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

USSR: Forgive Us Class of 1967 (Soviet Time-Capsule Opened!)


Original Russian Language Article By: Olga Basurova

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Yesterday, my Alma Mater – the Ryazan Radio Engineering University – opened a time-capsule buried 50 years ago, containing a message from the student body of 1967, to their descendants half a century later – in 2017. What can I say … Read it for yourself:

‘Dear comrades (of the future Soviet Union), We, the participants of the Student Conference entitled ’50 Years of Soviet Radio Engineering’ – held on May 13th, 1967 in the Assembly Hall of the RREI – send you our greetings to the (Soviet) students of the 21st century. We have gathered together to assess the over-all development of Soviet Radio Engineering in the last 50 years (since the 1917 Russian Revolution). We hope that you will gather in the future, to also assess the great Soviet Achievements 50 years later in your time, understanding how fortunate you are to live in the world’s first Communist State which for you is now 100 years old! How has Soviet Radio Technology moved forward and progressed between 1967 and 2017?

Our Ryazan Radio Engineering Institute was founded in 1952. Now, it trains about 5000 students in the usual full-time academic manner, supplemented by both evening and correspondence faculties, where a further 2000-1000 students respectively, are now being trained.

The Institute has five faculties (not counting the evening and correspondence courses), which train engineers in 14 specialities. The faculties are entitled: radio engineering, electronic engineering, automatics and telemechanics, automatic control systems, and radio equipment design. These specialities span 31 departments. The Institute employs over 500 teachers (mostly young people), including 120 professors and associate professors.

For the years of its existence, our progressive Socialist Institute has produced about 4,500 Specialists in the latest branches of technology. They work in almost every city of our great Soviet Union. Scientific candidates for training at our Institute, are prepared through attending graduate school.

We enjoy very interesting lives. We have very good and varied amateur interests, facilitated through various clubs and interests groups. Many of us participate in the scientific work of all the departments. We love sports, theatre, and cinema. During the entire academic year, we work hard in classrooms, laboratories, and reading rooms. In the summer we leave for the collective farms and for the as of yet uncultivated lands, where we help build clubs, houses and various other structures (as a means to further the development of Socialism).. This is our work semester. A more complete picture of our life (and study) will be provided to you through the enclosed photographs and newspapers.

We are sure that in the year 2017, our progressive Institute will represent an even larger and perfect higher educational system in the USSR, training engineers of the 21st century – a century of new scientific discoveries and achievements. Therefore, we are envious of you, our future Comrades. However, you must not be conceited about this, and remember that we, (and our fathers), by labour and sacrifice, have created your great (Soviet) future in which you now live and prosper!

With Comradely Greetings.’

Published by Olga Basurova, 05/16/2017 at 10:33 am

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Original Russian Language Reference Article:


Вчера в моей Альма Матер – Рязанском радиотехническом университите вскрыли заложенную полвека назад капсулу с посланием студентов 1967 года своим потомкам через полвека. Что тут сказать… Прочитайте сами:

Дорогие товарищи! Мы, участники студенческой конференции „50 лет советской радиотехники“, состоявшейся 13 мая 1967 года в актовом зале РРТИ, шлем вам, студентам XXI века, свой студенческий привет. Мы собрались, чтобы подвести итоги развития советской радиотехники за 50 лет. Надеемся, что и вы будете тоже подводить итоги, но уже за сто лет, и оценивать, как шагнула вперед советская радиотехника.

Наш Рязанский радиотехнический институт основан в 1952 году. Теперь в нем обучается только на дневном отделении около 5000 студентов. Имеются и вечерний, и заочный факультеты, на которых обучается соответственно 2000-1000 студентов.

В институте пять факультетов (не считая вечернего и заочного), которые готовят инженеров по 14 специальностям. Факультеты называются так: радиотехнический, электронной техники, автоматики и телемеханики, автоматических систем управления, конструирования радиоаппаратуры. Они объединяют 31 кафедру. В институте работает свыше 500 преподавателей (в основном это молодежь), среди которых 120 профессоров и доцентов.

