Soviet Red Army Crushes Waffen SS – the Battle for Budapest (26.12.1944-13.2.1945)


Soviet Red Army liberates Budapest 

Soviet Press Statement (21.12.1944):

‘At the beginning of December, under the chairmanship of Dr Vasary, the mayor of Debrecen, a group was formed of representatives of the different Hungarian parties… In liberated territory the election of delegates to the Provisional National Assembly took place between December 13 and 20. 230 delegates were elected, representing the democratic parties, the town and village councils and the trade and peasant unions… The Assembly opened with the playing of the Hungarian National Anthem. The meeting was held in the Reformation College where, in 1849, Kossuth proclaimed the independence of Hungary…

An Address to the Hungarian People was adopted which said:

It is time to make peace. Salasi is an usurper,,, We call upon the Hungarian people to rally to the banners of Kossuth and Rakoszi and to follow in the footsteps of the Honweds (volunteer militia) of 1848. We want a democratic Hungary. We guarantee the inviolability of private property as the basis of our social and economic order. We want Land Reform… Turn your arms against the German oppressors and help the Red Army… for the good of a Free and Democratic Hungary!’

(Russia at War 1941-1945: By Alexander Werth [1964] Pages 909-910)

Hitler’s Nazi German regime was assisted in its widespread (highly destructive and genocidal) invasion of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union by Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, all of which had acquired politically rightwing governments. Nazi Germany was also assisted with supplies of oil and other raw materials by Sweden, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Vichy France and fascist Italy. The so-caked ‘Axis’ powers (of which there were many), coalesced around the 1936 ‘Anti-Comintern Pact’, an agreement between various rightwing countries to jointly resist the spread of ‘International Communism’. Therefore, it can be said that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was a direct manifestation of the pursuance of this pact, an act of aggression which was assisted by a number of Axis powers. Over-all, contemporary estimates suggest that around 34 million Soviet men, women and children died during the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, and the application of the Hitlerite ‘final solution’. Hitler had declared the the Slavic people to be racially inferior, and their embracing of Communist ideology to be a confirmation of this fact. To remedy this problem, Hitler demanded nothing less than the eradication of the Slavic people and their Communist ideology.

As the tide of war changed, and the Soviet Red Army started to push the Nazi German invaders out of the USSR, it became necessary to pursue the retreating Germans all the way to Berlin to ensure the complete defeat of the Nazi regime. Whilst pursuing this anti-fascist policy, the countries that had collaborated with Nazi Germany had to be invaded and ‘liberated’ from their fascist governments and Nazi German occupiers. As can be gleamed from the Soviet Press statement (above), the Soviet Authorities implemented ‘democratic’ elections, so that the ordinary citizens of countries such as Hungary, could choose a non-fascist political path. By and large, the ordinary citizens of such countries, (i.e. the ‘workers’), were treated as ‘victims’ of fascism, rather than its perpetuators.

On October 21st, 1944, the Soviet Red Army (under Malinovksy) entered and took Debrecen in eastern Hungary. Although the Red Army advance into Hungary was rapid at first, it was soon slowed by stiff (fascist) Hungarian and Nazi German resistance. This resistance increased as the Red Army fought inch by inch toward Budapest in November. In early December (1944), Hitler met with the fascist Hungarian leader Salasi in Berlin, where it was agreed that Budapest must be held at all costs (although behind the scenes, many of its industries were already being re-located to Austria). As part of this deal, Hitler allocated around 23,000 well-equipped and highly motivated troops of the Waffen SS to defend Budapest (and possibly turn the tide of the battle). These units were essentially heavily armed and highly politically motivated annihilation squads (being considered racially ‘pure’ by Hitler), whose motto was ‘Give Death and Take Death’. These men were not ordinary soldiers, and their training was designed to embody a certain ‘mindless’ brutality that existed outside of the traditions of the conventional German military. Surrender was out of the question as was taking prisoners or providing medical care to wounded enemy soldiers. In fact, the Waffen SS often tortured the enemy wounded to death, considering it a sport to invent ever more painful methods. These troops were under the direct command of Adolf Hitler himself (being considered his personal bodyguard), and were trained to believe that they personally represented the ideological foundation of the fascist ideology of National Socialism. As racially pure Aryans, these men received the best clothing, training, food, housing and weaponry, and were treated with the utmost respect (and fear) within German society. As an embodiment of ‘Nazism’, Hitler believed that these racially superior beings, entirely through an act of will, could defeat the military might of the Red Army, and in so doing trigger a collapse of its Communist ideology (bringing down the USSR from within).

The 50 day Battle for Budapest was to test this hypothesis. Around 23,000 racially pure Waffen SS troops were to spear-head the defence of Budapest and inflict a debilitating defeat upon the Red Army. By comparison, Red Army soldiers, whose motto was ‘Free the Workers!’ was comprised of ordinary men and women from the length and breadth of the vast Soviet Union. As such, they were ethnically diverse, and represented no particular race. They pursued Socialist Revolution every time they fought – freeing the oppressed workers from the tyranny of capitalism and fascism. The average Red Army soldier was selfless, supportive of his fellow Comrades, and willing to self-sacrifice to save others. These soldiers were not racially superior, did not pursue any form of fascist ideology, and were motivated by a broad non-racial ‘Internationalism’, rather than by a narrow fascistic ‘Nationalism’, and yet in the space of around 7 weeks, these quite ‘ordinary’ Communist soldiers encircled and then systematically ‘destroyed’ the 23,000 fanatical Waffen SS soldiers – killing 19,000 in the fighting! The fascist forces of Budapest surrendered on the 13th of February, 1945, and Hungary was finally liberated.

The following documentary explains who the Waffen SS were – and how they were deployed during WWII. Comprised of around 900,000 at their peak, toward the end of the war (as casualties mounted), Hitler allowed non-Germans to join, such as French, Swedes and Danes. In fact, as the Nazi regime collapsed under Soviet pressure, around 90% of the Waffen SS units defending Hitler in Berlin near the end, were comprised of foreigners who fanatically fought to the bitter end. Allowing non-Germans into the Waffen SS was thought by certain Nazi Germans as ‘weakening’ the spiritual strength of these units, and therefore lowering their fighting efficiency. However, Hitler gambled with some of his best (racially pure) Waffen SS regiments in Budapest – and despite their assumed ‘spiritual strength’, they were systematically destroyed by Slavic peasant soldiers from the Urals.

Pravda: Stalin Deconstructs Trotsky’s Duplicitous Letter (15.12.1923)


Full Article – JV Stalin – UK

Trotsky’s Letter

The resolution of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission on internal Party democracy, published on December 7, was adopted unanimously. Trotsky voted for this resolution. It might have been expected, therefore, that the members of the Central Committee, including Trotsky, would come forward in a united front with a call to Party members for unanimous support of the Central Committee and its resolution. This expectation, however, has not been realised. The other day Trotsky issued a letter to the Party conferences which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to weaken the will of the Party membership for unity in supporting the Central Committee and its position.

Judge for yourselves.

After referring to bureaucracy in the Party apparatus and the danger of degeneration of the old guard, i.e., the Leninists, the main core of our Party, Trotsky writes:

“The degeneration of the ‘old guard’ has been observed in history more than once. Let us take the latest and most glaring historical example: the leaders and the parties of the Second International. We know that Wilhelm Liebknecht, Bebel, Singer, Victor Adler, Kautsky, Bernstein, Lafargue, Guesde, and others, were the immediate and direct pupils of Marx and Engels. We know, however, that all those leaders—some partly, and others wholly—degenerated into opportunism.”. . . “We, that is, we ‘old ones,’ must say that our generation, which naturally plays a leading role in the Party, has no self-sufficient guarantee against the gradual and imperceptible weakening of the proletarian and revolutionary spirit, assuming that the Party tolerates a further growth and consolidation of the bureaucratic-apparatus methods of policy which are transforming the younger generation into passive educational material and are inevitably creating estrangement between the apparatus and the membership, between the old and the young.”. . . “The youth—the Party’s truest barometer—react most sharply of all against Party bureaucracy.”. . . “The youth must capture the revolutionary formulas by storm. . .

First, I must dispel a possible misunderstanding. As is evident from his letter, Trotsky includes himself among the Bolshevik old guard, thereby showing readiness to take upon himself the charges that may be hurled at the old guard if it does indeed take the path of degeneration. It must be admitted that this readiness for self-sacrifice is undoubtedly a noble trait. But I must protect Trotsky from Trotsky, because, for obvious reasons, he cannot, and should not, bear responsibility for the possible degeneration of the principal cadres of the Bolshevik old guard. Sacrifice is a good thing, of course, but do the old Bolsheviks need it? I think that they do not.

Secondly, it is impossible to understand how opportunists and Mensheviks like Bernstein, Adler, Kautsky, Guesde, and the others, can be put on a par with the Bolshevik old guard, which has always fought, and I hope will continue to fight with honour, against opportunism, the Mensheviks and the Second International. What is the cause of this muddle and confusion? Who needs it, bearing in mind the interests of the Party and not ulterior motives that by no means aim at defence of the old guard? How is one to interpret these insinuations about opportunism in relation to the old Bolsheviks, who matured in the struggle against opportunism?

Thirdly, I do not by any means think that the old Bolsheviks are absolutely guaranteed against the danger of degeneration any more than I have grounds for asserting that we are absolutely guaranteed against, say, an earthquake. As a possibility, such a danger can and should be assumed. But does this mean that such a danger is real, that it exists? I think that it does not. Trotsky himself has adduced no evidence to show that the danger of degeneration is a real danger. Nevertheless, there are a number of elements within our Party who are capable of giving rise to a real danger of degeneration of certain ranks of our Party. I have in mind that section of the Mensheviks who joined our Party unwillingly, and who have not yet got rid of their old opportunist habits. The following is what Comrade Lenin wrote about these Mensheviks, and about this danger, at the time of the Party purge:

“Every opportunist is distinguished for his adaptability . . . and the Mensheviks, as opportunists, adapt themselves ‘on principle,’ so to speak, to the prevailing trend among the workers and assume a protective colouring, just as a hare’s coat turns white in the winter. It is necessary to know this specific feature of the Mensheviks and take it into account. And taking it into account means purging the Party of approximately ninety-nine out of every hundred of the Mensheviks who joined the Russian Communist Party after 1918, i.e., when the victory of the Bolsheviks first became probable and then certain.” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 13.)

How could it happen that Trotsky, who lost sight of this and similar, really existing dangers, pushed into the foreground a possible danger, the danger of the degeneration of the Bolshevik old guard? How can one shut one’s eyes to a real danger and push into the foreground an unreal, possible danger, if one has the interests of the Party in view and not the object of undermining the prestige of the majority in the Central Committee, the leading core of the Bolshevik old guard? Is it not obvious that “approaches” of this kind can only bring grist to the mill of the opposition?

Fourthly, what reasons did Trotsky have for contrasting the “old ones,” who may degenerate, to the “youth,” the Party’s “truest barometer”; for contrasting the “old guard,” who may become bureaucratic, to the “young guard,” which must “capture the revolutionary formulas by storm”? What grounds had he for drawing this contrast, and what did he need it for? Have not the youth and the old guard always marched in a united front against internal and external enemies? Is not the unity between the “old ones” and the “young ones” the basic strength of our revolution? What was the object of this attempt to discredit the old guard and demagogically to flatter the youth if not to cause and widen a fissure between these principal detachments of our Party? Who needs all this, if one has the interests of the Party

in view, its unity and solidarity, and not an attempt to shake this unity for the benefit of the opposition?

Is that the way to defend the Central Committee and its resolution on internal Party democracy, which, moreover, was adopted unanimously?

But evidently, that was not Trotsky’s object in issuing his letter to the Party conferences. Evidently there was a different intention here, namely: diplomatically to support the opposition in its struggle against the Central Committee of the Party while pretending to support the Central Committee’s resolution.

That, in fact, explains the stamp of duplicity that Trotsky’s letter bears.

Trotsky is in a bloc with the Democratic Centralists and with a section of the “Left” Communists—therein lies the political significance of Trotsky’s action.

Pravda, No. 285, December 15, 1923

Andrei Sokolov: Soviet Tractor Factories & UFO’s


(Translation and Research by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Author’s Note: This article is an English translation (of extracts) of the original Russian language ‘Pravda’ article written by Andrei Sokolov and entitled ‘Советские НЛО делались на тракторном заводе Читайте больше на’, or ‘Soviet UFO’s Constructed in Tractor Factories’. Carl Jung once commented that UFO’s might well be Western humanity’s attempt at reconciling Judeo-Christian theology with modern technology (hence the ‘halo’ shape of the craft, and the mystical and transcendent nature of the sightings), and that many sightings are in fact mind generated and do not exist in the physical environment. This analysis remains valid even if a natural phenomenon is being observed and ‘mistaken’ for a UFO. Whatever the case, the notion that ‘unidentified flying objects’ are a priori ‘alien’ space craft visiting the earth for either progressive or regressive purposes, is pure fantasy without a single shred of evidence. Of course, Carl Jung was a bourgeois philosopher of psychological theory, and remained staunchly ‘anti-Communist’ throughout his career, and has been accused of holding pro-Nazi German and anti-Semitic viewpoints by various Western commentators. This explains why Jung partly explained the world-wide UFO phenomenon as being partly generated by the Communist countries (which Jung described as ‘Prison Camps’), through the paranoia and fear such regimes apparently elicited in the minds of humanity. Jung never acknowledged the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany or its ending and exposing of the holocaust (an effort that cost between 27 million-40 million Soviet casualties during WWII). The irony is that the bourgeois freedom Jung enjoyed throughout much of his life was brought with Soviet blood. However, from a strictly logical perspective, an ‘unidentified flying object’ is just that – an object that appears to be suspended in the sky – the identity and origination of which remains unspecified. Probably around 95% of all UFO sightings are either deliberate hoaxes, or misinterpreted natural phenomena.  The other 5% remain unexplained due to the circumstances surrounding the sighting, and the quality of the evidence provided, but there is every reason to believe that a logical explanation can be eventually provided, given enough advances in technological equipment. This process of debunking the ‘alien’ myth has gone on ever since the 1950’s, where quite extraordinary ‘disc-like’ objects were filmed moving across the sky.  Sooner or later, as computer technology improved, these interesting pieces of film footage were revealed to be merely ordinary ‘terrestrial’ aircrafts, with the problems of light, angle, distance, terrain and atmospherics naturally combining to create the optical illusion of a saucer-shaped object (which nevertheless still moved across the sky ‘like a plane’).  Andrei Sokolov’s article exposes the UFO ‘myth’ of religiosity, and confirms that UFO’s were first constructed in the USA as a means to ‘terrorise’ and ‘confuse’ Soviet citizenry. Sadly, for Carl Jung, his childish and prejudiced attitudes toward Socialism are exposed as being the product of the very dysfunctional archetypes his theory of mind advocates to explain abhorrent human behaviour. Where necessary, I have added explanatory notes to chosen extracts of Sokolov’s excellent narrative. Interested readers are advised that Andrei Sokolov’s article contains much more technical detail than I have had time to translate here, but as he states his work is also available in English, this can be accessed elsewhere. ACW 17.1.2017

The UFO phenomena in the West is premised upon the mystery of Judeo-Christian theology and its inversion of logic. Briefly stated, the UFO is symbolic of god’s prophet returning to earth, with its alien pilots possessing a higher technology that works ‘miracles’ on planet earth. The UFO’s are from their obviously technological and culturally advance planets and cultures that are the ‘god’ premise, or divine origination of the UFO vehicle and its mission to spread the ‘gospel’ of inter-galactic consciousness.  Furthermore, in accordance with the Marxist analysis of the bourgeois mind-set, reality is inversed, so that it is falsely believed that ‘mind’ (or ‘spirit’), through an act of ‘will’ can create or manipulate matter.  This explains the ‘ethereal’ nature of most UFO observations and alleged encounters with alien beings. In this regard, UFO sightings that are not misreading natural phenomena in the environment, are in effect purely ‘psychological’ events conveying (and imaginatively projecting) the cultural conditioning of the observer. This interpretation reveals the UFO subject as something akin to a ‘modern’ religion premised upon ‘faith’ (being fully inaccordance with its Judeo-Christian underpinnings).  As this was understood in the USSR, and given that the Soviet Union rejected the inverted mind-set throughout its culture and education system, it is highly unlikely that Soviet citizens would ‘project’ the same (capitalist-derived) mythology upon the environment (and natural events). This scenario is born-out by the observation that generally speaking, very few UFOs were witnessed over Russia prior to WWII, or if they were, they were not interpreted as ‘UFO’, but rather as potential ‘foreign’ incursions into Soviet air-space, or as atmospheric or weather conditions, etc. This held true even after the late 1950’s, when the Soviet space programme reached its peak and set the agenda for world science and space exploration. As Soviet culture operated through a ‘non-inverted’ mind-set, the Soviet population did not resort to religious mythology to explain natural phenomena.  In fact, progressive thinking would dominate in the USSR until the mid to late 1980’s, when President Mikhail Gorbachev pursued his policy of ‘destroying’ the Communist Revolution in Russia, and returning the Soviet people to the status of ‘wage-slaves’ within the capitalist system. A population operating through an inverted mind-set (i.e. ‘false consciousness’) lacks the cognitive ability to a) understand how the existential capitalist system operates, and b) muster the correct working class intelligence to collectively plan its other-throw.  The bizarre idea that UFOs are ‘alien’ space-crafts from distant planets is merely a new form of religion relevant for advanced capitalist functionality. The people remain ‘alienated’ from their ‘true’ psychological and physical essence due to class exploitation, just as they ‘imagine’ being ‘abducted’ by vague alien forces they can neither fully comprehend or control.  The UFO phenomena is in reality an updated version of the Judeo-Christian religion, but one made relevant for post-industrial, technologically modern and post-modern times.

Although the Soviet Union did not adhere to the bourgeois delusion of the Western-generated UFO craze, nevertheless, reliable Russian language sources report that the incidence of unusual atmospheric anomalies did appear to increase during the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Of course, during the US initiated Cold War, Soviet air-space was routinely ‘compromised’ by various Western spy planes, drones, missiles and other devices. The Soviet response was not a retreat into the psychological and physical ‘paralysis’ of religiously inspired mythology, but instead engaged the human intellect, and through scientific innovation, designed and developed better systems of detection and counter-measure. The Soviet response was to answer ‘uncertainty’ with ‘logic’.  This is significant, as on March 23rd, 2007, the esteemed Russian newspaper ‘Pravda’ published an article by Andrei Sokolov, entitled ‘Soviet UFO Made in the Tractor Factory’.  This article rejected completely the notion that UFOs were alien space-crafts from distant galaxies, comprised of unusual technology from an advanced extra-terrestrial culture. In other words, Andrei Sokolov retained a ‘scientific’ analysis during his assessment of the UFO issue in Russia, and rejected the religiously inspired ‘myth’ that surrounds this issue in the West (this is despite the fact that Andrei Sokolov does profess a ‘faith’ in Christianity). In fact, Andrei Sokolov is of the opinion that the first UFOs originated not on a far-off planet, but rather in 1940’s USA, and were a technological development of that (capitalist) country designed for the ‘stealthy’ and ‘illusive’ penetration of Soviet air-space, primarily for ‘spying’ and ‘counter-revolutionary’ purposes. One function of these man-made devices was to import the religious (and bourgeois) myth into the Russian mind-set that ‘space travellers’ were visiting the earth, in an attempt to re-establish inverted thinking amongst the general population, and over-turn the Communist Revolution of 1917. If a fixation on a non-existent threat from ‘deep space’ could be established in the USSR, then the USA could continue to build its anti-Communist strategy (and tactics) primarily ‘away’ from the gaze of the Soviet Intelligence Services. Andrei Sokolov states that the earlier flying saucers lacked the ability to fly great distances in straight-lines, and so were delivered into Soviet air-space from submerged US submarines, and that this explains why some UFO sightings appear to have taken place at sea.  However, as technology advanced, this delivery system was often replaced with short flights into the USSR across national borders. However, the US not only targeted the USSR with these ‘flying discs’, but also regimes that were antagonistic to US foreign policy. One such country was post-revolutionary Iran, the scientists of which reported to the Soviet Government (during a ‘Congress of Philosophy’ held at Moscow State University), that there had been a significant surge in UFO sightings around their developing nuclear reactors.  This issue was further discussed at a Seminar of Science and Para-science at the same university.  Andrei Sokolov further states that the USSR eventually developed its own version of these ‘flying discs’, as a means to spy on the US (and its allies), and continue to ‘confuse’ the capitalists by continuing to propagate the ‘myth’ (and accompanying ‘fear’) of the threat of inter-galactic invaders.

In 1989, as the infrastructure of the USSR was beginning to unravel and fall apart, there was a tremendous increase in UFO activity over Moscow and other areas (as recorded in de-classified KGB files), involving spinning, metallic discs with flashing lights that travelled at incredible speeds or suddenly stopped dead and changed direction, etc. Andrei Sokolov was interested in aerodynamics and the design of flight capable technology, because of this he attended the Physics Department of the Krasnoyarsk State University. During this time (in 1995), he successfully theorised a basic flying disc design that mirrored the UFOs of the 1940’s in the US. However, when he approached the academic authorities with his breakthrough, he was discouraged to continue, and was even told that he should not pursue this line of enquiry due to national security issues.  Andrei Sokolov did not heed these warnings, but instead continued his research independently, gathering information from libraries, writing articles, and uploading all the information onto the internet (in Russian and English), as well as publishing the results in book form.  From that time onward, Andrei Sokolov received hundreds of emails from around the world, but one that particularly took his attention was from a man named ‘Danko Priymak’ – the former chief engineer at a ‘secure’ tractor factory situated in Pavlodar (Kazakhstan). Danko Priymak explained that UFOs were man-made ‘advanced technology’, and that the Kazakhstan area was in fact a highly militarised and ‘top secret’ zone, where the USSR carried-out all of its most progressive scientific programmes. The most promising scientists (and their families) were moved to self-contained ‘cities’, and given every material advantage as an encouragement to pursue their technological breakthroughs. (This is where the Soviet space-shuttle was based, and where it still resides in its hanger today). After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Danko Priymak left the ‘new’ capitalist Russia and quietly went to live abroad, but he made it clear that in his tractor factory, the Soviet military produced a number of ‘flying disc’ machines to counter the US threat.  When Andrei Sokolov’s ideas spread to the West, they were often attacked by those that supported the ‘extra-terrestrial’ mythology of the UFO phenomena, but every so often Sokolov would receive support from notable researchers such as the NASA expert James Obert. This is where Sokolov heard of the ‘electro-kinetic engine’, and encountered how the US system’s official position of UFOs was one of deliberate obscurity and the encouragement of confusion in the minds of the ordinary people. However, after the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), issued a communique (after years of research) stating that humanity was alone in the universe, and that talk of ‘aliens’ was US propaganda, the Soviet Authorities started developing their own ‘flying discs’ during the 1960’s and 1970’s. This was when the Soviet Authorities started issuing popular and academic articles extolling technological advances, and diverting people’s attention away from the ‘alien’ mythology. This process allowed some aspects of advanced Soviet technology to be made common-knowledge as a means to demonstrate just how powerful the ordinary human mind could be. For instance, the popular journal ‘Techniques of Youth’ published an article on the civilian use of secret technology – about the electropulse defroster, which was used on the wings of IL-86 (to defrost ice). Whereas early UFOs tended to ‘vibrate’, the later versions operated within a stable vortex, and were constructed of a malleable (sometimes radio-active) metal that improved in design over the years.

The US managed to pull-off this technological hoax because it deliberately pursued two distinct currents of aircraft design – one was the ‘open’ conventional aeroplane design – whilst the other was the ‘closed’ design of the much more efficient ‘flying discs’ and their electro-kinetic engines. The former was presented as ‘terrestrial’ and mundane, whilst the latter was conveyed as ‘extra-terrestrial’ and extraordinary. In reality both designs emerged from the same human mind and there was nothing ‘alien’ about any of it.  UFOs, like their aeroplane cousins, are nothing but human-designed aircrafts, designed to fly primarily within the earth’s atmosphere (although some models could ‘high orbit’). The point is that if the delusion and mythology is swept away, then it becomes apparent that UFO technology is not ‘special’ or ‘unique’, but the product of the rational human mind given full support during scientific endeavour. Meanwhile, in 1998 a book was published entitled ‘The Science of Aviation’ written by Andrej Vitko – a teacher at the Moscow Aviation Institute, and an expert in the design and use of ultra-high frequency devices. This enabled him to develop the theory that describes these energy efficient wingless flight vehicles, which he calls ‘open acoustic resonators’.  Of course, the US government (that launched the UFO hoax) will not openly admit its complicity in this deception (due to the ‘advanced’ nature of the technology involved), but has slowly but surely allowed certain aspects of UFO knowledge into mainstream media, disguised as ‘science fiction’ TV series or Hollywood films.

Russian Language Article:

Andrei Sokolov – Soviet UFO Made in the Tractor Factory (Pravda 23.3.2007)


The USSR and Homosexuality Part III (RSFSR Article 154a)


Research By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD

Researcher’s Note: It seems logical to conclude that the 1926 Article 154a was a legislation against male on male rape – despite the peculiar wording of the opening line (an opening line that would be retained in the later Article 121, which appears to be a legal extension to prevent paedophilia). What must be considered is the ‘nuance’ of the original Russian language text, which has probably been lost in English translation, (as in English translation, these legislations appear ‘homophobic’).  The fact that the Soviet Union was considered enlightened and tolerant demonstrates that these laws were not applied as a deliberate attack upon homosexuals – although in the 1930’s, certain homosexual activity became associated with specific counter-revolutionary activity.  In this regard, homosexuals who strove to bring-down the USSR were treated as ‘criminals’ – just as their heterosexual colleagues.  Soviet records demonstrate that Joseph Stalin was not behind the apparently anti-gay legislation, but was responding to various police reports about contemporary counter-revolutionary activities (usually within major cities). ACW  5.1.2016

The USSR and Homosexuality Part I (Article 121)

The USSR and Homosexuality Part II (Czarist Article 995)

The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) officially existed as a sovereign State between October, 1917 and late December, 1922 – before being formally incorporated (as a Republic) into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).  In 1917, Lenin abolished the old Czarist Legal Code – including Article 995 which ‘banned’ male homosexuality.  The decriminalising of homosexuality in Revolutionary Russia was incidental to the over-throw of the old order, and was not carried-out as a specific act of liberation.  However, for reasons apparently related to ‘religious sensitivities’, the Czarist Article 995 was legally retained in the Caucasian and Central Asian Republics, after 1917, before being finally abolished in 1920.  In 1922, homosexuality continued to be decriminalised throughout Revolutionary Russia, but in  April, 1926, the RSFSR enacted Article 154a, which reads as follows:

‘Sexual intercourse of a man with a man (sodomy) – deprivation of liberty for a term of three to five years. Sodomy committed with application of violence or with the use of the dependent status of the victim, – the deprivation of liberty for a term of five to eight years.’

This legislation appears to have been interpreted as a protection against male on male rape, and not an attack upon homosexuality in general.  This stance appears to be vindicated by the fact that the Soviet Government (in 1926), invited the German Magnus Hirschfeld – the famous gay emancipator and founder of the World League of Sexual Reform – to witness first-hand the tolerance toward homosexuality in Revolutionary Russia. As a result, during the 1928 Copenhagen Congress of the Institute for the Science of Sexuality, the League stated that the Soviet Union was a model of tolerance for sexual diversity.  When Hitler came to power, however, these progressive institutes were attacked and destroyed.

As time progressed, particularly following Trotsky’s betrayal and banishment from the Soviet Union (in 1929), certain overt modes of (male) homosexuality came to be associated with counter-revolutionary activity, and a manifestation of bourgeois decadence.  Due to this heightened sense of internal attack within the USSR, a number of leading Soviets started to agitate for a law ‘banning’ homosexuality as a means to break-up groups practising ‘pederasty’ and the corruption of (male) youth.  This movement did not begin with Stalin and was not implemented from above.  Russian language sources record that the Deputy Chairman of the NKVD – Genrikh Yagoda – in a report to Stalin dated to September, 1933, that 130 people had been arrested in Moscow for facilitating the ‘…creation of a network of salons, homes, brothels, associations and other organized groups of practising homosexuals, with the further transformation of the unions into direct spy cells …  with active homosexuals using elitist pederast circles directly for counter-revolutionary purposes, decaying politically different social layers of the youth, particularly young workers, as well as trying to infiltrate the army and navy.’  Stalin’s written reply does not contain any elements of homophobia – but is matter of fact about retaining law and order: ‘It is necessary to punish the villains and to introduce relevant governing legislation to facilitate this action.’  The NKVD continued to make reports to the Soviet government relating how groups of counter-revolutionary men were using homosexual practice to undermine Soviet Authority.  The NKVD petitioned the politburo to back a change in legislation, which was unanimously supported, with the exception of Kalini – who steadfastly opposed any laws out-lawing homosexuality.  Kalini stated that he was opposed to the passing of this law, and against any NKVD action against homosexuals initiated outside of the Soviet Court System.  At this time, the Soviet press deployed a socio-political campaign against homosexuality, which saw Maxim Gorky on May 23, 1934 (on the front pages of newspapers ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestiya’) in his article ‘Proletarian humanism’, referred to ‘homosexuality’ as a ‘social crime and offense’, stating ‘Destroy homosexuality – Fascism will disappear.’  This building social and political pressure led to the 1926 Article 154a being modified into the 1934 Article 121 which stated:

Sexual intercourse of a man with a man (sodomy) is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years.  Sodomy, committed with the use of physical violence, threats, or against a minor, or by using the dependent position of the victim, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding eight years.’

Russian Language Source Article:Уголовное_преследование_мужеложства_в_РСФСР



%d bloggers like this: