig R. Whitney, “East’s Archives Reveal Ties to
Terrorists,” New York Times, July 15, 1990, at 6.
4. John O. Koehler, Stasi: The Untold Story of the East
German Secret Police 324 (Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, 1999).
5. Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), the Office for
the Protection of the Constitution.
6. Craig R. Whitney, “East’s Archives Reveal Ties to
Terrorists,” New York Times, July 15, 1990, at 6.
7. Ibid.
8. Christian Schmidt-Häuer, Gorbachev: The Path toPower (London: I. B. Tauris, 1987), p. 64.
9. Boris Yeltsin: A biography of the former Russian
President, University of Indiana (Internet edition).

CHAPTER 34
1. John Lloyd, “The Russian Devolution,” New YorkTimes Magazine, August 15, 1999, p. 38.
2. Richard Lourie, “Who Stole Russia?,” The Washington
Post Book World, October 15, 2000, p. 3.
3. Luke Harding, “The richer they come … Can Russia’s
oligarchs keep their billions - and their freedom?,” The
Guardian, July 1, 2007.

4. “Could it lead to fascism?,” The Economist, July 11,
1998, U.S. Edition, p. 19.
5. “The Perils of Catching Cold,” Time, December 1997,
p. 38.
6. “Can the crisis end in a coup?,” Nezavisimaya Gazyeta,
July 7, 1998, p. 1.
7. Barry Renfrew, “Boris Yeltsin Resigns,” Washington
Post, December 31, 1999.
8. Ibid., p. 3.
9. Ariel Cohen, “End of the Yeltsin Era,” Washington
Times, January 3, 2000.
10. John Lloyd, “The Logic of Vladimir Putin,” New YorkTimes Magazine, March 19, 2000, p. 65.
11. Celestine Bohlen, “Putin Tells Why He Became aSpy,” New York Times, March 11, 2000 (Internet
edition).
12. Arnold Beichman, Hoover Institution, “Prologue for
Putin,” Washington Times, January 10, 2000.
13. Helle Bering, “Totalitarian Wannabes,” Washington
Times, March 9, 2000.
14. Ibid.
15. Putin rocked Russians with ruthlessness, Agence
France Presse, December 31, 1999,<www.rense.com/politics6/ruthless.htm>.
16. Ibid.

17. Robert G. Kaiser, “Russia’s Enigmatic President,”
Washington Post, October 15, 2000, p. B3.
18. Anna Dolgov, “Book Called Propaganda for Putin,”
Associated Press, September 29, 2000.
19. Robert G. Kaiser, “Russia’s Enigmatic President,”
Washington Post, October 15, 2000, p. B3.
20. Russian government spokesman denies Putin
personality cult, June 25, 2002, RIA news agency,
Moscow, as published by Center for Defense
Information.
21. John Lloyd, “The Logic of Vladimir Putin,” New YorkTimes Magazine, March 19, 2000, p. 65.
22. Giles Whittel, “Putin lines up old KGB pals to run
Kremlin,” The Times, London, February 14, 2000.
23. Ibid.
24. “Putin strengthens Kremlin’s power,” BBC News
Online, World: Europe, May 14, 2000.
25. David Hoffman, “Russian Security Service Revived
under Putin,” Washington Post, December 8, 2000.
26. Kathy Lally, “Pardons turn rare in Putin’s Russia,” The
Sun, Baltimore, June 14, 2001, p. 1.
27. Michael R. Gordon, “Putin, in a Rare Interview, Says
He’ll Use Ex-K.G.B. Aides to Root Out Graft,” NewYork Times, March 24, 2000.
28. Details about Roman Malinovsky’s activity as a
deepcover Okhrana officer can be found in RobertConquest, Stalin: Breaker of Nations (New York:Viking, Penguin Group, 1991), pp. 47, 50, 51, 82.
29. Mikhalkov made no secret of being a critic of thedissident writer Aleksander Solzhenitsyn and of Boris
Pasternak, the author of Doctor Zhivago. Mikhalkov
also let it be known that he still admired Stalin.
30. “Russians tune up for Soviet-style start of the New
Year,” Agence France Presse, Moscow, December 31,
2000.
31. “An American in Russia,” Washington Times, editorial,
December 18, 2000.
32. Ibid at 2.
33. Editorial, “Russia’s Spy Trials,” Washington Post,
March 14, 2001, p. 24.
34. Ibid.
35. Bradley Cook, “Putin: The Inside Story,”
NewsMax.com, March 24, 2000
<www.newsmax.com>.
36. Andrew Meier, “The Big Chill,” Time Europe, June 26,
2000, vol. 155 No. 25.

CHAPTER 35
1. David Harsanyi, “The United Nations’ War Against
Israel,” Capitalism Magazine, May 27, 2002
<published on http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?

ID=1617>.
2. Frida Ghitis, “Yearning for a seat at the U.N.’s table,”
Philadelphia Inquirer, July 16, 2004.
3. “The U.N.’s record vis a vis Israel,” News: Facts &Info Reference Desk
www.israelnationalnews.com/english/newspaper/ondisplay/ref/un
israel.htm.
4. “Duma Deputy calls for the Extermination of all Jews
in Russia,” November 10, 1998,<www.fsumonitor.com>.
5. Jean Mackenzie, “Anti-Semitism is resurfacing in
Russia,” Boston Globe, November 8, 1998,<www.russialist.org/2466.html>.
6. Text of the US Senate letter, including signatures listed
alphabetically, published at<www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/98
7. “New racism declaration unveiled,”
CNN.com/WORLD, September 4, 2001.
8. Reuters, “Mandela urges fight against racist‘contagion,’” New York Times, September 1, 2001.
9. Pamela Constable, “U. S., Israel Quit Forum on
Racism,” Washington Post, September 4, 2001.
10. Betsy Pisik, “U. S. walks out of conference on racism,”
Washington Times, September 4, 2001.
11. Rich Lowry, “Setting standards to cope with Arafat,”
Washington Times, March 23, 2002.

12. Charles Krauthammer, “Me thinks thou do protest too
much,” Townhall.com, November 23, 2001.
13. Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Militant Islam’s ambuscade,”
Washington Times, Nov. 1, 2001.
14. Damon Johnston, “New York survivor’s son turns
traitor,” The Courier-Mail, November 10, 2001.
15. Nick Fielding, “Encyclopedia of Terror,” The Sunday
Times, November 4, 2001.

CHAPTER 36
1. Stella Rimington, “‘Humint’ Begins at Home,” WallStreet Journal, January 3, 2005.
2. Ben Shapiro, “Keep an eye on Russia,” Townhall.com,
August 23, 2002.
3. George F. Will, “Israel’s best defense,” Washington
Post, August 15, 2010, p. A13.
4. “Iran will build uranium enrichment centers, nuclear
chief says,” CNN wire, August 16, 2010.
5. Zhou Enlai was born into a Mandarin family and wassent to study in France (1922-24), where he caught thecommunist virus and established the Paris-based
Chinese Communist Youth Group in 1924.
6. William Taubman, Khrushchev vs. Mao: A Preliminary
Sketch of the Role of Personality in the Sino-Soviet
Split, Cold War International History Project Bulletin

(Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, Winter 1996-97), p. 243.
7. Yang Zheng, China’s Nuclear Arsenal, National
University of Singapore, March 6, 1996<http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/ch-war.htm>.

CHAPTER 37
1. Douglas J. Brown, “Chekists Around the World
Celebrate 9/11,” NewsMax.com, September 19, 2002
<www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/18/170000.shtml
2. Putin admits Russia’s anti-Semitism, AFP Daily
Dispatch, February 3, 2005.
3. Luke Harding, “Putin, the Kremlin power struggle andthe $40bn fortune,” The Guardian, December 21, 2007.
4. Ibid.
5. Adrian Blomfield, “Israel humbled by arms from Iran,”
The Telegraph, August 15, 2006.
6. Paul Weitz, “Hezbollah, Already a Capable Military
Force, Makes Full Use of Civilian Shields and Media
Manipulation,” JINSA Online, August 12, 2006.
7. Ya Libnan, “Hezbollah confirms its cell members
escaped Egyptian jails,” February 3, 2011<http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/02/03/hezbollahconfirms-its-cell-members-escaped-egyptian-jails>.
8. The Brotherhood, or Muslim Brotherhood, is anIslamic fundamentalist organization whose slogan is“Islam is the solution.” Its “General Strategic Goal for
the Group in North America” makes its objectives
clear: “The process of settlement is a ‘CivilizationJihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan
must understand that their work in America is a kind of
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers sothat it is eliminated and God’s religion is madevictorious over all other religions.”
9. “Hizbullah Breaks 22 Terrorists out of Egyptian Jail,”
Virtual Jerusalem, February 4, 2011,<http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=2512:hizbullahbreaks-22-terrorists-out-of-egyptianjail&catid=1:headlines&Itemid=2512>.
10. “Hezbollah Chief Praises Tunisian, Egyptian
Protesters, yaLIBNAN,” February 7, 2011,<http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/02/07/hezbollahchief-praises-tunisian-egyptian-protests-attacks-us/>.
11. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information
Center, formerly The Intelligence and Terrorism
Information Center, is an Israeli NGO. It was renamed
in honor of Meir Amit, who served as Director of the
Mossad from 1963 to 1968. The Center is directed byformer Military Intelligence officer, Dr. ReuvenEhrlich. The center is often regarded as being the“public face of Israeli intelligence.”
12. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “The Arafat I Knew,” Wall Street
Journal, January 12, 2002.
13. “Speech of numbers,” Peace for Israel, January 5, 2003
(published on http://israel.wz.cz/numbers.html).
14. Thomas L. Friedman, “The New Math,” New YorkTimes, op-ed, January 15, 2002, p. A23.
15. Yevgenia Albats, The KGB: The State Within a State
23 (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994).
16. See generally Goldfarb and Litvinenko; Cowell; UKwants to try Russian for Litvinenko murder, The
Guardian, January 26, 2007.
17. Daniel McGrory, and Tony Halpin, (20 January 2007).
“Police match image of Litvinenko’s real assassin withhis death-bed description,” London Times Online.
18. “Russian faces Litvinenko charge,” BBC News, May
22, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6678887.stm,(retrieved May 22, 2007).
19. “Wrap: Lugovoi says innocent, Berezovsky behind
Litvinenko murder,” Moscow: RIA Novosti, August 29,
2007,<http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070829/75649246.html>,(accessed March 16, 2010).
20. “Ivan Safronov was killed: Prosecutor begins aninvestigation of ‘incitement to suicide,’”Kommersant.ru, March 6, 2007.
21.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russ
22. Seamus Martin, “Russian Patriarch was KGB agent,
Files Say,” The Irish Times, September 23, 2000 as
published on www.orthodox.net/russia/2000-09-23irish-times.html.
23. “Russian Orthodox Church chooses between ‘ex-KGB
candidates’ as patriarch,” TimesOnline, January 26,
2009. Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and theShield.

CHAPTER 38
1. Mark Lilla, The Politics of Jacques Derrida, The New
York Reviews of Books, June 25, 1998 (Internet
edition).
2. Waller R. Newell, Postmodern Jihad: What Osama bin
Laden learned from the Left, The Weekly Standard,
November 26, 2001, p. 26
3. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (London:
Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 28.
4. David Pryce-Jones, Evil Empire, the Communist ‘hot,smart book of the moment,’ National Review Online,
September 17, 2001.
5. Statement Against the U.S. war on Iraq and for thepeaceful solution of the problem, December 14, 2002.
6. Announcement of WPC Secretariat, December 14,
2002.
7. Statement Against the U.S. war on Iraq and for thepeaceful solution of the problem, December 14, 2002.
8. World Demands Regime Change in Washington,
Workers World.org, Newstand date April 10, 2003,
Vol. 45, No. 14.
9. Presidency 2000, Politics1, as published onwww.politics1.com.
10. About Workers World, as published on
www.workers.org.
11. Largest anti-war rally, Guinness Book of Records,
2004.
12. A complete list of “Coalition Co-signers” can be foundon the Internet.
13. Transportation/local event inquiries,<www.internationalanswer.org/campaign/a12transp.html
14. “Schroeder attacked over gas post,” BBC News.
December 10, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4515914.stm.
15. Gerhard Schroeder’s Sellout,” Washington Post.
December 13, 2005.
16. Dunphy, Harry (13 June 2007). “Lantos Raps Former
European Leaders,” Associated Press,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-

13-2870151492_x.htm.

CHAPTER 39

1. Statement of John F. Kerry before the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, p.
2. www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?
ref=document/kerry200404231047.asp.
2. Clifford D. May, “Side Show,” National Review On
Line, April 28, 2004.
3. Marvin E. Gettleman, Vietnam and America: A
Documented History, New York: Grove Press, 1985, p.
54.
4. Joseph Libermann, “Democrats and Our Enemies,”
Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2008.
5. David Horowitz, “Stab in the Back,” FrontPage
Magazine, February 12, 2004.
6. Doug Donovan, “O’Malley Takes the Heat for
Remarks about Bush,” Baltimore Sun, July 1, 2004.
7. “They want four more years of hell,” Teresa Heintz
Kerry, responding to a Bush supporter yelling ‘four
more years’ at a Democratic rally in Missouri,” TIME,
Special Report, August 16, 2004, p.19.
8. Robert Amsterdam, Obama and McCain Fumble
Russian Debate, October 9, 2008<http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/10/obama_and_mccain_9. Stéphane Courtois, Le Livre Noir du communisme:
Crimes, terreur, répression (Ėdition Robert Laffont,Paris, 1997), pp. 258-264.
10. Harry de Quetteville and Andrew Pierce, Russia
threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile
shield deal, Telegraph.co.uk, August 15, 2008.
11. The digits are the last digits of the postal code, and thename is that of the nearest big city; that was a common
practice of giving names to closed towns.
12. Murray Feshbach, “The Toxic Archipelago in theFormer U.S.S.R, An Empire of Deadly Waste,”
Washington Post, July 11, 1993, p. C1.
13. http://www.answers.com/topic/reset
14. Gary B. Nash, Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Allen
F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, and Carla
Gardina Pestana, The American People, Concise
Edition Creating a Nation and a Society, combined
volume, 6th Edition (New York, Longman, 2007).
15. Elizabeth E. Spalding, The First Cold Warrior: Harry
Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal
Internationalism 1 (University Press of Kentucky,2006).
16. The American Committee for Freedom for the Peoplesof the USSR was started in 1951, and its broadcast
station became known as Radio Liberty. For more on
VOA during this period, see David F. Krugler, The

Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda
Battles, 1945-1953(Columbia: University of Missouri
Press, 2000); for more on RFE/RL, see Arch
Puddington, Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold War
Triumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty(Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2000).
17. Nestor Ratesh, “Radio Free Europe’s Impact inRomania during the Cold War,” prepared for the
Conference on Cold War Broadcasting Impact,
Stanford, CA, October 13-15 2004.
18. “War in the Caucasus,” The Wall Street Journal,
August 9, 2008, p. A10.
19. “Russian army chief: We’ll use nuclear weapons if
threatened,” Associated Press, January 19, 2008.

CHAPTER 40
1. Denis Woychuk, “KGB Bar - A Brief and Distorted
History,” <www.kgbbar.com/bar>.
2. “American capitalism gone with a whimper,” Pravda,
April 27, 2004.
3. Jacques Derrida, “From Specters of Marx: What is
Ideology?” extracted from Specters of Marx, the stateof the debt, the Work of Mourning, & the New
International, translated by Peggy Kamuf (Routledge,
1994) as published in<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/
pp. 1-3.
4. Edward Marshall, “The War an Economic Disaster,”
New York Times, Magazine Section, June 6, 1915, p.
SM15.

CHAPTER 41

1. David S. Broder, “Obama’s Enigma,” Washington
Post, July 13, 2008, p. B7.
2. John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret
Agents (New York: Reader’s Digest Books, 1974,
reprinted by Bamtam Books), p. 429.
3. Zhores Medvedev, Gorbachev. New York: Norton,
1987, p. 37.
4. Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking for
Our Country and the World (New York: Harper &Row, 1987), passim.
5. Tom Baldwin, “Schools are still crumbling in corridorof shame’ haunted by the old South,” Timesonline,
January 28, 2008.
6. James Joyner, “Obama Che Guevara Flag Scandal,”Outside the Beltway, February 12, 2008, as posted at<www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/02/obama_che_gue
7. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=oQNkVmdicvA&feature=related>.

8. “How Many Speeches Did Obama Give?,”
newswine.com, July 16, 2010, as posted on<http://joysteele.newswine.com/_news/2010/07/16/4691800how-many-speeches-did-obama-give>.
9. “Right-Wing Media Fixated On Obama’s “Shamless”
Bin Laden Speech,” MEDIAMATTERS, May 3, 2011,<http://mediamatters.org/research/201105030031>.
10. George Landrith, “The ‘it’s all about me’ president,”
The Daily Caller, May 5, 2011, as posted on<http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/03/the-its-all-aboutme-president/>.
11.
<http://wiki.answer.com/Q/How_many_speeches_did_Obama_gi
12. David Jackson, “Obama’s first term by the numbers,”
USA Today, January 20, 2013,<http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/20/obamafirst-term-numbers-mark-knoller/1849141/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe
NewsTopStories+(News+-+Top+Stories)>.
13. Peter Kinder, “Missourians Reject Obama’s Brand of
Radical Liberalism,” Human Events, May 30, 2008, as
posted on<http://www.humanevents.com/2008/05/30/missouriansreject-obamas-brand-of-radical-liberalism/>.
14. ABC News video “Joe the Plumber,” October 15, 2008.
15. Jonathon M. Seidl, “Obama Compares Himself To

Reagan: Republicans Aren’t Accusing Him Of ‘Being
Socialist,’” The Blaze, October 5, 2011, as posted on<http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-compareshimself-to-ronald-reagan-republicans-arent-accusinghim-of-being-socialist/>.
16. Alexandra`Petri, Obama is up there with Lincoln,
Roosevelt, and Johnson,” Washington Post, December
12, 2011, PostOpinions.
17. David Nakamura, “Obama invokes Teddy Roosevelt inspeech attacking GOP policies,” Washington Post,
December 6, 2011.
18. Ross Kaminsky, “What Will Obama’s Plans Cost the
Nation?” Human Events, March 17, 2008, online at<http://www.blnz.com/news/2008/05/13/What_Will_Obamas_Pl
19. Ibid., p. 1.
20. “Video of the week: We have to pass the bill so you
can find out what is in it,” The Heritage Foundation,
March 10, 2010.
21. Lt. Col. Oliver North, “I Am an Extremist,”
FoxNews.com, May 16, 2009,<http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/warstories/2009/04/16/i-am-extremist>.
22. Doug Mainwaring, “We are all Tea Partiers now,”
Washington Times, September 30, 2010, p.1.
23. “Rep. Maxine Waters has a socialist Freudian slip,”
Newsreal, August 1, 2009, posted live voice

<http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/08/01/fox-repmaxine-waters-has-a-socialist-freudian-slip/>.
24. Lawrence Summers, “Why isn’t capitalism working?,”
Reuters, January 9, 2012,<http://blogs.reuters.com/lawrencesummers/2012/01/09/whyisnt-capitalism-working/>.
25. Robert Reich, “Why Obama Should be Attacking
Casino Capitalism -- Both Romney’s Bain and
JPMorgan,” Politico, June 8, 2012,<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obamabain-romney_b_1537449.html>.
26. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mittromneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-butalso-troublingincidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html>.
27.
<http://mistermikejones.tumblr.com/post/22792231746/whathappened-to-john-lauber>.
28. <http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romney-bullyhair-Lauber/2012/05/11/id/438800>.
29.
<http://mistermikejones.tumblr.com/post/22792231746/whathappened-to-john-lauber>.
30. Mark Thompson, Werner Sombart and American
Exceptionalism, Munster, Lit Verlag, ISBN 978-38258-5179-5.

CHAPTER 42
1. James Welsh sent the author copies of these
documents.
2. Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Arafat Murdered US
Diplomats, Could Face DOJ Arrest Warrant,” Insight
Magazine, June 4, 2001.
3. Julian Becker, The PLO: The Rise And Fall Of The
Palestine Liberation Organization (New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1984) p. 41.
4. Suzanne Fields, “The Ghosts of Auschwitz,”
townhall.com, December 10, 2001.
5. Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The
Inside Story (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), p. 545.
6. By 1969 Nasser’s Egypt accounted for 43% of all
Soviet aid to the Third World.
7. The summit took place in Barcelona, in April 1969, andis described in Claire Sterling, The Terror Network(New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1981), p. 115.
8. Michael Freund, “73% Increase in Israelis killed in 2
Years Since Oslo,” mbf@actom.co.il, September 15,
1995.
9. “Speech of numbers,” Peace for Israel, January 5,
2003.
10. Thomas L. Friedman, “The New Math,” New YorkTimes, op-ed, January 15, 2002, p. A23.

11. “Clinton’s Praise of Arafat’s ‘Decades’ of PLO
Leadership Implicitly Justifies Terrorism,” Zionist
Organization of America, October 28, 1998, (Internet
edition), <www.zoa.org/pressrel/1998/1028a.htm>.
12. “Yasser Arafat, Poloniu Poisoning and the Curies,”
HUFFPOST, November 27, 2012.
13. “The originator of the acts of terrorism in London was
standing near Tony Blair,” UK Indymedia, July 19,
2005,<http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/07/31887
14. Ludwig De Braeckeleer, “Was Romano Prodi the Top
Man in Italy?” Ohmy News International, November
23, 2006.
15. Ferdinando Imposimato e Sandro Provvisionato,
Doveva morire. Chi ha ucciso Aldo Moro,
Chiarelettere, 2008, Capitolo 9: “La lunga mano delKGB”; Mitrokhin Commission, Wikipedia, December
2012.
16. Philip Wilian, “KGB linked to Prodi’s ghostly insight,
The European Commission special Report,” The
Guardian, October 20, 1999.
17. Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, The Swordand the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret
History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p.
382.
18. Douglas Frantz and James Risen, “A Secret Iran-Arafat

Connection Is Seen Fueling the Mideast Fire,” NewYork Times, March 23, 2002 (Internet edition).
19. Dan Ephron, “”Israel captures 50 tones of Iranianarms,” Washington Times, January 5, 2002, Internet
edition.
20. “Passover suicide bombing at Park Hotel in Netanya 27 - March - 2002,” Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs,
March 27, 2002.
21. “The ‘Massacre’ In Jenin,” Peace with Realism, as
posted on http://peacewithrealism.org/pdc/jenin.htm.
22. Corky Siemaszko, “13 Slain by Boy Bomber,” Daily
News, April 10, 2002 (Internet edition).
23. Gerald M. Steinberg, “Arafat’s Leninist Strategy,”
National Review Online, April 22, 2002.
24. Matt Rees, “The Battle of Jenin,” Time Magazine, May
17, 2002, (Internet edition).
25. Betsy Pisik and Ben Barber, “Powel finds no proof of
Israeli massacre in Jenin,” Washington Times, April 25,
2002, p.1, (Internet edition).
26. Joel Mowbray, “Arafat elected?” National Review
Online, April 25, 2002.
27. “Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit:
Note by the Secretary-General,” United Nations,
General Assembly, Fifty-ninth session, Agenda item
55, p.3.
28. “Amr M. Moussa: A Nationalist Vision for Egypt,” TheMiddle East Quarterly, September 1996, Volume III,
p.2.

CHAPTER 43
1. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “Left-Wing Monster: Ceausescu,”
Frontpagemag.com, February 10, 2006, as publishedon http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?
ArtId=5730.
2. Petr Chaadayev, Russian sociologist, Moscow, 1854.

CHAPTER 44
1. Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Romanian Spies Under
Scrutinity,” United Press International, February 13,
2004.
2. “Magistratii ICCJ, inainte de a fi comunisti sunt
imbecili”(Before being communists, Romania’s
Supreme Court magistrates are imbeciles),ZIUA,
Bucharest, January 31, 2009, p. 1.
3. “The U.S. anti-missile project in Romania: New
administration, same old policy,” RIANO-VOST,
February 24, 2010(http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100224/157995687.html.)
4. “Magistratii ICCJ, inainte de a fi comunisti sunt
imbecili”(Before being communists, Romania’sSupreme Court magistrates are imbeciles), ZIUA,
Bucharest, January 31, 2009, p. 1.
5. <http://www.ziaristionline.ro/2012/05/08/interviularry-watts-din-1960-pana-in-septembrie-1989romania-a-fost-incadrata-in-grupul-statelor-ostile-urssalaturi-de-sua-rfg-si-israel/>;<http://www.ziaristionline.ro/2012/03/16/pacepa-arecunoscut-in-fata-directorului-cia-ca-a-fost-agentkgb-interviu-bookiseala-cu-larry-watts-am-dat-deperete-cu-usa-secretelor-darmai-sunt-multe-incaperi-sicoridoare-intunecate/)>;<http://www.stiriazi.ro/ziare/articol/articol/pacepa-arecunoscut-in-fata-directorului-cia-ca-a-fost-agentkgb-interviu-bookiseala-cu-larry-watts--am-dat-deperete-cu-usa-secretelor-darmai-sunt-multe-incaperi-sicoridoare-intunecate/sumar-articol/50842328/>;<http://carte.ubix.ro/detalii/pacepa-a-recunoscut-infata-directorului-cia-ca-a-fost-agent-kgb-interviubookiseala-cu-larry-watts-am>;<http://www.bookiseala.ro/interviu-bookiseala-cularry-watts-am-dat-de-perete-cu-usasecretelor-dar-maisunt-multe-incaperi-si-coridoareintunecate/72369.html>;<http://liviudrugus.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/larry-lwatts-despre-foarte-discretul-management-romanesc-

al-prieteniilor-prea-evidente-3/>;<http://www.bookiseala.ro/cum-se-explica-succesulcartii-lui-larry-watts/71251.html>;<http://roncea.ro/2012/07/23/exclusiv-in-atentia-luitraian-basescu-a-sri-si-spp-documentecia-careprobeaza-ca-sistemul-de-securitate-american-nu-l-aluat-in-seama-pe-agentul-sovietic-ion-mihai-pacepaun-indemn-catre-presedi/>;6. Ibid.
7. Serviciul Roman de Informatii (Romania’s Intelligence
Service), Cartea Alba a Securitatii (The White Book of
the Securitate), Bucharest, 1994.
8. Serviciul Român de Informatii, Cartea Albá aSecuritátii, (Romanian Intelligence Service, The WhiteBook of the Securitate), Bucuresti, Editura Presa
Româneascá, 1996.
9. “Casa Pacepa Demolată” (House Pacepa demolished),
ZIARE.com, March 6, 2009,<http://www.ziare.com/articole/casa+pacepa+demolata>.
10. President Nicolae Ceausescu’s State Visit to the USA:
April 12-17, 1978, English version, (Bucharest:
Meridiane Publishing House, 1978), p. 78.
11. Roger Kirk and Mircea Raceanu, Romania Versus theUnited States: Diplomacy of the Absurd, 1985-1989(Washington: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy,

1994), p.155.
12. The author has a copy of the letter.
13. The author has the original letter. The letter was also
quoted in my letter to the editor, published in the New
York Times Book Review, March 27, 1988, p. 49.
14. The author has the original letter.

EPILOGUE
1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1877557/posts.
2. “World: Was Soviet Collapse Last Century’s Worst
Geopolitical Catastrophe?” Radio Free Europe - Radio
Liberty,” December 27, 2012,<http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1058688.html>.
3. “US intellectuals call for European criticism of US war
on terror,” Agence France Presse, April 9, 2001, 14:10
PM, (Internet edition).
4. John Pilger, “War on Terror: The Other Victims: Theirresponsibility of this conflict is breathtaking,”
Mirror.co.uk, October 29, 2001.
5. Mark Goldblatt, “French Toast,” National Republic
Online, December 13, 2001, 8:45 am.
6. “Announcement For Candidacy For Presidency,”
Washington, D.C., March 16, 1968, as published in<http://rfkcenter.org/announcement-for-candidacy-for-presidency>.
7. “Top 10 Reasons To Be Proud Of The United States,”
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-reasons-to-be-proud-ofthe-united-states.php.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. “List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita,”
Wikipedia,<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laurea
11. Gary Shapiro, “Is America the Greatest Country in theWorld?”, Forbes.com, July 25, 2012, as published in
http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2012/07/25/isamerica-thegreatst-country-in-the-world/.
12. Ion Mihai Pacepa, “Do as I Did, An open letter to
Saddam Hussein’s generals” National Review on Line,
March 22, 2003,<http://www.nationalreview.com/content/do-i-did>.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Actes et Documents du Saint Siège Relatifs à la Seconde
Guerre Mondiale, Volumes I-XI (Libreria Editrice
Vaticana: Città del Vaticano, 1965–1981); English
edition (volume one only; Corpus Books:
Washington, DC, Gerard Noel, ed. 1967–1977).
Volume III is split into two books; thus some authors
refer to 12 volumes instead of 11.
Akmadža, Miroslav. The Position of the Catholic Church
in Croatia 1945–1970, Review of Croatian History
2/2006, no.1, 89.
Albats, Yevgenia. The KGB: The State Within a State(New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1994).
Alexander, Stella. Croatia: The Catholic Church andClergy, 1919–1945, in Catholics, the State, and theEuropean Radical Right, 1919–1945, edited by
Richard J. Wolff and Jorg K. Hoensch (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1987).
——— The Triple Myth (1987): A Life of ArchbishopAlojzije Stepinac (Boulder: East European
Monographs, 1987).
Alvarez, David. Spies in the Vatican: Espionage &Intrigue from Napoleon to the Holocaust (Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 2002).
Alvarez, David & Robert A. Graham. Nothing Sacred:
Nazi Espionage against the Vatican 1939–1945(London: Frank Cass, 1997).
Ambrosini, Maria Luisa. The Secret Archives of the
Vatican (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996).
The American Jewish Yearbook, 1943–1944(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1944).
Andrew, Christopher & Oleg Gordievsky. KGB: The
Inside Story (New York: HarperCollins, 1990).
Andrew, Christopher & Vasili Mitrokhin. The Sword andthe Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret
History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999).
Barron, John. KGB: The Secret World of Soviet Secret
Agents (New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1974).
Barton, Dennis. Croatia 1941–1946 (The Church in
History Information Centre, 2006).
Besier, Gerhard & Francesca Piombo. The Holy See andHitler’s Germany (Basingstroke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2007).
Bittman, Ladislav. The KGB and Soviet Disinformation:
An Insider’s View (Washington, DC: PergamonBrassey’s International Defense Publishers, 1985).

The Black Book of Communism (Murphy & Kramer,trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999).
Blet, Pierre. Pius XII and the Second World War (NewYork: Paulist Press, Lawrence J. Johnson trans.,
1999).
Bozanić, Cardinal Josip. The Most Illustrious Figure of
the Church in Croatia: Pastoral letter on theoccasion of the centenary of the birth of the Servant
of God Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, March 1, 1998,
reprinted in Cardinal Josip Bozanić, Blaženi Alojzije
Stepinac, Baština koja obvezuje (Zagreb: Glas
Koncila, 2008).
Brent, Jonathan. Inside the Stalin Archives (New York:
Atlas & Co., 2008).
Brüning, Heinrich. Memoiren, 1918–1934 (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970).
Bulajic, Milan. The Role of the Vatican in the Break-Upof the Yugoslav State (Belgrade: Ministry ofInformation of the Republic of Serbia, 1993).
Burleigh, Michael. The Cardinal Basil Hume Memorial
Lectures: Political Religion and Social Evil, 3Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1(Autumn 2002).
——— Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Nazi
Germany, 1900–1945 (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1994).
——— Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and
Politics in Europe from the French Revolution to theGreat War (New York: Harper Collins, 2006).
——— Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and
Politics, From the Great War to the War on Terror(New York: HarperCollins, 2007).
——— The Third Reich: A New History (New York: Hill
& Wang, 2001).
Burns, Jeffrey M. No Longer Emerging: Ramparts
Magazine and the Catholic Laity, 1962–1968, US
Catholic Historian, vol. 9:3 (1990).
Carroll, James. Constantine’s Sword: The Church and theJews: A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
2001).
Carroll-Abbing, John Patrick. But for the Grace of God—
The Houses Are Blind (New York: Delacorte Press,
1965).
——— A Chance to Live: The Story of the Lost Childrenof the War (London: Longman, Green & Co., 1952).
Catholics Remember the Holocaust (United States
Catholic Conference: Washington, DC, 1988).
Chadwick, Owen. A History of Christianity (St. Martin’s
Press: New York, 1995).
——— Britain and the Vatican During the Second WorldWar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986).

——— Weizsäcker, the Vatican, and the Jews of Rome,
28 Journal of Ecclesiastical History 179 (April 1977).
Chambers, Colin. Inside the Royal Shakespeare
Company: Creativity and Institution (London and
New York: Routledge, 2004).
Chambers, Whittaker. Witness (New York: Random
House, 1952).
Chronicle of the 20th Century (Mount Kisco, NY:
Chronicle Publications, C. Daniel, ed., 1986).
Cianfarra, Camille. The Vatican and the War (New York:
Literary Classics, Inc., distributed by E.P. Dutton &Company, 1944).
The Ciano Diaries (New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., Hugh Gibson, ed., 1946).
Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Beatificationis etCanonizationis Servi Dei Pii XII (Eugenii Pacelli)Summi Pontificis (1876–1958): Positio Super Vita,
Virtutibus et Fama Sanctitatis (Rome, 2004) [thePositio].
Conway, John S. The Nazi Persecution of the Churches
1933-45 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1960;
and New York: Basic Books, 1969).
——— The Vatican, Great Britain, and Relations withGermany, 1938–1940, XVI The Historical Journal,
147 (1973).
Cooney, John. The American Pope: The Life and Times ofFrancis Cardinal Spellman (New York: Times

Books, 1984).
Cornwell, John. Breaking Faith: The Pope, the People,
and the Fate of Catholicism (New York: Viking
Press, New York, 2001).
——— Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII(New York: Viking Press, 1999; and New York:
Penguin Books, 2008).
——— The Pontiff in Winter (New York: Doubleday,
2004).
Costello, John and Oleg Tsarev. Deadly Illusions (NewYork: Crown, 1993).
Cowell, Alan S. The Terminal Spy (London: Doubleday,
2008).
Crankshaw, Edward. Khrushchev: A Career (New York:Viking, 1966).
Crozier, Brian. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire(Rocklin, CA: Forum, 1999).
Custine, Marquis Astolphe de. Journey for our Time: The
Russian Journals of the Marquis de Custine(Washington, DC: Regnery, Phyllis Penn Kohler ed.
& trans., 1987).
Dalin, David. The Myth of Hitler’s Pope (Washington,
DC: Regnery, 2005).
Davis, Melton S. All Rome Trembled (New York: G.P.
Putnam’s Sons, 1957).
Day, Edward. “Pius XII and the Hitler Plot,” Liguorian,
October 1968.

Days of Devotion: Daily Meditations from the Good
Shepherd Pope John XXIII (New York: Penguin
reprint, John P. Donnelly, ed., 1998).
The Defection of General Ion Mihai Pacepa. Radio
Romania International. April 4, 2011. Transcript,<http://www.rii.ro/ahr-art.shtml?
lang=2+sec=40+art=121082>.
Der Streit um Hochhuth’s “Stellvertreter”(Basel/Stuttgart: Basilius Presse, 1963).
Deutsch, Harold C. The Conspiracy against Hitler in the
Twilight War (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1968).
Die Briefe an die Deutschen Bischöfe 1939–1944(Grünewald: Mainz, Burkhart Schneider ed., 1966).
Diskin, Hanna. The Seeds of Triumph: Church and Statein Gomulka’s Poland (Budapest: Central European
University Press, 2001).
Dunn, Dennis J. The Catholic Church and Russia: Popes,
Patriarchs, Tsars and Commissars (Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2004).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science,and Social Policy (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow
Press, Michael L. Coulter et al., eds., 2007).
Epstein, Edward J. Legend: The Secret World of Lee
Harvey Oswald (New York: Reader’s Digest Press,
1978).
Esslin, Martin. “Brecht and the English Theatre.” TheTulane Drama Review, 11:2 (Winter 1966).
Examining the Papacy of Pope Pius XII (Rome: Pave the
Way Foundation, 2008).
Falconi, Carlo. The Silence of Pius XII (Boston: Little
Brown, B. Wall trans. 1970).
Fatemi, Faramarz S. The USSR in Iran: The Background
History of Russian and Anglo-American Conflict inIran (A.S. Barnes & Co. 1980).
Feldkamp, Michael F. Der Teufelspakt des Anti-Semiten,in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, January 10, 2000,
at 7.
Fisher, Desmond. Pope Pius XII and the Jews: An Answer
to Hochhuth’s Play “Der Stellvertreter” (The
Deputy) (Glen Rock, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1965).
Frattini, Eric. The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican
Espionage (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008).
Freemantle, Brian. KGB: Inside the World’s Largest
Intelligence Network (New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 1982).
Friedländer, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews, Volume I:
The Years of Persecution, 1933–1939 (New York:
HarperCollins, 1997).
——— Pius XII and the Third Reich: A Documentation(New York: Knopf, C. Fullman trans., 1966).
From Hitler’s Doorstep: The Wartime Intelligence
Reports of Allen Dulles, 1942–1945 (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, Neal H.

Peterson, ed., 1996).
Frost, David. An Autobiography (London: HarperCollins,
1993).
Gahlinger, Anton J. I Served the Pope (Techny, IL: The
Mission Press, 1952).
Gallagher, Charles R. Vatican Secret Diplomacy: JosephP. Hurley and Pope Pius XII (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2008).
Gaspari, Antonio. Gli ebrei salvati da Pio XII (Rome:
Edizioni Logos, 2001).
Gilbert, Martin. Auschwitz and the Allies (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1981).
——— The Second World War: A Complete History(New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1987).
Gitman, Esther. A Question of Judgment: Dr. Alojzije
Stepinac and the Jews, Review of Croatian History
Volume II, no. 1 (January 2007): 47.
Godman, Peter. Hitler and the Vatican: The SecretArchives That Reveal the New Story of the Nazis andthe Vatican (New York: Free Press, 2004).
Goldfarb, Alex, and Marina Litvinenko. Death of a
Dissident: The Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko
and the Return of the KGB (New York: Free Press,
2007).
Goldhagen, Daniel J. A Moral Reckoning: The Role of theCatholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled
Duty of Repair (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002).

Golitsyn, Anatoliy. New Lies for Old: The Communist
Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (NewYork: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984).
Graham, Robert A. Pius XII’s Defense of Jews andOthers: 1944-45 (Catholic League Publications:
Milwaukee, 1987). This is also reprinted in Pius XIIand the Holocaust: A Reader (Catholic League
Publications: Milwaukee, 1988).
——— Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Hungary in 1944
(United States Catholic Historical Society, undated).
——— The Vatican and Communism During World War
II: What Really Happened? (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 1996).
Hatch, Alden & Seamus Walshe. Crown of Glory: The
Life of Pope Pius XII (New York: Hawthorn Books,
1957).
Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. Verona: Decoding
Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1999).
Haynes, John Earl, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander
Vassiliev. Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in
America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
Hinkle, Warren. If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade(New York: W. W. Norton, 1974).
A History of the Third Reich, Vol. 4, Primary Sources(Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2003; Jeff
T. Hays, ed.).

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
Ralph Manheim trans., 1971).
Hochhuth, Rolf. The Deputy (New York: Grove Press,
Winston trans., 1964).
——— Soldiers (New York: Grove Press, MacDonald
trans., 1968).
Holmes, J. Derek. The Papacy in the Modern World
1914–1978 (New York: Crossroad, 1981).
Hook, Sidney. Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the 20th
Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).
Hoover, J. Edgar. Masters of Deceit (Pocket Books,
1961).
Horowitz, David. Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey(New York: The Free Press, 1997).
Hughes, John Jay. Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History(Ft. Wayne: Our Sunday Visitor Books, 1994).
Kalugin, Oleg. The First Directorate: My 32 Years inIntelligence and Espionage against the West (NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).
——— Spymaster: My Thirty-Two Years in Intelligenceand Espionage against the West (New York: Basic
Books, 2009).
Kasper, Cardinal Walter. “Recent Developments in
Jewish-Christian Relations.” Speech. Hope
University, Liverpool. World Jewish Congress., May
24, 2010, http://www.worldjewishcongress.org.>
Katz, Robert. The Battle for Rome: The Germans, theAllies, the Partisans, and the Pope (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 2003).
——— Black Sabbath: A Journey through a Crime
against Humanity (New York: Macmillan, 1969).
——— Massacre in Rome (New York: Ballantine, 1973)(originally released as Death in Rome).
Kengor, Paul. Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have
Manipulated Progressives for a Century(Wilmington: ISI Books, 2010).
Kent, Peter C. The Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII(Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University
Press, 2002).
——— A Tale of Two Popes: Pius XI, Pius XII and theRome-Berlin Axis, 23 Journal of Contemporary
History 589 (1988).
Kertzer, David I. The Popes against the Jews: The
Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism(New York: Knopf, 2001).
Khrushchev, Nikita. Khrushchev Remembers (Boston:
Little, Brown, Strobe Talbot, ed., 1970).
——— Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament(Boston: Little, Brown, Strobe Talbot, ed., 1974).
Koehler, John. Spies in the Vatican: The Soviet Union’s
Cold War against the Catholic Church (New York:
Pegasus, 2009).
Krišto, Jure. An American View of the Belgrade Episodeof Archbishop Joseph P. Hurley in Review ofCroatian History (Vol. 4, December 2008) at 218.
——— The Catholic Church and the Jews in the
Independent State of Croatia, Review of Croatian
History, Vol. 3, February 2007), no. 1, 13, 16.
——— The Catholic Church in Croatia and BosniaHerzegovina in the Face of Totalitarian Ideologies
and Regimes, in Religion under Siege: The Roman
Catholic Church in Occupied Europe (1939–1950),(Gevers & Bank, editors, 2007).
Kurzman, Dan. A Special Mission: Hitler’s Secret Plot to
Seize the Vatican and Kidnap Pope Pius XII(Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2007).
Kustow, Michael. Peter Brook: A Biography (New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 2005).
Lackovic, Stephen. The Case against Tito (memorandum,
1947).
Lapide, Pinchas E. Three Popes and the Jews (New York:
Hawthorn Books, 1967; London: Sands and Co.,
1968).
Lapomarda, Vincent A. The Jesuits and the Third Reich(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989).
Lavretsky, I. Ernesto Che Guevara (Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1976).
Levai, Jenö. Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pius XII
Did Not Remain Silent (London: Sands and Co.,
1968).
Lewy, Guenter. The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).
Ley-Piscator, Maria. The Piscator Experiment: The
Political Theatre (New York: James H. Heineman,
Inc., 1967).
Lichten, Joseph L. A Question of Judgment: Pius XII and
the Jews, in Pius XII and the Holocaust: A Reader(Milwaukee: Catholic League Publications, 1988).
Litvinenko, Alexander and Yuri Felshtinsky. Blowing Up
Russia: The Secret Plot to Bring Back KGB Terror(New York: Encounter Books, 2007).
Löw, Konrad. Die Schuld: Christen und Juden im Urteil
der Nationalsozialisten und der Gegenwart(Gräfelfing: Resch, 2003).
Lowry, Charles W. Communism and Christ (New York:Morehouse-Graham Co., 1953).
Lubac, Henri de. Christian Resistance to Anti-Semitism:
Memories from 1940–1944 (San Francisco: Ignatius,
1990).
Martin, Malachi. The Keys of This Blood: Pope John PaulII Versus Russia and the West for Control of the New
World Order (New York: Touchstone, 1990).
Matijević, Margareta. Religious communities in Croatia
from 1945 to 1991: Social causality of the dissent
between Communist authorities and religious
communities’ leadership, Review of Croatian History
Vol. II, no. 1, 2007, 117.

McCormick, Anne O’Hare. Vatican Journal 1921–1954(New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1957).
McGurn, Barrett. A Reporter Looks at the Vatican (NewYork: Coward-McCann, 1962).
Medvedev, Zhores A. Gorbachev (New York: Norton,
1986).
Memorandum to General Donovan from Fabian vonSchlabrendorff, dated October 25, 1945 (Subject:
Relationship of the German Churches to Hitler),posted on the Internet by Cornell Law Library:
Donovan Nuremberg Trial Collection,<http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Nuremberg
This memorandum is also printed in Leo Stein, Hitler
Came for Niemoeller: The Nazi War against Religion
253-57 (New York: Penguin Publishing Co., 2003
reprint ed.).
Merritt, Richard L. “Politics, Theater, and the East-West
Struggle: The Theater as a Cultural Bridge in West
Berlin, 1948–61,” 80 Political Science Quarterly,
186 (June 1965).
Merton, Thomas. Dancing in the Water of Life (SanFrancisco: Harper, 1998).
Miller, Marion. I Was a Spy (Indianapolis & New York:
Boss-Merrill, 1960).
Mindszenty, Jószef Cardinal. Memoirs (New York:
Macmillan & Co., 1974).
Morgan, Thomas B. The Listening Post: Eighteen Years

on Vatican Hill (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons,
1944).
Müller, Joseph. Bis zur Letzten Konsequenz (Munich:
Süddeutscher Verlag, 1975).
Murphy, David E. What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of
Barbarossa (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2005).
Murphy, Francis X. The Papacy Today (New York:
Macmillan, 1981).
Napolitano, Matteo L. & Andrea Tornielli. Il Papa CheSalvò Gli Ebrei (Piemme, 2004).
The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian
Churches, documents prepared for the post-war
Nuremberg trials, prepared by the Office of StrategicServices (OSS) Research and Analysis Branch,
Posted on the Internet by Cornell Law Library:
Donovan Nuremberg Trial Collection,<http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Nuremberg
Nielsen Jr., Niels C. Solzhenitsyn’s Religion (Nashville,
TN: Nelson, 1975).
O’Brien, Count Anthony Henry. Archbishop Stepinac:
The Man and His Case (Westminster, MD: The
Newman Bookshop, 1947).
O’Carroll, Michael. Pius XII: Greatness Dishonored(Dublin: Laetare Press, 1980).
Pacepa, Ion Mihai. “Moscow’s Assault on the Vatican:
The KGB made corrupting the Church a priority,”

National Review Online, January 25, 2007.
——— Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, theSoviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination(Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2007).
——— Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy
Chief (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1987).
Papée, Casimir. Pius XII e Polska (Rome: Editrice
Studium, 1954).
Parham, Sidney F. “Editing Hochhuth for the Stage: A
Look at the Major Productions of ‘The Deputy,’”
Educational Theatre Journal (October 1976) 28:3.
Parkes, James. An Enemy of the People: Antisemitism(New York: Penguin Books, 1946).
Pattee, Richard. The Case of Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac(Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1953).
Patterson, Michael. Strategies of Political Theatre: PostWar British Playwrights (Cambridge University
Press, 2003).
Phayer, Michael. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust,
1930–1965 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2001).
——— Pius XII, The Holocaust, and the Cold War(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008).
Piscator, Erwin. The Political Theater (London: Eyre
Methuen, H. Rorrison, trans., 1963).
Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge (1937).
Pius XI und der Nationalsozialismus. Die Enzyklika ‘Mit

Brennender Sorge’ vom 14 März 1937, (Paderborn:
Ferdinand Schöningh, Heinz-Albert Raem ed., 1979).
Pius XII. Orientales Omnes (1945).
Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (1939).
Pius XII and the Holocaust: A Reader (Catholic League
Publications: Milwaukee, 1988).
Pius XII: Selected Encyclicals and Addresses (Roman
Catholic Books: Harrison, NY, 1995).
The Pope Speaks: The Words of Pius XII (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1940).
Polmar, Norman, and Thomas B. Allen. The
Encyclopedia of Espionage (New York: Gramercy
Books, 1997).
Prcela, John. Archbishop Stepinac in his Country’s
Church-State Relations (Scottsdale: Associate Book
Publishers, 1990).
Purdy, W. A. The Church on the Move (London: Hollis
and Carter, 1966).
Rayfield, Donald. Stalin and his Hangmen (New York:
Random House, 2005).
Raymond, Rev. M. The Man for This Moment: The Lifeand Death of Aloysius Stepinac (Staten Island: Alba
House, 1971).
Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich(New York: Harper, Walter Leibrecht, ed. 1959).
Religion Under Siege: The Roman Catholic Church in
Occupied Europe 1939–1950 (Peeters: Leuven, L.

Gevers, and J. Bank, eds., 2007).
Rhodes, Anthony. The Vatican in the Age of the
Dictators: 1922–45 (London: Hodden and Stoughton,1973).
Romerstein, Herbert. Soviet Active Measures andPropaganda. Mackenzie Institute Paper No. 17(Toronto: Mackenzie Institute, 1989).
Romerstein, Herbert & Eric Breindel. The Verona
Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s
Traitors, (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing,2000).
Rychlak, Ronald J. Hitler, the War, and the Pope
(Genesis Press, 2000; Our Sunday Visitor Press
2000; 2nd edition: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2010).
——— The 1933 Concordat between Germany and theHoly See: A Reflection of Tense Relations, 2001 The
Digest 23 (Syracuse University).
——— Book Review: “Pius XII und Deutschland, by
Michael F. Feldkamp,” The English Historical
Review, June 2003, at 840.
——— Cardinal Stepinac and the Roman Catholic
Church in Croatia during the Second World War(published in English and Croatian) in Stepinac: A
Witness to the Truth (Zagreb: Glas Koncila, 2009).
——— “Postwar Catholics, Jewish Children, and a Rushto Judgment,” Beliefnet.com, posted Jan. 18, 2005
(including sidebar: “Jewish Children After World

War II: A Case Study”). Reprinted in Inside the
Vatican, January-February 2005.
——— Righteous Gentiles: How Pope Pius XII Saved
Half a Million Jews from the Nazis (Dallas: Spence
Publishing, 2005).
Sale, Giovanni. Hitler, La Santa Sede e Gli Ebrei (Rome:
Jaca Book, 2004).
——— Il Novecento tra Genocidi, Paure e Speranze(Milan: Jaca Book, 2006).
Savor, Michael. Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, “A Servant
of God and the Croatian People” (revised ed. 2001)<http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/stepinac.html>.
Schlabrendorff, Fabian von. The Secret War against
Hitler (New York: Pitman Publishing, Hilda Simontrans., 1965).
Schmidt-Hauer, Christian. Gorbachev: The Path to Power(London: I. B. Tauris, 1986).
Shevchenko, Arkady N. Breaking with Moscow (NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985).
Shirer, William L. Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign
Correspondent 1934–1941 (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1941).
——— The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History ofNazi Germany (Greenwich: Fawcett Publications,1962).
Smit, Jan Olav. Angelic Shepherd: The Life of Pope Pius
XII (New York: Dodd & Mead, Vanderveldt trans.,

1950).
Solovyov, Vladimir, and Elena Klepikova. Behind theHigh Kremlin Walls (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1986).
Staar, Richard Felix. Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union(Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford
University, 1991).
Stanescu, Sorin Rosca, and Cornel Dumitrescu. Autopsia
unei Inscenari Securiste (The Autopsy of a Securitate
Framing) (Bucharest: Omega Ziua, 1999).
Stein, Leo. Hitler Came for Niemoeller: The Nazi War
Against Religion (New York: Penguin, 2003).
Stephan, Robert W. Death to Spies: The Story of
SMERSH (Soviet Military Counterintelligence
During World War II). Thesis. American University,
1984.
Stepinac: A Witness to the Truth (Zagreb: Glas Koncila,Željko Tanjić ed., 2009).
Stewart, Ralph. Pope Pius XII and the Jews (St. Martin dePorres Dominican Community & St. Joseph
Canonical Foundation: New Hope, KY, 1990).
Stilinovic, Josip. “Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac—A Patriot,
not a Nationalist,” The Catholic World Report(August/September 1998)<http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?
recnum=512>.
Stille, Alexander. Benevolence and Betrayal: Five ItalianJewish Families under Fascism (New York: Summit
Books, 1991).
The Storm over the Deputy (New York: Grove Press, Eric
Bently, ed., 1964).
The Strategy of Deception: A Study in World-Wide
Communist Tactics (New York: Farrar, Straus andCompany, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, ed., 1963).
Sulner, Hanna F. Disputed Documents: New Methods for
Examining Questioned Documents (Dobbs Ferry,
N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1966).
Swift, Mary Grace. The Art of Dance in the USSR: A
Study of Politics, Ideology, and Culture (Universityof Notre Dame Press, 1968).
Swift, Will. The Kennedys Amidst the Gathering Storm: A
Thousand Days in London, 1938–1940 (Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Books, 2008).
Taëni, Rainer. Modern German Authors, Rolf Hochhuth(London: Oswald Wolff, 1977).
Tanner, Marcus. Croatia: A Nation Forged in War (NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997).
Tardini, Domenico. Memories of Pius XII (Westminster,
MD: The Newman Press, 1961).
Thomas, Hugh. Armed Truce: The Beginnings of the Cold
War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986).
Thompson, Carlos. The Assassination of Winston
Churchill (Gerrards Cross: Smythe, 1969).
Toland, John. Adolf Hitler (New York: Doubleday, 1976).

Tolkovvy Slovar Russkogo Yazyka (Explanatory
Dictionary of the Russian Language) (Moscow:
Soviet Encyclopedia State Institute, D. N. Ushakov,
ed., 1935).
Vazsonyi, Balint. America’s 30 Years War: Who Is
Winning? (Washington DC: Regnery, 1998).
Volkov, Solomon and Dmitri Shostakovich. Testimony:
The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich (Limelight,
2004).
Ward, Margaret E. Rolf Hochhuth (Boston: Twayne
Publishers, 1977).
Wartime Correspondence between President Roosevelt
and Pope Pius XII (New York: Macmillan, Myron C.
Taylor, ed. 1947). Reprint edition (New York: Da
Capo Press, 1975).
Weigel, George. Witness to Hope: The Biography of PopeJohn Paul II (New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999).
——— The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II–
The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy(New York: Doubleday, 2010), Weizsäcker, Ernst
Von. Memoirs of Ernst Von Weizsäcker (Chicago: H.
Regnery Co., J. Andrews trans., 1951).
Willett, John. The Theatre of Erwin Piscator: Half a
Century of Politics in the Theatre (London: Eyre
Methuen, 1978).
Wills, Garry. Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (New York:
Doubleday, 2000).

Winks, Robin W. Cloak & Gown: Scholars in the Secret
War, 1939–1961 (New York: William Morrow &Co., 1987).
Wise, David, and Thomas B. Ross. The Espionage
Establishment (New York: Random House, 1987).
Wistrich, Robert. Hitler and the Holocaust (New York:
Modern Library, 2002).
Wolf, Frank R., and Anne Morse. Prisoner ofConscience: One Man’s Crusade for Global Humanand Religious Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,2011).
Wright, J.R.C. Pius XII and the Nazi Challenge, Historyof the 20th Century (London: BPC Publishing, Ltd.
1969).
Yakovlev, Alexander N., Anthony Austin, and Paul
Hollander. A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002).
Yzermans, Vincent A. Valiant Heralds of Truth: Pius XIIand the Arts of Communication (Westminster, MD:
The Newman Press, 1958).
Zahn, Gordon C. German Catholics and Hitler’s War(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
1962).
Zolli, Eugenio. Why I Became a Catholic (New Hope,
KY, 1997), previously released as Before the Dawn
(Sheed and Ward: New York, 1954).
Zubrinic, Darko. Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac and Saving

the Jews in Croatia During the WW2 (Zagreb, 1997)< http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/jews.html>.
Zuccotti, Susan. The Holocaust, the French, and the Jews
(New York: Basic Books, 1993).
——— The Italians and the Holocaust (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1987).
——— Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust: The Case in
Italy, in The Italian Refuge (Washington, DC:
Catholic U. of America Press, 1990).
——— Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and theHolocaust in Italy (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2001).

INDEX

A1 Mutation, 311
Abakumov, Viktor, 10
Abbas, Mahmoud, 330
Abt, John, 244
Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the Right of The Deputy to
be Heard, 148
Adenauer, Konrad, 134Adevărul (“The Truth”), 33
Afghanistan, 43, 280, 298, 311, 353
African National Congress (ANC), 41
Agayants, Ivan, 113, 177–78
Ağca, Mehmet Ali, 187
Air Defense Command (V-PVO), 211, 212
Albright, Madeleine, 331
Aldwych Theatre, 135–36
Aleksi II (“Drozdov”), 291

Alexander II, 99, 155
Alexander III, 99
Alexis, Moscow Patriarch, 91
Allard, Wayne, 316
Allies, 46, 53, 54, 61, 62, 71, 82, 93, 127
Al-Masri Al-Tawm, 289
al-Qaeda, 298, 327
al-Razem, Fathi, 328
Alsop, Joseph, 208
Alvarez, David, 116
al-Wazir, Khalil (Abu Jihad), 322, 323
al-Zawahiri, Ayman, 327
Amen, 140
America, 129
American Communist Party, 145, 160, 244, 251–52
American Dialog, 145
American Jewish Committee, 146
American Jewish Yearbook, 67
American Servicemen’s Union, 295
American Socialist Party, 139
Ames, Aldrich, 331
Amin, Hafizullah, 298
Amnesty International, 330
Andrássy Street, No. 60, 83, 85
Andropov, Yuri Arafat and, 289, 325

Ceauşescu and, 20Childs and, 252
death of, 268
description of, 265
on disinformation, 196, 235, 296
glasnost and, 12, 14–15
Gorbachev and, 17–18
Haddad and, 328
John Paul II and, 187
Operation Ares and, 302, 303–4
on Pius XII, 174–75
Putin and, 271
terrorism and, 261, 264
Zion Square bombing and, 282
Zionism and, 259–60, 261–62, 276
Aninoiu, Dumitru, 24
Annan, Kofi, 330–31
ANSWER, 295
anti-Americanism, American, 300–301
Anti-Defamation League, 162anti-Semitism
campaigns igniting, 97–98
The Deputy and, 152–56
Makashov and, 277–78
Russian oligarchs and, 267–68

Stalin and, 94
See also Deputy, The; Irving, David; Protocols of theElders of Zion, The
Antonescu, Ion, 345
Arab League, 331
Arafat, Yasser, 26, 276, 278, 289, 322–31
Ares, Operation, 302, 303–4
Ariciul (“The Porcupine”), 7
Armia Krajowa, 89
Arnoni, M. S. (Max), 145
Arrow Cross, 82, 84
arson hoax, 1–3
arts, ideology and, 157–62
Aspillaga, Floentino, 248249
Associated Press, 72
Astolphe, Marquis de Custine, 4–5, 37
Atomic Energy Commission, 208
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 335
Atsugi Air Base, 211–12, 213–15, 217
Attlee, Clement, 310
Auschwitz, 129, 136, 137, 163, 179, 324
AVO, 80–81, 86
Axis, 52, 65, 71, 195
Axis of Evil, 282
Babkin, Anatoly, 272

Bain Capital, 319
Baluyevsky, Yury, 308
Barbarossa, Operation, 52
Barron, John, 251
Barvikha-1, 328
Baudrillard, Jean, 353–54
Beck, Glenn, 317
Beldeanu, Oliviu, 234
Belgrade, 71
Benedict XVI, Pope, 203
Bennett, John C., 148
Bentley, Elizabeth, 144, 244
Bentley, Eric, 140
Beran, Josef Cardinal, 89
Beriya, Lavrenty, 10, 111, 284
Berlin Airlift, 93–94
Berlin Wall, 10, 32, 113, 125, 343
Bernard, Noel, 22, 28–29
Best Evidence (Lifton), 246
bin Laden, Osama, 292, 314
Birtz, Remus Mircea, 118
Biryuzov, Sergey Semyonovich, 212
black liberation theology, 108–9, 110
Blair, Tony, 310
Blake, Eugene Carson, 107
Blakey, Robert G., 240

Blažević, Jakov, 76, 77, 78“Blin” (I. F. Stone), 138–39, 141–42, 146, 243, 244, 248
Blowing Up Russia (Litvinenko), 290
Bokassa, Jean-Bédel, 333
Bolshevik revolution, 100
Bondarenko, Panteleymon (“Pantyusha”), 101, 121, 299
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 62
Bonner, Yelena, 272
Borchgrave, Arnaud de, 340
Boris, King (Bulgaria), 54
Borovik, Genrikh, 245
Bota, Lieutenant, 7
Brandt, Willy, 47–48
Breaking Faith (Cornwell), 200
Brecht, Bertolt, 120, 136, 140
Breier, Louis, 70
Brezhnev, Leonid, 12, 23, 176, 185, 186, 252, 298, 325,
328, 352–53
British-Soviet Friendship Month, 162
Broder, David S., 313
Brook, Peter, 135
Budka, Niceta, 53
Bugliosi, Vincent, 245
Bukharin, Nikolai, 155, 223
Bulganin, Nikolay, 226–27

Bursa, 344, 346
Busch, Wilhelm, 153, 171
Bush, George Herbert Walker, 32
Bush, George W., 3, 14, 282, 304, 329, 341, 351
Cadre Directorate, first meeting with, 8Campaign of Truth, 104–5, 307
Canadian-Cuban Friendship, 295
Cantoni, Raffael, 67
capitalism, 318–19
Capovilla, Loris, 199
Cardinale, Igino, 92“Carlos the Jackal” (Sánchez, Ilich Ramírez), 29, 40
Carnecki, Nicolas, 53
Carroll, James, 197, 199
Carroll-Abbing, John Patrick, 67
Carter, Billy, 347, 348
Carter, Jimmy, 25, 27, 298, 325–26, 340, 347–48
Casaroli, Agostino, 115–16
Case Against Lyndon Johnson in the Assassination of
President Kennedy, The (Joesten), 245
Casey, William, 348
Castel Gandolfo, 66
Castro, Emilio, 107–8
Castro, Fidel, 137, 150, 240, 249–50, 253–254, 276, 278,
317

Castro, Raúl, 110, 264
Castro brothers, 109
Castro’s Spies (Latell), 248–49
Catherine the Great, 36–37
Catholic Church
in Baltics, 50, 51
in Croatia, 70–79
persecution of, 73
Ramparts on, 150–51
Stalin and, 50
in Ukraine, 53, 91
See also individual popes
Catholic Press Association, 149
Ceauşescu, Elena, 19, 332, 333, 339
Ceauşescu, Ilie, 345
Ceauşescu, Nicolae
Andropov on, 196
Arafat and, 322–23, 325–26
Bernard and, 22, 28–29
bugging by, 334–35
Carter and, 298
cult of personality and, 339
D. Pacepa and, 31Dapĉević and, 346

death of, 353
death sentence issued by, 192
description of, 14
glasnost and, 12, 15–17, 18, 313, 314, 315
Gorbachev compared to, 18–20
heavy water and, 335–36
independence of, 109
overthrow of, 32–33
Pacepa and, 27, 347
political necrophagy and, 186
political purge by, 272
rehabilitation of, 343–45, 347
Schmidt and, 23–24, 26
Serb and, 332–33
on stealing from capitalism, 312
Vatican and, 116
censorship, 159–60, 162Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR), 1, 2
Central African Republic, 333
Chamberlain, Neville, 135, 164, 306
Chambers, Whittaker, 33, 144
Chandra, Romesh, 42, 293–94, 324
change, 315–16, 318
Chávez, Hugo, 3, 108
Che, 109–10
Che, Operation, 109Cheka, 100, 232, 269
Chelyabinsk, 306
Cheney, Dick, 31
Chernenko, Konstantin, 268
Chernomyrdin, Viktor, 156, 268“Cheyadbom,” 328Childs, Jack, 251–52, 253, 254
Childs, Morris, 250–53
China, 284–85
Chira, Fr., 118
Chomysyn, Gregory, 53
Christian Democratic Union, 168
Christian Party (Hungary), 81
Christian Peace Conference (CPC), 112–13
Christmas message, 60, 64–65, 147
Chubais, Anatoly, 267
church fires, 1–3
Churchill, Winston, 61, 103, 164, 167, 310
CIAattempts to discredit, 343–44, 345
Kennedy assassination and, 231, 234, 241–42, 245
Ciampi, Carlo Azeglio, 187
Citizen’s Dissent, A (Lane), 245
Ciuciulin, Nicolae, 116
Cleaver, Eldridge, 148

Clinton, Bill, 1–2, 274, 319, 320, 326
codes, 239
Colaianni, James F., 150
Cold War, 301–2
Collier, Peter, 150
Comintern, 101, 121
communism
Khrushchev and, 106
Pius XII and, 103–4
Truman and, 103
See also Communist Party
Communist Manifesto, 59, 309, 311
Communist Partyof Germany, 121–22, 124
in Great Britain, 136
of Lebanon, 295
in Netherlands, 295
of Spain (PCE), 134of the United States, 145, 160, 244, 251–52
XVII Soviet Congress, 44–45“Comrade Kostin” (Valery Kostikov), 207, 236–37, 238
Cone, James, 108
Conference of the Roman Catholic Bishops of SouthAmerica (CELAM), 107Constantin, Stefan, 26
Constantine’s Sword (Carroll), 199

Constantinescu, Emil, 307
Conway, John, 132
Cornwell, John, 78–79, 117, 188, 197, 199–202, 283“Costa-Gavras” (Constantinos Gavras), 140
Council of the Elders of Zion, 38, 94, 261
Counsins, Norman, 92
Courier de la Paix, 41
creative unions, 157–58
Crenshaw, Charles A., 246
Croatia, 70–79, 193
Cuba
Guevara diaries and, 149–150
Khrushchev and, 106
See also Castro, Fidel
Cuban missile crisis, 10, 92, 220–22
Cule, Peter, 76
Czechoslovakia, 22, 41, 45, 89, 259, 263
da Silva, Lula, 108
Daily Telegraph, 176
Daily Worker, 137
Dalin, David, 198
Daniel, Jean, 253
Danube–Black Sea Canal, 46Dapĉević, Vladimir, 346

Daraghmed, Mohamed, 279
Darbon, Francis, 134–35
Das Kapital Meets Easy Rider (Guevara), 139
Daschle, Tom, 351
Däubler-Gmelin, Herta, 3
Davar, 60
Davis, Robert Gorham, 145
Day, Dorothy, 139de Kirchner, Cristina Fernández, 108
De Rosa, Luca, 199
death sentences in Romania, 340–42
Debray, Régis, 40, 109
Decision No. 41, 340
Décsi, Colonel, 84–85, 86
Deek, Khalil, 280“Defensive Shield,” 329
Dekanozov, Vladimir, 10, 52
Delgado, Nelson, 216
Demeter, Carol, 9
Democratic National Convention, 304
Democratic Party, 3, 297–98, 301, 304, 310, 311, 314,
316, 317–19, 320, 351–52
Democratic Socialists of America, 139
Denying the Holocaust (Lipstadt), 171–72
Department V, 328
Deputy, Theanti-Semitism of, 152–56
Arnoni and, 145
historical aspects in, 176–78
Katyn massacre and, 176–77
Marzani and, 243
original production of, 126–33
other productions of, 134–40
Piscator and, 180–82
primiere of, 120
Stone on, 141, 244
in United States, 141–42, 144–51
Der Stellvertreter. Ein christliches Trauerspiel (The
Deputy. A Christian Tragedy). See Deputy, The
Derrida, Jacques, 292–93, 309
Deryabin, Petr, 233
Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 172
Dewey, Thomas, 301“Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli andMontesquieu,” 96
Diary of Anne Frank, The, 164
DIE
Westerners and, 16
See also individual operations; individual people
Diestel, Peter Michael, 264
Dimitroff, Georgi, 45
disinformation (dezinformatsiya)definition of, 35–36, 39
effects of, 352–54
history of, 36–38
uses of, 351
Ðjilas, Milovan, 78, 167
Dobrynin, Anatoly, 222
Doicaru, Nicolae, 23, 210
Donovan, John, 215
Dragon Operation, 234, 243
Dramatic Workshop, 124–25
Dreyfus Affair, 96“Drozdov” (Aleksi II), 291
Dubĉek, Alexander, 109
Ducaru, Sorin, 340
Dulles, Allen, 228
Dulles, John Foster, 142
Duma, 107, 269, 271, 277–78, 327
Dumitrachescu, Dumitru, 346
Dunărea, 335–36
Dunlop, John, 275
Durban conference, 278–79
Dutt, R. Palme, 242
Dzerzhinsky, Feliks, 10, 279, 281, 287
Dzhabayev, Dzhambul, 161
Dzhugashvili, Iosif Vissarionovicy. See Stalin, IosifEagleburger, Lawrence, 18, 31
East Berlin, 113, 125, 139, 210, 232, 234, 265
East Germany, 13, 41, 47, 171, 234, 264–65, 353
Eden, Anthony, 226
Egypt, 288
Eid, Guy, 323
Ein Furchtbarer Jurist (A Terrible Judge), 168
Eine Liebe in Deutschland (A Love in Germany;
Hochhuth), 168
Einstein, Albert, 61
Eisenhower, Dwight, 46, 180, 212, 220
El Al planes, 260–61
El Toro Air Base, 215–16
Eliah, Mohamed Ali, 279
Elizabeth, Queen, 16
Emmanuel III, King (Italy), 66
Empire (Negri), 293
Encyclopedia of Jihad, 280
End and the Beginning, The (Weigel), 188
Englund, Will, 156
Epstein, Edward Jay, 213–14, 217–18
European Commission, 327
Evening Standard, 170
Evergreen Review, 137
excommunication, 103
L’Express, 253

Fadeyev, Ivan Anisimovich, 232–33
Falconi, Carlo, 78–79, 193
Fatah, 325
Fedayeen, 323
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)arson cases and, 2
Mitrokhin Archive and, 242
Piscator and, 124–25
See also Childs, Morris; Kennedy, John F.:
assassination of
Feldkamp, Michael, 132
Ferencz, Benjamin B., 154
Filaret, Metropolitan (“Ostrovsky”), 291
Filbinger, Hans, 168–70
Firt, Julius, 167
Fokker A.G./Fokker-614, 23–24, 26
folk singers, 160–61
Fontana, Riccardo, 127, 128–29, 130–31, 179
Fonzi, Gaeton, 246
Ford, Gerald, 27
framing
description of, 44
KGB manual and, 80
during Stalin era, 45
during WWII, 46
Franco, Francisco, 95

Frank, Hans, 72–73
Free People’s Theatre, 120
Freiberger, Chief Rabbi, 72
Freie Volksbühne, 120, 125, 181
Freud, Sigmund, 170
Frost, David, 165–66
FSB (Federal Security Service), 4, 273–74, 290
FSK, 156
Gaddafi Muammar, 30–31
Gallagher, Tom, 342
Garrison, Jim, 245
Gasparri (Secretary of State), 114
Gates, Robert, 348
Gavras, Constantinos (“Costa-Gavras”), 140
Gazprom, 287, 296
Geismar, Maxwell, 148
General Motors, 6, 7, 9
German Commnist Party (KPD), 121–22, 124
Gerstein, Kurt, 127, 178–79, 194
Gestapo, 14, 89, 147, 153, 178, 305
Gheorghiu-Dej, Gheorghe, 45, 46, 112, 155, 220–21, 222,
224, 285, 314, 339
Gibson, Mel, 201
glasnost
Andropov and, 12, 14–15

Andropov on, 14–15
Ceauşescu and, 12, 15–17, 18, 313, 314, 315
definition of, 12–13
Gorbachev and, 12, 21, 313–14
KGB and, 13
Khrushchev and, 313
Lenin and, 315
Stalin and, 313, 315
Goebbels, Joseph, 123
Goering, Hermann, 175
Goldberg, Alfred, 208–9
Goldhagen, Daniel, 197
Gorbachev, Mikhail
background of, 17–18
book by, 197
compared to Ceauşescu, 18–20
glasnost and, 12, 21, 265–66, 313–14
Katyn massacre and, 176
political necrophagy and, 185, 352
in Washington, 18–20
Gorbachev, Raisa, 19
Gordievsky, Oleg, 97, 245, 325
Gorenc, Silvo, 71
gosbezopasnost, 286–87
Gottwald, Klement, 45

GPU, 155, 156
Grand National Assembly (Romanian), 15
Great Purges, 50, 192, 225
Green Party USA, 295
Griffin, John Howard, 148
Gröger, Walter, 168–70
Group Z, 233–34
Grove Press, 137, 140
GRU, 211
Guardian, 287
Guerrillas, The (Hochhuth), 110
Guevara, Che, 40, 106, 109–10, 137, 149–50, 314
Guillaume, Günter, 47–48
Guilty of Treason, 88
Gulf Research Centre, 288
Gumulka, 109
Gunvor, 287
Gusev, Nikolay Pavlovich, 328
Gusinsky, Vladimir, 274
Habash, George, 260
Haddad, Wadie, 328
Haig, Alexander, 264
Hall, Peter, 135
Hannity, Sean, 317
Hapsburg, Otto von, 85–86

Hargreaves, Mike, 323
Harnack, Adolfvon, 177–78
Harnack, Arvid (“Korsikanets”), 178
Harriman, Averell, 54Harrington, Michael, 139
Hasan, Abu (Hani al-Hassan), 322, 323
Havel, Václav, 263
heavy water, 335–36
Hebrew Commission, 68
Hellman, Lillian, 137–38
Helms, Jesse, 31
Herrhausen, Alfred, 264
Herzog, Chief Rabbi, 67–68
Herzog, Isaac (Grand Rabbi), 67, 68, 73
Heschel, Abraham, 148
Heyman, Horst, 342
Hezbollah, 288–89
hijackings, 260
Himmler, Heinrich, 174
Hinckle, Warren, 146, 147–49, 150
Hindenburg, President, 191
Hitler, Adolf
G. W. Bush compared to, 3celebration of birthday of, 98
invasion of USSR by, 52–53
Irving on, 164

Pius XII and, 174
plans to overthrow, 62
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and, 99“Secret Pact” with, 104
Stalin compared to, 49–50
Yugoslavia invasion and, 71
Hitler, the War, and the Pope (Rychlak), 34, 189, 193
Hitler’s Pope (Cornwell), 78–79, 188–95, 197, 200, 283
Hitler’s War (Irving), 164
Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact, 49–50
Hlond, Cardinal, 90
Hochhuth, Rolf anti-Semitism and, 152–53
background of, 170–71
on The Deputy, 127–28, 129–30
Evergreen Review article by, 137
Filbinger and, 168–69
on genesis of The Deputy, 178–79, 180, 181
The Guerrillas and, 110interview with, 142, 146
Irving and, 163, 164, 172–73
lack of fame of, 120
on motivations, 194
Soldiers and, 165–68
source material and, 133, 193, 244
Thompson on, 166

See also Deputy, The
Holland, Max, 208
Holley, David, 330
Holmes, Larry, 294–95
Holocaust Museum, 345
Hoover, Herbert, 320
Hoover, J. Edgar, 163, 207–8, 254
Hopkins, Dwight, 108
Horobet, Constantin, 116
Horowitz, David, 138, 151
Horthy, Nicholas, 82
House Committee on Un-American Activities, 138, 140,
145
House Select Committee on Assassinations, 218, 236, 240
Hrncevic, 78
Hromadka, Joseph, 113
Humala, Ollanta, 108
Humanae Vitae, 150
Hungarian Reformed Church, 83
Hungarian Revolution, 90
Hungary framing in, 45, 102
invasion of, 227, 294
Red Horizons in, 31, 47
uprising in, 10, 47, 259
WPC and, 41
during WWII, 69

See also Mindszenty, Jószef
Hunt, E. Howard, 247
Hunt, H. L., 247
Hurley, Joseph, 74
Hussein, King, 26
Hussein, Saddam, 277, 282, 331
al-Husseini, Haj Amin, 324
Hyland, William, 221–22
I Cannot Forgive (Vrba), 137
Iacobescu, Ion, 346
Ibarruri, Dolores (La Pasionaria), 95
Ignatyev, Nikolay, 99
Ignatyev, Semen, 10
INO, 124
Institute for Policy Studies, 151
International Association of Revolutionary Theatres, 121
International Association of Workers’ Theatres (IATB),
121
International Department of the Soviet Communist Party,
143
International Red Cross, 164
International Union of Students (IUOS), 38, 42–43“Internationale, The,” 292, 309
intifada, 326
Iosif-1, 284, 285

Iran, 282–83, 328
Iraq, 282, 293–94, 355
Iraq Summit, 295–96
iron meetings, 238
Irving, David, 163–64, 165, 170, 171–73
Islamic House of Wisdom, 279
Israel, 101, 276–77, 278–79, 283, 288, 326, 328–30
Israeli Federation of Labor, 60
Italian Jewish Assistance Committee, 67
Italian Tribunal on NATO Crimes, 295
Ivan IV, the Terrible, 3–4, 13
Ivanov, Viktor, 271
Jackson, Andrew, 320
Jaruzelski, Wojciech, 343
Jefferson, Thomas, 320
Jenin, 329–30
Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, 101
Jewish Theological Seminary, 148
Jewish War Veterans, 146
Jewish World, 138
JFK (Crenshaw), 246
JFK (movie), 234, 245
Jihad, Abu (Khalil al-Wazir), 322, 323
Jiménez, Sergio del Valle, 264
Joesten, Joachim, 144, 243–44, 245

John Birch Society, 146
John Paul II, Pope, 5, 90, 107, 115, 187–88, 199–202, 203
John XXIII, Pope, 77, 91, 92, 114, 199
Johnson, Lyndon, 207–8, 234, 245, 320
Johnson, Robert Lee, 213
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee (JAFRC), 138
Joliot-Curie, Fréderic, 39, 284
Joly, Maurice, 96, 99
Jones, Penn, Jr., 247
Juan Carlos, King (Spain), 274
Junaid, Mohammad, 279
Juristen (Judges), 168
Kádár, János, 262–63
Kalugin, Oleg, 145, 269
Kamenev, Lev, 223
Kapes, Charles, 329–30
Karine A, 328–329
Karl Marx (Raddatz), 139
Karolyi, Michael, 81
Katyn massacre, 164, 175–77, 225Katz, Robert, 197
Keating, Edward, 146–47, 149
Kekkonen, Urho Kaleva, 47
Kempner, Robert, 163

Kennedy, John F.
assassination of, 33–34, 144, 207–10, 213–14, 231,
234–35, 236–37, 240, 241–42, 243–47, 248–51,
252–54assets of, 320
Cuban missile crisis and, 92, 220–21
Soviet portrayal of, 180
Kennedy, Joseph P., 62
Kennedy, Robert, 222, 322, 354
Kennedy Assissination Tapes, The (Holland), 208
Kent, Peter C., 103
kernels of truth, 38–39, 85, 87, 96
Kerry, John, 298–99, 303, 304–5
Kerry, Teresa Heinz, 304
Kertzer, David, 197
KGB (Committee of State Security)
anti-Semitism and, 153
Arafat and, 289, 324–25, 327–28
assassinations and, 231–32
Castro brothers and, 109
counterfeit documents and, 115establishment of, 4framing and, 44, 80
glasnost and, 13
Gorbachev and, 266
Guevara and, 137

hijackings and, 260
Kennedy assassination and, 240, 241–45, 246–47, 249–
51, 252–54
Khrushchev and, 225
liberation movements and, 106–7
nuclear weapons and, 284
Oswald letter and, 246–47
Putin and, 13–14, 269, 270–71
Sartre and, 40
United Nations and, 330–31
WCC and, 3
Khatyn, 175–76
Khokhlov, Nikolay, 233
Khomeini, Ayatollah, 282–83
Khrennikov, Tikhon, 160
Khrushchev, Nikita
anti-Semitism and, 154–55
assassinations and, 231–32
Beriya and, 111
in Bucharest, 112–13, 212
communism and, 106
Cuban Missile Crisis and, 221–22
Cuban missile crisis and, 92
description of, 219, 222–25
glasnost and, 313
Katyn massacre and, 175–76

Kennedy assassination and, 231–32, 236
in London, 226–27
Mao and, 284–85
missile deception by, 228–30
operation against Vatican and US implemented by, 144
Paris Summit and, 219–20
peaceful coexistence policy and, 109
Pius XII and, 115political necrophagy and, 183–86, 352–53
property and, 283
secret speech of, 183–84, 232–33, 352
Stalin’s death and, 9, 10
Stashinsky and, 185
on stealing from capitalism, 312
Khrushchev, Sergey, 254
Kim Jung Il, 282
Kirichenko, Alexei, 115, 144
Kirill, Metropolitan (“Mikhaylov”), 3, 291
Kiriyenko, Sergey, 268
Kirk, Roger, 347–48
Kishinev, 99–100
Klein, Hans-Joachim, 40
Kliment, Metropolitan (“Topaz”), 291
Knox, William, 221–22
Kocylovsky, Josaphat, 53
Koehler, John, 116

Kolbe, Maximilian, 127
Kommersant, 290
Koppel, Ted, 271
Korda, Alberto, 109
Korean War, 300
Korotkov, Aleksandr Mikhaylovich, 178“Korsikanets” (Arvid Harnack), 178
Kostikov, Valery (“Comrade Kostin”), 207, 236–37, 238
Krašić, 76, 77
Krasnoyarsk, 306
Krasnyy Terror (Red Terror), 100
Kremlinology, 274–75
Krišto, Jure, 79
Kroesen, Frederick J., 264
Kruglov, 225
Krushchev, Nikita, 91
Kryuchkov, Vladimir, 245, 266, 286
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von, 130–31
Kukliński, Ryszard, 340
kulaks, 161
Kun, Bela, 81, 82“Kunst dem Volke, Die,” 125
Kurchatov, Igor, 283
La Belle discotheque bombing, 265

Labour Monthly, 242
Lane, Mark, 245
Lantos, Tom, 279, 296
Lapide, Pinchas E., 68
Last Investigation, The (Fonzi), 246
Latell, Brian, 248–49, 253
Latsis, Martyn Ianovich, 100, 155
Lauber, John, 319
Layesvki, Jown, 53
Lazarovici, Fănel, 8
Lebanese Communist party, 295
Ledig-Rowohlt, Heinrich Maria, 140
Lefortovo prison, 155–56
Legend (Epstein), 213–14, 217–18
Lehman, John F., 213
Lehrer, Jim, 304–5
Leiber, Robert, 67
Lenin, Vladimir, 4, 49, 69, 100, 192, 223, 232, 315
Leonhardt, Karl Ludwig, 180
Lepinowski, Stanislaw, 167
Lerner, Max, 138–39
liberation theology, 5, 106, 108–9, 110, 297
Liberty Book Club, 143
Liberty-Prometheus Book Club, 142–43
Lichtenberg, Bernhard, 127

Lieberman, Joseph, 301–2
Lifton, David S., 246
Limbaugh, Rush, 317
Lincoln, Abraham, 315
Linkov, Ruslan, 273–74
Lipstadt, Deborah, 171–72
Littler, Emile, 135
Littlewood, Joan, 136
Litvinenko, Alexander, 290, 327
Lochte, Christian, 265
Lockheed U-2, 210–12, 213, 216–17, 219–20, 228, 229,
254–55Lonely Cold War of Pope Pius XII, The (Kent), 103
Lopez, Kathryn Jean, 34
Los Angeles Times, 210
Lubomirski, Prince, 167
Lubyanka, 15, 17, 217, 269, 271, 287, 290, 305
Lugovoy, Andrey, 290, 327
Lumumba University, 330
MacArthur, General, 142
MacDonald, Robert David, 136
Macedo, Joseph, 215
Madison, James, 320
Maglione, Luigi Cardinal, 197–98
Makashov, Albert, 277–78

Malenkov, Georgy, 111
Malinovsky, Rodion, 220–21
Malinovsky, Roman, 271
Manhattan Project, 283
Mann, Golo, 173
Mansour, Muhammad Yussuf Ahmed, 289
Mao Zedong, 5, 284–85, 324
Marcone, Abbot, 73
Marinescu, Aurel Sergiu, 118
Markov, Georgi, 280
Marshall Plan, 305
Marx, Karl, 59, 139, 309, 311
Marx, Patricia, 178–79, 180
Marxism, 309–12, 317–18, 337–39
Marzani, Carl Aldo (“Nord”), 143–44, 243
Mátrai, Gyula, 84
Maurer, Ion Gheorghe, 323–24
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain
Sciences, 310–11
McAuliffe, Terry, 351
McFaul Michael, 275
Medellín Conference, 106–7
Medvedev, Dmitry, 287
Mein Kampf (Hitler), 99
Meinhof, Ulrike, 40
Meir, Golda, 101Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center,
289
Memoirs (Mindszenty), 81
Mengele, Joseph, 182
Menninger, Bonar, 246
Mentyukov, Igor, 254–55
Menzhinsky, Vyacheslav, 10
Mercader, Ramón, 101
Merkulov, Vsevolod, 10
Merton, Thomas, 189–91
Meyerhold, Vsevolod Emilyevich, 159
MGB, 101
Michael, King (Romania), 45–46, 338, 347
Midstream, 139
Mihai, Godo, 118
Mikhalkov, Sergey, 272
Militaru, Nicolae, 27Mills, C. Wright, 150
Mindszenty, Jószef, 80–88, 115, 247
Mindszenty Foundation, 88
Mindszenty Museum, 88
Minority of One, A (Arnoni), 145
Mirror, 353
Mirzayanov, Vil, 156
misinformation, definition of, 35
missile gap, 228–229

Mitrokhin, Vasili, 242
Mitrokhin Archive, 3, 242–43, 245, 246, 251, 253, 328
Mitrokhin Commission, 327
Mitsotakis, Spyridon, 345
Mitterrand, François, 40
Mofaz, Shaul, 329
Mohammed, Khalid Sheikh, 259
Mohrenschildt, George de, 214, 218, 235–36
Moiseyev, Vladimir, 273
Molotov, Vyacheslav, 49, 52, 102
Le Monde, 29, 353–54
Moore, George Curtis, 323
Moorehead, Monica G., 294–95
Morales, Evo, 108
Morega, Ion, 26
Moro, Aldo, 293, 327
Mortal Error (Menninger), 246
Moscow News, 156
Mosley, Alfred, 309–10
Mossad, 184, 279
MOST radio station, 274
Mother Jones, 151
Motorcycle Diary, The, 110
Moussa, Amr, 331
MSB, 156
Müller, Josef, 62

Muslim Brotherhood, 289
Mussolini, Benito, 63, 66
MVD, 156
NACA (US National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics), 210
Nagy, Imre, 47
Napoleon III, 96, 236, 334
NASA, 210, 341
Nasrallah, Sayyed Hassan, 289
Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 227, 325
Nathan, Joseph, 68
Nation, The, 138–39
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States, 239
National Council of Catholic Men, 146
National Council of Churches (NCC), 1, 2, 107
National Economic Council, 318
National Fire Protection Association, 2
National Jewish Welfare Board, 68
National Labor Alliance (NTS), 233
National Liberation Army of Bolivia, 107
National Liberation Army of Colombia (FARC), 106–7
National Museum in Baghdad, 36
National Review Online, 34
National Security Agency, 323

National Security Council, 104, 307
National Theatre in London, 146
NATO, 341, 342
Negri, Antonio, 293
Neusel, Hans, 264
New Communist Party of the Netherlands, 295
New Republic, 253
New Times, 144, 167, 244
New York Herald Tribune, 139
New York, New York, 147
New York Times
arson cases and, 2
Debray in, 40
on The Deputy, 138
on election of popes, 202
Hunt note and, 247
on Irving trial, 172
Kalugin and, 145
Khrushchev and, 183–84
on Kishinev pogrom, 99–100
on Negri, 293
on Pius XII, 64–65, 68
on Stepinac, 70
Tisserant and, 147
on USSR rocket capabilities, 228
New York Times Book Review, 145

Newsweek, 317
Nicholas II, 4
Niemoeller, Martin, 131
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 170
Nightline, 271
Nikodim, Metropolitan (“Adamant”), 3, 113
Nilus, Sergius, 97
Nimetz, Matthew, 347
Ninth Department, 233
Nixon, Richard, 18, 27, 176, 323
NKGB, 156
NKVD, 141–42
Nobel prize, 12, 21, 39, 53, 235, 272, 273, 289, 325, 326,
354
Noel, Cleo A., Jr., 322, 323
Nogovitsyn, Anatoly, 306“Nord” (Carl Aldo Marzani), 143–44, 243
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 94
North Korea, 282, 283, 299–300
Novaya Gazeta, 270
Novelles perspectives, 41
NSC 68 (1950), 104, 307
nuclear weapons, 283–84, 306. See also heavy water
Nunn, Sam, 348
Nuremberg trials, 130, 154, 175

Obama, Barack, 108–9, 110, 313, 314–15, 318, 321
O’Brien, Steve, 88
October 16, 1943, 197–98
October Revolution, 37, 101, 123, 225, 278
Oettinger, Günther, 169
OGPU, 156
oil and gas money, 287–88
Okhrana, 96–97, 99, 155, 271
Okolovich, Georgy, 233“Old Firm,” 165, 170
Olivier, Laurence, 166
O’Malley, Martin, 304
On the Trail of the Assassin (Garrison), 245
One Step Forward Two Steps Back (Lenin), 69
opera houses, 159
Operation Solo (Barron), 251
Oprichnina, 4Order of Lenin, 20, 212
Order of the Red Banner, 252, 254, 255
O’Reilly, Bill, 317
Organization of American Historians, 33
Orientales Omnes, 53, 91
Ortega, Daniel, 108
L’Osservatore Romano, 63, 71, 132
Ostpolitik, 47
Oswald (Joesten), 144, 243–44, 245

Oswald, Lee Harvey, 207, 209, 213–18, 234–35, 236–40,
244, 246–47, 249–50, 252–53, 254, 255
Oswald, Marina, 207, 208, 239
Oswald, Robert, 216–17
Oswald: The Truth (Joesten), 245
Pacelli, Eugenio. See Pius XII, Pope
Pacepa, Dana, 26, 28–29, 31, 32–33
Pacepa, Ion Mihai
attempts to discredit, 343–47
background of, 6–9
defection of, 24–29, 272
letter to Iraqi generals from, 355
in Moscow, 14–15
political assassinations and, 22–23
political asylum for, 20, 25, 340, 347–48
rehabilitation of, 340–41
US citizenship and, 32
work of, 333–34, 337
Pacepa, Mary Lou, 30–31
Paganini, 159
Paine, Ruth, 237, 239
Pal, Francisc Iosif, 118
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 41, 106, 264,
276, 277, 289, 325–26, 329
Palestinian Authority (PA), 328, 329

Palestinian National Authority, 330
Palfy, György, 102
Palme, Olof, 47“Pantyusha” (Panteleymon Bondarenko), 101, 121, 299
Panyushkin, Aleksandr, 94, 95
Paris Summit, 219
Partido Comunista de la Argentina, 295
Partisan Review, 178
Passion of the Christ, The, 201
Passover Massacre, 329
Patterson, Michael, 135
Paul VI, Pope, 89, 90, 92, 150, 343
Pavelić, Ante, 71, 73, 74
Pearl, Daniel, 259
Pearl Harbor attack, 53
Pehm, Jószef. See Mindszenty, Jószef
Pelosi, Nancy, 304, 316
Penguin Press, 171–72, 194
Penkovsky, Oleg, 217
Perestroika (Gorbachev), 18, 197
Performing Arts Journal, 136
Perlo, Victor, 144, 243, 244
Péter, Gábor, 86Peter the Great, 14Petzold case, 169–70

PGU, 94, 116, 222, 286
Phayer, Michael, 197
photographs, manipulation of, 191–92
Pieck, Wilhelm, 124
pig farms, 155
Pintilie, Gheorghe. See Bondarenko, Panteleymon(“Pantyusha”)
Piscator, Erwin, 120–26, 128, 134, 136, 157, 180–82
Pius XI, Pope, 59
Pius XII, Pope
Andropov on, 175
anti-Hitler campaign and, 62–63
calumny of, 5communism and, 103–4
Cornwell on, 188
defense of, 60–61, 67–69
The Deputy and, 127–32, 134
Falconi on, 79
first attempts to smear, 59
Khrushchev and, 184
messages of support from, 63–66
Mindszenty and, 81, 82–83, 86
on Nazism, 59–60, 61–62
new books on, 283
other writings on, 198–99
plans to frame, 112–14, 119, 243

Rychlak on, 34
sainthood and, 203
sanctuaries provided by, 66–67
Slipyj and, 91, 92
Stalin and, 50, 55
Stepinac and, 70–71, 74–75, 77
Stone on, 141–42, 244
Tisserant on, 147
Truman and, 103, 105
Ukraine and, 53–54
Wolff on, 174Wyszýnski and, 90
See also Deputy, The; Hitler’s Pope (Cornwell)
Plowright, Joan, 166–67
Podeanu, Mihai, 239
pogroms, 98–102
Poland, 11, 41, 50, 63, 65, 109, 164, 175, 200, 305, 306,
343, 355. See also John Paul II, Pope; Solidarity
movement; Wyszýnski, Stefan Cardinal
political necrophagy, 183–86, 188–89, 283, 284, 352
political theater, 123, 135, 136, 181
Politische Theater, Das (Piscator), 123
Polonium-210, 290, 327
polycythemia, 77
Ponomarev, Boris, 250, 252–53
Pontiff in Winter, The (Cornwell), 201

Pop, Vasile, 337
Pope, Edmund, 272–73
Pope in Winter, The (Cornwell), 201
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 260
Potemkin, Grigory, 36–37“Potemkin villages,” 37, 38, 41–42. See also individualorganizations
Powell, Colin, 330
Powers, Francis Gary, 216–17, 254–55
Pravda, 271, 309
Pravdin, Vladimir, 141–42
Prchal, Edward, 165–66
Preminger, Otto, 153
Presidential House, 23
Preysing, Konrad von, 64
Primakov, Yevgeny, 277, 286–87, 331
Prisoner, The, 88
Prisoner of Conscience (Wolf), 33
privitization, 267
Prodi, Romano, 327
Programmed to Kill (Pacepa), 33–34, 235, 241, 249, 346
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The, 96–97, 99, 262, 263
Putin, Vladimiranti-Semitism and, 278
assets of, 287–88
Axis of Evil and, 282

church and, 4
FSB and, 290
in Germany, 13–14
Iraq Summit and, 295–96
new Cold War and, 308
political necrophagy and, 352
presidency of, 267–75“Reset” and, 307
Yeltsin and, 185
Putinburgers, 271
Putinologists, 275
Pyatakov, Georgy, 101
Qichen, Qian, 331
Raceanu, Mircea, 347
Rachovsky, Petr Ivanovich, 96
Racial Laws, 72
Raddatz, Fritz J., 139–40
Radio Free Europe, 22, 28–29, 31, 33, 105, 307
Radio Havana, 249
Radio Liberation (Radio Liberty), 105, 307
Radio Moscow, 59, 61, 202
Radio Romania International, 33
Rajk, László, 102
Rákosi, Mátyás, 45

Ramparts, 138, 142, 146–47, 148, 149–51, 152, 245, 247
Rankin, Lee, 208–9
Rankovic, Aleksander, 71, 79
Rastvorov, Yuri, 233
Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph Alois, 203Răuţă, Constantin, 341, 346
Reagan, Ronald, 31, 306–7, 315, 320–21, 348
Red Brigades, 293, 327
Red Horizons (Pacepa), 18, 31–32, 33, 192, 346, 348
in Hungary, 47
redistribution of wealth, 309, 311–12, 314, 316–17,
355
Redlich, Norman, 208–9
Regime Facista, 63
Regnery, Alfred, 251
Reich, Bernhard, 125
Reich, Robert, 319
Reich Concordat, 189, 195
Reid, Harry, 304
Representative, The, 136
Republican Party, 298, 317“Reset,” 307
Reston, James, 228
Revolución, 109
Revolution in the Revolution (Debray), 40, 109

Ribbentrop, Joachim von, 49, 52, 67
Rich, Frank, 138
ricin, 280
Righteous Gentiles (Rychlak), 193
Rimington, Stella, 281
Riti, Emil, 118
Romania Versus the United States (Kirk), 347
Romanian Cassandra (Watts), 345
Romanian Culture Institute, 345
Romney, Mitt, 319320
Roncalli, 73
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 53, 61, 301, 320
Roosevelt, Theodore, 315, 320
Rosset, Barney, 137
Roşu, Gheorghe, 276
Rousseff, Dilma, 108, 311
Rowohlt of Hamburg, 139–40, 180, 181
Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), 135–36
Ruby, Jack, 207, 208, 209, 240, 244, 249
Rudenko, Colonel, 210–11, 227–28
Rush to Judgment (Lane), 245
Russian Orthodox Church, 49–50, 91, 92, 291
Russian Revolution, 96–97
Rybachenko, Mikhail, 99
Rychlak, Ronald, 34, 193, 276, 283, 350, 355

Sacks, Jonathan, 98
Safran, Alexander, 67
Safronov, Ivan, 290
Safronov, Sergey, 255
Sakharov, Andrey, 272, 273
Sakharovsky, Aleksander
alias of, 325
anti-Semitism and, 155appointment of, 10
in Bucharest, 231
on gosbezopasnost, 286
on Israel, 101
Kennedy assassination and, 243
Khrushchev and, 112, 184, 223, 224–25
Lumumba University and, 330
note from, 350
Paris Summit and, 220
Pius XII and, 115
on Powers, 255
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and, 97
U-2 and, 212, 213
Vyshinsky and, 50–51
on World War II, 95
on World War III, 96
Samoylenko, Vasily Fedorovich, 325
San Francisco Chronicle, 147

Sánchez, Ilich Ramírez (“Carlos the Jackal”), 29, 40
Sanctum Officium, 104
Sapieha, Stefan, 63–64
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 40
Scheer, Robert, 150
Scheinmann, Mikhail Markovich, 104, 132
Schmidt, Helmut, 23, 26
Schönefeld Airport, 265
Schröder, Gerhard, 296
Schwartz, Harry, 183–84Scînteia (“The Spark”), 33, 317
Seaborg, Glenn, 208“Seat 12,” 116, 117, 130
Sechin, Igor, 287
Second Vatican Council, 91–92“Secret Pact,” 104
Select Committee on Assassinations, 209–10
Semichastny, Vladimir Yefimovich, 221, 241–42
Semipalatinsk test site, 284
Semprún, Jorge, 134, 140
Semtex-H, 263
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 304
September 11th attacks, 279, 281, 354
Serb, Ion, 333
Serbs, 71–72, 75, 79

Serov, Ivan, 175, 225“Sever,” 143
Shaw, Clay, 245
Shehab, Sami, 288–89
Shelepin, Aleksandr, 115, 144, 217
Shobaki, Fuad, 328
Shostakovich, Dmitri, 157
Shumlin, Herman, 137–38, 152
Shuster, George N., 145
Shylock (Sinsheimer), 142, 243“Sidelights on History,” 131–32, 177, 181, 188
SIG, Operation, 262–63
Sikorski, Wladyslaw, 164–65, 167
Silence of Pius XII, The (Falconi), 78, 193
Sinsheimer, Hermann, 142
Sirhan, Sirhan, 322
Six-Day Arab-Israeli War, 260, 325
Slánský, Rudlf, 102
Slipyj, Josyf, 53, 91, 92
SMERSH, 54–55, 59, 69
Smith, Christopher, 31
Smith, Frederick W., 26
Smith, Walter Bedell, 37
Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia, 73
socialist realism, 158
Soderbergh, Steven, 109–10

Soldiers, Necrology on Geneva, 164–67
Solidarity movement, 187, 188
Solyndra, 319
Sombart, Werner, 320
Sontag, Susan, 139
Soul on Ice (Cleaver), 148
Soviet Order of Victory, 46
Soviet-German House of Friendship, 13
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), 47
Spanish Civil War, 138
SPD, 47
Spellman, Cardinal, 86, 146
Spies in the Vatican (Alvarez), 116
Spies in the Vatican (Koehler), 116
St. Denis, Michel, 135
Stalin, Iosif
anti-Semitism and, 100–2, 153–54
arts and, 158–59, 160, 161
Catholic Church and, 50, 51, 53
death of, 9–10
framing and, 44
Germany and, 93–94
glasnost and, 313, 315
Great Purges and, 225
Hitler and, 52–53

Hitler compared to, 49–50
invention of disinformation by, 5
on Katyn, 164
Khrushchev and, 183, 219, 224, 226, 231, 232, 352
King Michael and, 46
Mindszenty and, 80–81, 83
motivations of, 223
nuclear bomb and, 283–84
photograph manipulation and, 191–92
Pius XII and, 54, 55, 69
Putin and, 269–70
religion and, 49–51
Romania and, 338–39
Stepinac and, 70–71, 74, 78
Wehner and, 47
WPC and, 39
Starovoitova, Galina, 273–74
Stashinsky, Bogdan, 184–85, 236, 313
Stasi, 13–14, 97, 140, 265
Stauffenberg, Claus von, 342
StB, 113
Stepinac, Alojzije, 70–79, 115
Stern, Sol, 149, 150
Stevens, John Christopher, 322, 326
stirpe, 64, 66
Stockholm Conference, 302–3

Stone, I. F. (“Blin”), 138–39, 141–42, 146, 243, 244, 248
Stone, Judy, 142, 146, 245
Stone, Oliver, 234, 245
Storm over the Deputy, The, 140
Stout, Zack, 214
Strategies of Political Theatre (Patterson), 135
Struggle for Russia, The (Yeltsin), 241–42
Stuckey, William, 214
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 169
Suez Canal, 227
Suhard, Emanuel Cardinal, 147
Sukhoi Su-9, 254
Sulner, László and Hanna, 81, 86–87, 247
Summa Iniuria, 139
Summers, Lawrence, 318–19
Summi Pontificatus, 198
Sunday Times, 167
Supreme Court Decision No. 41, 340–41
Surgutneftegs, 287
Swift, Mary Grace, 159
symbolism, 281–82
Symington, Stuart, 228
Synod of Lviv, 91
Syria, 260, 262, 288, 290
Tablet (London), 63

Tayfun, Operation, 263, 264
Taylor, Myron, 103
Terpil, Frank, 30–31
terrorism
anti-American, 292–93
anti-Zionist, 261, 263–64
promotion of, 262–64
See also individual acts
Teusan, Axente, 346
Thatcher, Margaret, 21“The French Lesson” (Debray), 40“The Height of Injustice, or Should the Pope Have
Remained Silent,” 139
Theft of a Nation (Gallagher), 342
Third Congress of the Romanian Communist Party, 212,
285
Third International, 155
Thirteenth Department, 207, 233, 236, 237, 260
This World, 146
Thompson, Carlos, 166, 167, 170
Tiananmen Square, 331
Time, 74, 75, 77, 110, 124, 137, 149, 152, 165, 168
Timeless Christian, The (Kuehnelt-Leddihn), 130–31
Times (London), 99
Tisserant, Eugene Cardinal, 147
Tito, Josip (Broz), 71, 73, 74, 76–78, 346

Tolbukin, Fedor, 46
Tondi, Aligheri, 116
Tony award, 138
Totok, William, 118
Treblinka, 65, 305
Treptow, Kurt W., 345
Trinity United Church of Christ, 108–9
Tripartite Pact, 52
Trofimov, Anatoly, 327
Trotsky, Leon, 101, 192, 223
Trujillo, López, 107
Truman, Harry, 46, 103, 104–5, 179, 307, 351
Turner, Stansfield, 25
Tynan, Kenneth, 165
U-2 spy plane, 210–12, 213–14, 216–17, 219–20, 228,
229, 254–55
UDBA, 71, 73, 74
Uglev, Vladimir, 156
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), 91, 92
Ulbricht, Walter, 45
Ulmanis, Kārlis, 50–51
UN Resolution 3379, 276–77, 278
Under HIs Very Windows (Zuccotti), 197–98
Union of Soviet Composers, 157

Union of Soviet Writers, 157
United Labor Action, 295
United Nations
Israel and, 276–77
KGB and, 330–31
United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women, 42
United Nations Security Council, 219, 277
United Nationsl Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), 136
United Press International, 340
US National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics(NACA), 210
USA Today, 315
USS Cole, 282
Ustashe, 71–72, 74, 75
Valeri, Valerio, 198
Variety, 129
Vassiliev, Alexander, 248
Vassiliev Archive, 141, 248
Vaticanarchives of, 116, 117–19
loan from, 116–17
secret agent of, 116
secret archives of, 117spies in, 116

See also individual popes
Vatican in Zweiten Weltkrieg, Der (The Vatican in theSecond World War; Scheinmann), 104, 132
Vatican Radio, 59, 64, 105
Vatican-Nazi conspiracy, 104velvet revolution, 343
Venona intercepts, 248
Vian, Giovanni Maria, 132
Victor Emmanuel III, King (Italy), 66
Vietnam War, 150, 301, 302–3
Vlad, Iulian, 344, 345
Voice of America, 105, 307
V-PVO, 211, 212
Vrba, Rudolf, 137
VTOL technology, 23–24
Vyshinsky, Andrey, 50–51, 54, 71, 74, 94–95, 175–76
Waldorf Astoria hotel, 20, 148
Walker, Edwin, 239
Walker, John Anthony, Warsaw Pact
Wall Street Journal, 2, 259, 352
Wallenberg, Raoul, 82, 155–56
Walnut, Operation, 227
Walnut II, Operation, 228
War of 1812, 301
war on terror, 353

Warren, Earl, 208
Warren Commission, 208–9, 237, 238–39, 240, 246, 251,
254
Warsaw Pact, 259
Washington, George, 320
Washington Post, 2, 33, 296, 313, 319–20
Washington Times, 340
Waters, Maxine, 317
Watts, Larry, 344–45
Wehner, Herbert, 47
Weigel, George, 188
Weiss-Rosmarin, Trude, 152
Weizman, Chaim, 164
Weizsäcker (German ambassador), 197–98
Welch, Richard, 264
Welsh, James, 323
West, Cornel, 108West Berlin, 93, 112, 113, 120, 125, 265
West Germany
anti-Semitism in, 97
Beldeanu and, 234
diplomats expelled from, 29
Fadeyev in, 232, 233
Hochhuth and, 167
Johnson in, 213
Marshall Plan and, 305

Pacepa in, 154, 333, 342, 353
Raddatz in, 140
spies caught in, 116
Stashinsky and, 184, 236
U-2 and, 211
Wehner in, 47
wet operations, 23, 207, 260
White, Stephen, 275
White, Stu, 319–20
White Book of the Securitate, 346
Wilkins, George, 214
Williams, Clifford, 136
Wills, Garry, 197
Wilson, Edwin, 30–31
Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), 342
Wischnewski, Hans-Jürgen, 26
Wisdom, 61
Wistrich, Robert, 197
With Friends Like These (Watts), 345
Witness (Chambers), 33
Wojtyla, Cardinal Karol Józef. See John Paul II, Pope
Wolf, Frank, 31, 33
Wolff, Karl Otto, 174–75
Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIFD),
38, 42
Woolsey, James, 330, 344

Workers World, 294–95
Workers World Party (WWP), 294–96
World Council of Churches (WCC), 2, 3, 107–8, 291
World Federation of Democratic Youth, 38, 299–300
World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), 38, 42World Jewish Congress, 68, 69
World Peace Council (WPC), 38–41, 42, 112–13, 293–94,
296, 302, 324
World War I, 37, 301
World War II, 62, 81–82, 301, 306
World War III, 85, 95–96
World Zionist Organization, 164
Wright, Jeremiah, 108–9, 110, 297–98
Wye Accord, 326
Wyszýnski, Stefan Cardinal, 89–90
Yad Vashem, 68
Yagoda, Genrikh, 10
Yakunin, Gleb, 107
Yeltsin, Boris, 4, 185, 241–42, 266, 267, 268–69, 290,
352
Yezhov, Nikolay, 10, 192
Yom Kippur War, 282
Young Friends of the United States, 6Youth Against War and Fascism, 295
Yugoslavia, 71, 73, 76, 138. See also Ðjilas, Milovan;

Stepinac, Alojzije; Tito, Josip (Broz)
Yurchenko, Vitaly, 213
Zahn, Gordon, 148
Zakar, András, 83, 84
Zarathustra, Operation, 97–98
Zelaya, Manuel, 108
Zhdanov, Andrey, 158–59
Zhou Enlai, 284–285
Zinovyev, Grigory Yevseyevich, 101, 159, 223
Zionism
American, 94–95
Andropov and, 260–61, 276
framing and, 101
KGB attacks on, 260–62
protests against, 292
Stalin and, 102
terrorism and, 261, 263–64
World War III and, 95
Zolli, Emma, 60
Zolli, Eugenio (Israel), 60–61
Zuccotti, Susan, 197–98

* This part of the book contains information published in
Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the KGB, and the
Kennedy Assassination (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2007).