За годы своего существования институт выпустил около 4500 специалистов по новейшим отраслям техники. Они работают почти во всех городах нашей Родины. Готовит институт и научных работников через аспирантуру.

Живем мы очень интересно. У нас хорошая самодеятельность, различные кружки. Многие из нас участвуют в научной работе кафедр. Любим спорт, театр, кино. Весь учебный год мы напряженно трудимся в аудиториях, лабораториях, читальных залах. Летом уезжаем в колхозы и на целину, помогаем строить клубы, дома и различные сооружения. Это наш трудовой семестр. Более полное представление о нашей жизни и учебе дадут вам прилагаемые фотографии и газеты.

Мы уверены, что в 2017 году наш институт будет представлять еще более крупное и совершенное высшее учебное заведение, готовящее инженеров XXI века — века новых научных открытий и свершений. Поэтому мы по-хорошему завидуем вам, товарищи. Но вы не особенно зазнавайтесь и помните, что и мы, и наши отцы своим трудом создали то великое будущее, в котором вы живете. С товарищеским приветом.

Опубликовала Ольга Басурова , 16.05.2017 в 10:33


Pol Pot’s Explanation of Events


Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge Delegation – Beijing (c. 1975)

For the intimate expressions of Pol Pot, I have accessed a number of Chinese language source articles (referencing two below). I have taken this path because Pol Pot was a close ally of Mao Zedong, and according to the memories of Chinese people, Pol Pot was a very charming and likeable person. This is an interesting assessment from a Chinese culture that even within its Communist manifestation, puts much emphasis upon good behaviour and conformity to social and cultural norms that secure a peaceful and stable society. In the West, which has perpetuated the myth that Karl Marx’s ‘Scientific Socialism’ is exactly the same as Adolf Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’, the matter of Pol Pot is cut and dried – Pol Pot is simply (and unquestioningly) presented as a genocidal murderer. The problem is a lack of objective evidence for his apparent crimes, and a reliance upon an unsubstantiated Western Cold War rhetoric, that is as much motivated by anti-Asian racism, as it is by anti-Socialist ideology. Even though the Soviet Union supported Vietnam in its invasion and annexing of Cambodia in 1978 (establishing the Soviet controlled ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’ to replace the ousted Khmer Rouge), Russian encyclopaedia sources dealing with this matter, state that the figure of between 1 to 3 million people killed by the Pol Pot regime is ‘theoretical’, as it has never been proven in a court of law.

Chinese sources also question this figure, pointing-out that it arises only within anti-Socialist Western sources, that have in the past routinely accused Socialist and Communist sources of committing all kinds of false, imagined and fabricated acts (similar to those actually committed by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime). In this regard, the ‘killing fields’ of Pol Pot resemble the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany, but the numbers simply do not add-up. Today, the official figure for the Cambodian population stands at about 16 million, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s, it is believed to have been around 9 million. Many Chinese scholars point-out that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were extremely popular amongst the Cambodian people, who flocked to support his call for Revolution. The logical question is how could a population that by and large supported Pol Pot also ‘massacre’ itself in such large numbers, in a short space of time, lacking the technological know-how and advanced industrial capability possessed by the Nazi Germans? The Western rhetoric suggests that between 1/9th and 1/3rd of the population was ‘killed by itself’. When confronted with the illogicality of this situation, those that support this theory state that its accomplishment just goes to ‘prove’ what a maniac Pol Pot was, not realising that in reality just one man is being accused of being so well organised and efficient at political and practical leadership (whilst apparently being ‘mad’), that he achieved all this through an act of mass hypnosis. Whatever the case, the current Western narrative suggests that the Cambodian population of 9 million was either reduced to 6 million or 8 million between 1975 and 1979 – and yet by 2017 – that very same Cambodian population had risen by either 10 million or or 8 million (to 16 million) in just 38 years!

The Khmer Rouge wore ‘black’ uniforms together with a chequered neck-scarf to wipe-away sweat, and because of this they were often referred to as the ‘Black Guards’. Following Pol Pot’s ascending to power on April 17th, 1975, every citizen of Cambodia was required to dispose of the ‘bourgeois’ clothing that had penetrated the cities and towns, and revert to what was thought to be a more traditional form of ethnic Khmer peasant clothing. When asked why he emptied the cities, Pol Pot stated that the US had already been bombing areas of Eastern Cambodia, and that he (and the Khmer Leadership) were apprehensive that the US would launch a vast and sustained bombing campaign upon Cambodian cities and towns – much like the years’s of US destruction wrought upon North Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge also feared a US ground invasion, and their answer to these problems was to mobilise the entire Cambodian population within the relative safety of the countryside, living in communes of single-sex barracks, training in the day to farm the land, and prepare for a ‘People’s War’. When asked in the late 1970’s, and again by an American journalist just prior to his death (in 1998) why there was evidence of mass graves found in certain areas of Cambodia, Pol Pot gave exactly the same answer. Pol Pot’s answer is written in the Chinese language as ‘敌特破坏’ – which translates as the ‘enemy spies were destroyed’. In other words, Pol Pot ordered these killings to be carried-out by the Khmer Rouge, as a means to destroy what he perceived to be ‘enemies of the people’ operating within Cambodia. Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the invading Vietnamese forces, and US-backed insurgency forces could have been responsible for at least some of these deaths. There is also a suggestion that Pol Pot’s policies have been skewed and misrepresented over the years. When asked about his policy of ‘eradicating’ the city-dwellers, Pol Pot replied that he had meant it was the principle of bourgeois (Westernised) living that was to be eradicated – and not necessarily the people who had been subject to this kind of pollution (although this position does seem to contradict the known dictates of the Khmer Rouge once in power). This information does not excuse the terrible crimes that apparently occurred in Cambodia under Pol Pot, but it does provide a more complete picture when viewed alongside the more commonly known facts in this case. My research is ongoing.

Chinese language References:波尔布特




Pol Pot (in Russian sources) An Assessment of Conditioned Events


The Trotskyite – Nikita Khrushchev – ascended to power in the USSR in 1956, and immediately set about destroying the reputation of his predecessor – Joseph Stalin. This move immediately set in motion the Sino-Soviet Split – which saw the Leader of Communist China – Mao Zedong – declaring Khrushchev a ‘revisionist’, and stating that China considered Stalin’s style of Leadership to have been correct. This led to immense political and military tensions between the USSR and the PRC, with Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam trying to balance both sides. However, following Ho Chi Minh’s death in 1969, the new Vietnamese Leadership took a definite pro-USSR direction, and began to ‘distance’ itself from direct PRC influence (this included removing ‘Mao Zedong Thought’ from Vietnamese textbooks). This was the geopolitical situation that Cambodia’s Pol Pot emerged within. Although encountering Soviet-style Marxist-Leninism in France during the early 1950’s, Pol Pot’s preference lay with Communist China, and it was in that ideological direction that he steered the Communist Party of Cambodia (i.e. ‘Kampuchea’). In 1978, following crop failures, famine and persecution by the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and ousted Pol Pot from power (in 1979), establishing the pro-Soviet ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’. This effectively ended Chinese political influence in Cambodia, and as an act of retaliation, Communist China briefly invaded and occupied Vietnam in 1979. The ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’ lasted until the collapse of the USSR, and in 1993 was replaced by a restored monarchy in Cambodia. Whereas previously I accessed Chinese language sources to build a picture of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (see: Pol Pot (in Chinese Sources): How It All Went Wrong), I am now accessing Russian language sources to create a ‘balanced’ interpretation of the complex events surrounding Pol Pot’s rise to power, and ultimate demise.

The pseudonym ‘Pol Pot’ is an abbreviation from the French term ‘politique potentielle’ – or the ‘politics of the possible’.  Salin Sar began to use the name ‘Pol’ in the 1950’s, adopting ‘Pol Pot’ in 1976. Pol Pot was born in 1925 and died on April 15th, 1998. He served as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Cambodia from 1963 to 1979. As the leader of the Khmer Rouge (another name for the Communist Party in Cambodia), his rule of Cambodia was typified by wide-spread famine and massive repression, with various reports recording the death-toll as being somewhere between 1 to 3 million in total, spanning years 1975 to 1979 – the years the Khmer Rouge held political power in the country.

His exact date of birth is unknown, but is believed to have been in 1925. He was born as ‘ Salot Sar’ into a wealthy peasant family and was 1 of 9 children. His family enjoyed a certain elevated social status due to the fact that one of his female cousins served as a ‘concubine’ to Prince Sisovath Monivong – giving birth to his son Kossarak – and one of his elder brothers was employed at the palace. A sister of Pol Pot used to dance in the royal ballet – but after seeing her – Prince Sisovath Monivong took her as yet another concubine. These facts demonstrate that Pol Pot’s family were considered ‘noble’ within Cambodia’s feudalistic society. At the age of 9 years old, Pol Pot was sent to live with relatives in Phnom Penh, where he atended Wat Botum Waddey, – a Buddhist temple – within which he worked as a servant, and was taught how to read and write the Cambodian language, and to understand Buddhist philosophy. In 1937, Pol Pot enrolled in a local Catholic School, where he received the basics of a classical education. In 1942, Pol Pot continued his studies at Norodom College of Sihanouk in Kampong Cham, before failing his exams at the prestigious Lyceum of Sisovata. This situation forced him to finish his education at the Technical School in Phnom Penh – from which he graduated in 1949 – winning a full scholarship to study in Paris, France.

Arriving in France, Pol Pot went to Paris, where he studied radio electronics. Recalling the first year of his student life at the University of Paris, Pol Pot later noted that he worked hard and was a good student. In the summer of 1950, together with other students, Pol Pot went to Yugoslavia, where he worked for about a month in Zagreb. At the end of the same year, an old friend (Sarah-Ieng Sari) arrived in Paris. Ieng Sari introduced Pol Pot to Keng Vannsak, a patriotic nationalist with whom he had studied at the Lyceum of Sisovath. It was at Keng Vannsaka’s flat that the Marxist Study Group began to function, the initiators of which were Ieng Sari and Rat Samoyon. Among the works discussed was Marx’s ‘Capital’.

In the middle of 1952, Salot Sar (i.e. ‘Pol Pot’), under the pseudonym Khmer Daom, produced his first political work entitled ‘Monarchy or Democracy?’ – which was published in a special issue of the Cambodian Student magazine entitled ‘Khmer Nisut’. Probably the same year, Salot Sar joined the Communist Party of France. By this time, Salot Sar had lost interest in studying and was expelled from the university. On December 15th, 1952, he left France. After returning to Cambodia, Pol Pot requested membership of the Vietnamese-dominated ‘Communist Party of Indonesia’ in 1953, on the grounds that he was already a member of the Communist Party of France. However, Pol Pot eventually joined the ‘People’s Revolutionary Party of Cambodia’ in August, 1953, where he set performed propaganda work. His abilities at this time were considered mediocre but consistent. Through hard-work and diligence, Pol Pot (and the ‘gang of six’ – Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), Ieng Sari, Son Sen and their wives – Khieu Ponnari, Ieng Tirith, and Yun Yat), lead the Communist Party of Cambodia (now more commonly known as the ‘Khmer Rouge’) in a Maoist ideological direction, as it was felt that the socio-economic conditions of feudal Cambodia resembled those of China, rather than those of Russia. Furthermore, Mao Zedong had developed a blue-print for a peasant-led revolutionary war, operating from bases in the countryside. (Mao had proven his ideas correct by leading the Communist Party of China to victory in 1949). In this regard, Pol Pot’s thinking appears logical and correct, and he achieved notable successes in the fighting that occurred throughout Cambodia in the 1960’s and 1970’s – against the Cambodian monarchy and US military interference in the area. Indeed, it was these tactics that made Pol Pot very popular amongst the Cambodian peasant population that eventually propelled him to victory over his enemies, and complete political power throughout Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.

The Khmer Rouge successfully entered Phnom Penh on the 17th of April, 1975 and established governance over Cambodia (On the 30th of April, the North Vietnamese launched a substantial military offensive upon South Vietnam – effectively ending US influence in the region). Between the 25th – 27th of April 1975, an Extraordinary National Congress was held in Phnom Penh, where it was announced that the new Khmer Rouge authorities intended to build in Cambodia a ‘national consensus community based upon equality and democracy, through the eradication of exploiters and exploited, and the dichotomy between rich and poor, where everyone will be assigned Work.’ Having come to power, the Pol Pot government advocated three tasks that required immediate resolution:

  1. Stop the ruining of the peasantry – as a ‘pure’ peasantry was to serve as the foundations of the future Kampuchean society.
  2. Stop corruption and usury.
  3. Eliminate the eternal dependence of Kampuchea on foreign countries;

As US interference in Cambodia, (together with royalist intrigue), was plunging the country into lawlessness, Pol Pot stated that a strict and disciplined political regime was required to establish social stability through law and order. To achieve this transformation, Pol Pot devised a system of dividing the Cambodian population into three distinct categories:

a) This comprised the ‘main’ or ‘indigenous’ Cambodian peasantry living historically in the rural areas. This was the most important and politically progressive part of the population.

b) The second group was categorised as those living in cities and towns, and who had come under the ideological influence of the Americans, or their rightwing allies – the ‘Lol Noi’. This group was considered ‘untrustworthy’ but able to be reformed through extensive re-education.

c) The third group was comprised of the intelligentsia, reactionary clergy, military officers and NCO’s that had served the royalists, the Vietnamese or the Americans, and any and all people that had served the previous regime in any capacity. This group was labelled ‘beyond reform’, and was designated for eradication (i.e. ‘execution’). Pol Pot termed this process the ‘cleansing’ of Cambodian society.

Pol Pot emptied all the towns and cities of their populations, and relocated this mass of humanity into rural communes consisting of single sex, military-style barracks. This policy essentially eradicated any form of bourgeois modernity throughout Cambodia, and returned the country to a state of dependence upon primitive agricultural living. However, this radical re-adjustment of society co-incided with crop failures and the outbreak of famine and disease. This fact alone led to the deaths of a substantial number of Cambodian people, even before the arbitrary ‘cleansing’ began. The Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia in 1978 because of the ‘racist’ policy pursued by Pol Pot – which singled-out Vietnamese people for execution. As Pol Pot lost his grip on power, he and his forces retreated westward, toward the jungle areas of the Cambodian-Thai border (where he lost complete political power in 1979). This is where he lived-out the remainder of his life, before dying at the age of 73 years old in 1998.

Russian Language Sources:Пол_Пот


Soviet War Memorial UK (9.5.2017): Commemorating the Soviet Victory Over Nazi Germany and Exposing Bourgeois Duplicity


The combined military forces of Hitler’s Nazi Germany unconditionally surrendered to the Soviet Red Army in Berlin on May 8th, 1945, but confirmation of this Soviet Victory over fascism did not reach the Kremlin (in Moscow) until the following day – May 9th, 1945. Although the Soviet Union was an ‘ally’ of the capitalist West during WWII – recently released UN Papers confirm that the Hitler-admiring Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt of the US, conspired to bring-down the USSR through encouraging its fight against Nazi Germany, whilst covertly supporting various rightwing insurgencies dotted throughout occupied areas of the USSR and Eastern Europe.


When the Soviet Red Army ‘liberated’ the Ukraine from the disastrous and bloody Nazi German occupation, for instance, it encountered a highly organised ‘nationalistic’ Ukrainian resistance (often commanded by German officers, and armed with British and US weaponry). The Soviet Red Army, however, moved forever onward toward Germany, pursuing the retreating Hitlerite forces, and was replaced in the area with NKVD forces (a special militarised police). The Soviet Authorities treated this fascist insurgency as an ‘internal’ matter to avoid the embarrassment of having to publically state that two of its allies – the UK and US – were openly financing and arming fascist insurgencies within the USSR and elsewhere. In a vicious and brutal police action, it took the NKVD two years to break the back of this Western insurgency – with the bulk of the main fighting being over by 1947. However, so entrenched in hateful ideology was the Western Ukraine, that occasional flare-ups of neo-Nazi activity continued into the 1950’s, a trend that has been revived in recent times, with David Cameron of the UK and Barack Obama of the US actively supporting a broad EU strategy of weakening modern Russia through neo-Nazi insurgency (particularly via the ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi revolt in Western Ukraine).


Of course, despite the fact that various factions of the British Communist Party regularly attend the Soviet War Memorial (including the Communist Party of Britain, the New Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Great Britain – Marxist-Leninist), together with the Stalin Society (an adjunct of the CPGB-ML), the rhetoric of the mainstream politicians that attends remains decidedly ‘bourgeois’ in nature, and occasionally openly ‘anti-Russian’ in presentation. This schizophrenic (hypocritical) approach often happens around an ethnic Russian presence of which sees hundreds of individuals and families proudly holding-up portraits of family members who died fighting for the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945).


Many modern Russians also unfurl Red Flags containing yellow hammer and sickle emblems – making direct pro-Communist statements to each other – and anyone in ear-shot. This Russian presence – which is the entire point of a Soviet War Memorial – is more or less ignored by the hundreds of British people in attendance, and the various representatives of the British Armed Forces – primarily because there is a sense of bourgeois ’embarrassment’ with the association of the memorial with historical and contemporary notions of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’.


The simple fact of the matter is that without the Bolshevik Leadership of the USSR – Russia would not have possessed the direction of will-power, nor the material capability to have defeated Nazi Germany. Millions of peasants in the USSR were educated in Socialist duty (and selfless hard work) to build a better human society on Earth – and the extra-ordinary death-toll suffered by the Soviet people is testament to their belief in this Communist ideal. Although the bourgeois (and revisionist) narrative expressed by the British organisers of this event always uses the low estimate of ’27 million’ casualties, others put the death-toll around at least 40 million (with a probably more accurate figure standing at around 34.5 million – arrived at through the study population shift and change).


Usually, a group of Soviet Veterans are flown to the UK each year to attend these ceremonies and this year just five made the trip. As the years pass, fewer and fewer British and Soviet Veterans remain, and this is seen in dwindling numbers, and the onset of advanced age. This year, for the first time that I have ever seen, the veteran flag bearers were all provided with chairs – as I was told that the youngest is now in their 80’s – with many being well into their 90’s. These brave individuals in the past have stood for over an hour proudly holding-up their respective flags, but this is not an easy task for those advanced in age.


Of course, the various mixture of British politicians and establishment figures all gave their particular bourgeois ‘spin’ on the event – which is often sickening to experience, particularly if those in attendance adhere to Socialist or Communist ideals. Obviously not all British Veterans necessarily have such views – but surprisingly many did. Neil Coyle – Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Bermondsey and Old Southwark – expressed the need to be forever vigilant against the resurgence of fascism, and expressed relief that France recently rejected a fascist candidate in that country’s national elections (but simultaneously failed to mention that 11 million French people actually voted for that fascist candidate). Obviously, due to Soviet War Memorial’s association with the defeat of the political rightwing – no Conservative Party representative was present. However, Simon Hughes – the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, demonstrated enough LibDem duplicity to compensate for the Tory absence. Simon Hughes expressed the expected condemnation of ‘fascism’, whilst immediately ‘negating’ his own statement (in typical LibDem fashion) by bizarrely suggesting that individuals can hold ‘nationalist’ sentiments, but remaining ‘helpful’ in principle to other countries. This ‘White’ gentleman (being unquestionably ‘at home’ in his Eurocentricism), appeared completely ‘unaware’ that ‘nationalism’ is the basis of all racism, and therefore the very edifice upon which destructive fascist ideology is built, sustained and manifest in the world.


In all my years of attending the Soviet War Memorial, I have heard the excellent leadership skills of Joseph Stalin eulogised by many attendees, but have never heard any positive references to the British anti-Socialist and Hitler-admiring Winston Churchill, and yet today I heard two very out of place utterances. One was during the general introduction – made I believe by Philip Matthews of the Soviet Memorial Trust – and the second by the LibDem Simon Hughes. This is even more peculiar as this week saw the UN reveal the extent to which Churchill was prepared to go to ensure a Soviet defeat at the hands of the Nazi Germans! Furthermore, any relatively ‘sane’ individual would never automatically associate the politically rightwing Winston Churchill with the defeat of any form of fascism – particularly as he opposed the development of the Welfare State and the National Health System. Whilst Churchill is renowned for his ‘moving’ speeches – many do not understand that a team of scriptwriters devised these utterances for him, and whilst he called for unity in the face of Nazi German terror, he sat safely in a Whitehall (bomb-proof) bunker, smoking Cuban cigars and eating caviar – whilst ordinary British people starved and died in pursuit of his vision of racial purity. As a consequence, Churchill was only ever popular throughout the middle class, and was quite literally hated amongst the working class.


Lastly, whilst all present made anti-fascist platitudes to one another, no one mentioned the rise of ‘elected’ fascism in the UK since 2010, and the rightwing ‘Austerity’ inflicted upon the British people by the Tory and LibDem Parties. In fact, so bad has been this destructive policy, that thousands of vulnerable, poor, or disabled British died between 2010 and 2015 – as their benefits were suddenly cut, and medical care withdrawn. So bad was this death-toll that after a 2016 investigation, the United Nations found the Tory and LibDem Coalition Government ‘Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity’ for the deaths of at least 10,000 disabled people. Today, the ordinary people of Britain are living in a democratic system that allows a small middle class to keep electing rightwing governments (including ‘New Labour’) that deliberately pursue rightwing policies that are hurtful toward the working class. This demonstrates that the fight against fascism is not only in the past (as the bourgeois would have us believe), but exists here and now in the present.















USSR Comradeship: What Many Modern British People Forget…


Long before the USA entered WWII (in late December, 1941), the Soviet Leader – Comrade Joseph Stalin – pledged to a struggling British Isles that Soviet troops would come to her aid should Churchill request it. This offer was made as the USSR prepared herself for war with Hitler’s Nazi German – and still stood after June 1941 – when Nazi German troops ‘blitzkrieged’ their way toward Moscow (committing immense atrocities as they went), with the intention of killing Stalin and the Soviet Government, and thereby destroy Marxist-Leninist Communism in Russia, once and for all.


As far as I am concerned, the so-called ‘British Legion’ (that administers British military veteran affairs in the UK), is a right-wing, nationalist and racist organisation that glorifies bourgeois (capitalist) war, and demonises all non-British people. However, the British working class has had a long association with Socialism, and this explains why there is a ‘Soviet War Memorial’ situated in a park adjacent London’s Imperial War Museum. Thousands of British people gather here in May and November each year to show their respect for the 40 million soviet men, women and children that died fighting the Nazi Germans during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), and to remember the bravery and courage of the thousands of British people (including British Jews), that in one one function or another, fought alongside the Red Army, Red Navy and Red Airforce during WWII.


My maternal grandfather – Arthur Gibson – for instance, served aboard the minesweeper HMS Beaumaris Castle (of the Royal Navy Patrol Group), keeping the sea-lanes of the North Atlantic clear of Nazi German U-boats and sea-mines, so that the Atlantic Conveys could take much needed aid to the USSR.


The British Legion – and other ‘charities’ that claim to represent British veterans, being right-wing in nature – pursue an anti-Socialist policy and deliberately down-play and ignore the effort and sacrifice of the USSR (Communist) forces, and do not acknowledge the bravery of those British people that fought alongside our Soviet Allies in the darkest of times.










Nazi German Atrocities During WWII (in Photographs)


‘Dedicated to the 40 million Soviet men, women and children that were murdered during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) by the Nazi German invaders.’

A macabre and sombre collection of photographs taken by the Nazi Germans themselves, as a means to document their fascistic crimes during WWII (1939-1945), with the caveat that this period includes the Nazi German invasion of the USSR (the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945), and that many similar atrocities were committed by the Hitlerites BEFORE the official outbreak of hostilities in 1939 (including the mass extermination of Germany’s Disabled population). These photographs should remind those who get ‘blurry eyed’ at the devastation wrought on Hitler’s Germany by the ‘liberating’ Red Army – as if the Nazis were somehow the ‘victims’ of WWII (despite the Jewish Holocaust that cost around 6 million lives)! The Nazi Germans embraced a highly destructive Hitlerite ideology premised solely upon the pseudo-science of race and racism. As Marxist-Leninism advocates ‘Internationalism’, the Soviet Red Army (and the Soviet people), suffered terribly in their fight against this despicable regime, but their collective suffering saved us all!


















Æàðêîå ëåòî, 50-å ãîäû ÕÕ âåêà


Paul Robeson (Поль Робсон): A Full Human-Being in the USSR!


“In (Soviet) Russia, I felt for the first time like a full human being – no colour prejudice like in Mississippi – no colour prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being!” – Paul Robeson

Paul Robeson at Russian Embassy Party
















Mindless ‘Bourgeois’ Terrorism is Against Socialism


‘The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.’

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843)

Karl Marx was opposed to the judicial Death Sentence, and warned against pointless acts of desperate terrorism against the State, its assets, or those that serve it. On the other hand, Marx clearly stated that the Working Class had a right to defend itself from external aggression. The impression left is that ‘cliches’ of terrorists are pursuing a counter-productive (bourgeois) course of action that does nothing in its limited scope, to collectively ‘free’ the working class from the yoke of capitalist oppression. Indeed, such action inflicts mindless death upon individuals, and the damage and destruction of property, facilities and resources. Generally speaking, the State responds by limiting the ‘freedoms’ of its own citizens under the guise of ‘preventing’ further terrorist attacks. Therefore, the bourgeois habit of ‘separatist’ of terrorist groups attacking specific symbolic targets, ultimately brings a greater oppression upon the Working Class, particularly if those groups represent religion, nationalism, or limited special interest groups. Of course, things are different during times of open warfare, as with the circumstances of WWI that led directly to the Russian October Revolution of 1917, the founding of North Korea at the end of WWII, or the subsequent founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 (following the defeat of the ‘Nationalist’ Chiang Kai-Shek). Furthermore, the Soviet Union engaged in legitimate ‘self-defence’ activity during the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) and in the process defeated German Nazism. During the Cold War, the countries of the Communist Bloc defended their best ‘class’ interests against Western ‘capitalist’ aggression. In the West today, it is terrorist groups motivated by a vision of distorted religion, and fascism that are carrying-out their attacks on innocent civilians. This is still the case, even if they state that they are ‘retaliating’ for the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused by US and NATO military action in the Middle East since 1991. Although it is true that the forces of capitalism (which includes Zionist Israel and its persecution of the Palestinians), do routinely deploy immense weapons of mass destruction, and often use those weapons motivated through a racist disregard for its victims, bourgeois acts of isolated terrorism does absolutely ‘nothing’ for the well-being of the Working Class, does not bring its freedom any closer, and often makes life considerably harder for those that toil for a living. As matters currently stand in the affluent West, it is more productive to pursue a path of legitimate progressive education, join a ‘legal’ leftwing Revolutionary political party (such as the ‘Communist Party’), and work to peacefully convert the forces of capitalist oppression over to the Socialist cause. Do not harm or kill the servants of the current bourgeois system, but treat them with respect and ‘convince’ them through reasoned argument that the establishment of Scientific Socialism in the UK through the democratic system, is in their best interests.

%d bloggers like this: