NonZionist

Posts tagged with "deceit"

Does Iran seek nukes? No!

Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:52:02 AM


Remember "Iraqi WMDs"?	In 2002, the U.S. began a disinformation campaign against Iraq. U.S. politicians insinuated an Iraq connection to 9/11 and told the world that Iraq was loaded with WMDs. The Downing Street Memos demonstrate these these lies were deliberately concocted. The U.N. was used as a stage for broadcasting these lies. Remember Colin Powell's 05 February 2003 dog-and-pony show? Remember his "satellite photos" and his "intercepted communications"? Most security council members played along with this charade, hoping that the U.S. would eventually come to its senses. U.N. inspectors conducted the most intrusive inspections in history, and Iraq further disarmed, while the U.S. assembled an invasion force on the Iraqi border. Iraq, desperately suing for peace, offered drastic concessions -- e.g., new elections, U.S.-run inspections -- in back-door diplomatic channels. When it became clear that the inspectors would validate Saddam's inventory and refute U.S. claims, the U.S. defied the U.N. and launched the "Shock and Awe" blitzkreig. +( We were almost all wrong. )+ -- ignominious admission by Bush advisor David Kay, when a year-long search failed to turn up the imaginary "Iraqi WMDs" used to scam us Americans into creating the trillion-dollar holocaust in Iraq. See "David Kay: We Were Almost All Wrong", 28 Jan 2004
Same lie, recycled	Our politicians must think that we Americans have short memories, because they are now trying the same scam again, with "Iranian Nukes" in place of "Iraqi WMDs". Nine years ago, they claimed to know just where the WMDs were stored. They realize that they cannot make that claim again and still be believed, so now they are hoping to use Groundless Suspicion as the pretext for making war. A huge charade is underway, with debates about who should take-out Iran, while our masked media studiously avoid the fundamental question: Does Iran seek nukes? Once again, we are being primed to shoot first, and ask questions later, or, even better, never. Now is the time to ask questions. Now is the time to expose the lies. Now is the time to admit that "we were almost all wrong". Admit it now -- before we start the slaughter. We do not need to have more blood on our hands.

This article has also been posted at

Reddit
Care2

Facing the 9/11 lie

Friday, November 26, 2010 4:23:16 PM

war, deceit, corruption, U.S. ...

Hijacking
truth

When someone steals $100 from a convenience store, the police investigate. They collect evidence, they ask about motive, etc.. Even when they find a prime suspect, they ask whether the suspect had help. E.g., they ask who left the door open, who left the cash register unlocked.

But when 3,000 Americans are murdered, the neo-con Authorities simply named the guilty party. Then they quickly dismantled the crime scene and disposed of the evidence. Cheney blocked attempts to investigate, and, more than a year later, stalled even the underfunded congressional whitewash. To prevent truth from coming out at trials, the neo-cons did away with the judicial system and substituted an untried system of military tribunals -- i.e., kangaroo courts. The neo-libs went along with this farce.

There was no attempt to determine whether the guilty party had help from inside. NORAD's failure to intercept or even escort the allegedly hijacked planes was not explained; instead, Richard B. Myers, the head of NORAD, was promoted to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is it normal to promote the guard who sleeps while the bank is being robbed?

No American has been held accountable for dereliction of duty in what was the worst breech of security in U.S. history. Instead, informed patriotic Americans who call for an honest investigation into 9/11 are denounced, reviled, and ridiculed. Even Americans who lost loved ones are attacked when they seek the truth about 9/11.

What's wrong with this picture?

The death of truth drags us down

Friday, December 11, 2009 8:42:22 AM

Cambodia, JIC-329, war, deceit ...

So much of what happens in this world, happens unseen. The sun rises, half of the planet warms, billions of people are affected, but a person who goes only by the tv news shows will know nothing of this world-wide event: The rising of the sun changes the world, but it just isn't "newsworthy".

Other events go unreported because they are seen by some people and not by "the right people". In a crime, the victim sees one thing and the criminal sees another, and if the news is reported by the criminals, no one will know of the victim's story. Does this mean that the rape "never happened"? Similarly, when military aggression occurs, the victims see one thing and the aggressors or victors, another.

Unfortunately, most of our "mainstream" history books are written by the victors. Many of the victims are dead, and those who survive do not have the resources to publish their story and make it available to a wide audience. In addition, the victor dominates the media and can easily make sure that the voice of the victims gets drowned out.

Why should it matter? Who cares about history, anyway, these days? Why should we care?

We should care because our indifference to history is one of the causes of our political paralysis. If we have no past, we have no future. We are like a deer in the headlights, unable to move out of the way of the oncoming truck, because it cannot remember or understand how it got where it is. Better, perhaps, we are like the adopted child, plunked into the middle of a family the child knows nothing about: How does that child feel? Is that any way to live?

Whom the gods would destroy --

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:10:42 PM

PNAC, lies, Osama, war ...

-- they first make mad. And that insanity was apparent last night in Obama's tortured attempt to square the circle that is U.S. foreign policy. Even the media commentators found Obama's performance less than credible.

One of the best commentaries comes from Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/12/01/obamas-war-speech-an-unconvincing-flop/
+(
Obama’s War Speech: An Unconvincing Flop
Justin Raimondo / 02 Dec 2009

After 92 days of waiting for the Word from on high, the nation received its marching orders from our commander-in-chief – and it was a flop of major proportions. As his West Point audience looked on disdainfully – applauding only twice, and then tepidly – President Obama tried to make the case that his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is really just a prelude to withdrawal. But is it?
....
)+

Like Bush, Obama now uses 9-11 as the justification for all of this bombing and killing. Like Bush, he is now playing the "Fear Card". Like Bush, he has begun to talk down to us, treating us like children. Like Bush, he now offers us a comic-book worldview, "Good Guys and Bad Guys".

For now, let us leave aside the gaping holes in the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory. The fact is that none of the alleged hijackers of 9-11 came from Iraq and none came from Afghanistan. And if the biggest military empire in history is really threatened by "Al Qaeda", well, as the government itself admits, there are barely 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/11/us-commander-no-sign-of-al-qaeda-presence-in-afghanistan/ -- McChrystal: No Sign of al-Qaeda Presence in Afghanistan, 11 Sep 2009

So once again, it looks like the U.S. is "attacking the wrong country".

http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000161.php
+(
(counter-terrorism Czar Richard) CLARKE: What I said was, you know, invading Iraq or bombing Iraq after we're attacked by somebody else, it's akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, "Let's invade Mexico." It's very analagous.
)+
-- Leslie Stahl interviews Richard Clark / Sixty Minutes / 21 Mar 2004

And now we're making the same catastrophic mistake all over again! Is this insane, or what?

The bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in the loss of over a million lives. (For substantiation, see the section below.)

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
+(
We have 9/11's on a monthly basis. Each and every Iraqi person who dies with a bullet, a missile, a grenade, under torture, accidentally- they all have families and friends and people who care. The number of Iraqis dead since March 2003 is by now at least eight times the number of people who died in the World Trade Center.
)+
-- young Iraqi woman blogging after the U.S. invasion

That's 9-11 times 300! Yet, somehow, Obama wants us to believe that we are entitled to kill still more. Is that insane, or what?

But it gets worse. After 9-11, Afghanistan did offer to extradite Osama. This was reported even in the mainstream media. All that Afghanistan asked for was evidence of Osama's guilt. Instead of providing this evidence, the U.S. proceeded directly to war-making.

In fact, according to one first-hand source, factions within the Taliban, a year prior to 9-11, were attempting to get the U.S. to extradite bin Laden. Numerous offers were made; the Taliban faction even offered to pay for the cruise missile that would kill bin Laden. The U.S. government was not interested. We know too that the U.S. also declined earlier extradition offers by the Sudan.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html -- bin Laden extradition efforts scorned by Bush/Clinton

We know that Osama bin Laden was one of the recipients of CIA largesse in the 1980s. The $6 billion covert operation in support of the Mujahedin terrorists was one of the biggest operations in CIA history, according to Ron Paul. We know that bin Laden helped the U.S. in 1991, when the U.S. launched the first attack on Iraq. We know that Bush arranged special flights immediately after 9-11 to get the bin Ladens out of the U.S. -- this at a time when all other U.S. air traffic was grounded. We know that Bush and the bin Ladens are both invested in the Carisle Group. And many tell us that the U.S. allowed bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. All of this fuels suspicions that bin Laden is still on the CIA payroll. Notice that bin Laden was not even mentioned by Obama last night. And Bush, in 2002, when asked about Osama, responded with indifference and said that Osama bin Laden was "not important".

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml
+(
New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11

Judicial Watch / 20 Jun 2007
)+

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062207A.shtml -- Matt Renner | FBI's 9/11 Saudi Flight Documents Released

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bin_laden_fbi_let_charter_flight_after_911.htm -- FBI Knowingly Allowed Bin Laden To Personally Charter Flight

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/FightSmart18-11-2001.htm -- CIA provided funds to financiers of Sept 11 bomber

As others have noted, the war against Afghanistan was actually planned and announced six months before 9-11. See

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html -- BBC and other papers reported U.S. war plan in summer of 2001

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/ -- Afghan war plans on Bush's desk

The U.S. informed India and Pakistan that it would be attacking the Taliban in October. On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden provided the U.S. with just the pretext it needed for the war already planned.

So the claim that this perpetual war against Afghanistan is a response to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda or 9-11 rings false, almost as false as the claim that the destruction of Iraq was a response.

Note that Iraq was the one place in the Middle East where Al Qaeda was not welcome and did not have a foothold. That changed after the U.S. invasion, of course: The U.S. opened up Iraq for Al Qaeda, and overturned the strongest secular ruler in the Middle East. Is this really the best way to combat Islamic extremism?!

And note that the Taliban were eradicating opium production in Afghanistan when the U.S. invaded. The U.S. invasion there opened up Afghanistan both for the drug smugglers and for the UNOCAL (oil pipeline) folks. (Karzai, now denounced as exceedingly corrupt, is a former Chevron Oil executive!)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59b_1225807900 -- Who is Hamid Karzai

All of this stinks to high heaven. The stench is so bad that even Americans -- always the last to find out -- are beginning to notice that something is rotten in the palaces of the Powers that Be.

Substantiation:

Iraq body count:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/08/3059/ -- three-stage genocide in Iraq: 3,000,000 dead (war + sanctions + invasion)

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78 -- Opinion Research Business: 1,220,580 deaths (estimated)

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf -- 601,027 deaths (estimated)

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ -- number of deaths twice-confirmed by English media

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ -- Questions raised by Lancet report

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/age14.htm
+(
Too many innocent people are dying in Iraq. A recent report, in the medical journal The Lancet, estimates 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the US-led invasion. Half of them are women and children. Almost all were killed by coalition air strikes.

Take a minute to think about the enormity of this human cost. Think of it as September 11, 30 times over.
)+
-- Waleed Aly, "How many dead innocent Iraqis is too many?", 09 Nov 2004

That was November 2004.

Note well: "Half of them are women and children."

Note well: "Almost all were killed by coalition air strikes."

And this does not count the million plus who died as a result of Clinton's sanctions and the twelve years of U.S.-fly-zone bombing that preceded the U.S. invasion.

The war casualties alone are the equivalent of 300 9/11's, in a country less than a tenth as large as America. Let's try empathy for a moment: Imagine that a military empire on the other side of the planet, completely without cause, bombs, invades, and occupies America. Imagine that 5% of all Americans are killed as a result of this military aggression. Imagine that countless Americans are tortured and humiliated. Now imagine that this foreign empire justifies the slaughter and torture under the banner of "Teaching Us Democracy". Would we not despise this arrogant pretentious self-important occupier? How many centuries would it take for the hatred to abate? Would we ever allow the invader to claim "Victory"?

Osama who?

+(
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
)+
-- G.W. Bush, 13 Sep 2001

+(
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
)+
-- George W. Bush, 17 Sep 2002, UPI

+(
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
)+
-- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 28 Dec 2001, as reported on official White House site

+(
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
)+
-- George W. Bush, 13 Mar 2002

+(
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
)+
-- George W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 13 Mar 2002 (The New American, 08 Apr 2002)

+(
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
)+
-- Spoken by someone [George Bush] in a rare moment of truth and honesty.

The September 2000 PNAC Plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22
+(
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ... like a new Pearl Harbor.
)+

In September 2000, a year before 9/11, the PNAC neo-cons called for a new "Pearl Harbor event"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html
+(
We've Been Neo-Conned
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, 10 July 2003
. ...
Neocons -- anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East -- clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): "...of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality."

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a "lucky" event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for "a Pearl Harbor event" that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival."

Recognizing a "need" for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being "lucky" are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.
)+

5 comments

And now, something that doesn't work: War

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:33:40 PM

racket, profit, war, deceit ...

Tonight, Obama will announce a 50% increase in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

+(
War. There is no solution for it. There is never a conqueror. The winner generates such hatred that he is ultimately defeated.
)+
-- Michel Simon, quoted in the New York Times, 17 Mar 1968

War is suicidal. Doesn't Obama understand this? He must: He's not stupid. So what does that leave? Either Obama is not the man we think he is, or he is taking orders from more powerful people. Either way, it's clear that Obama is not going to "Save" us -- unless we are CEO's at Goldman Sachs and AIG!

Naomi Klein in a CSpan interview Sunday explained the subtle and sophisticated marketing that went into creating the "Obama Brand" and getting Obama elected. The campaign advertising deftly created associations with peace, without actually promising anything -- sort of like a coal company commercial featuring trees and flowers. In addition, we were blinded by the stark contrast between Obama and Bush. Well, now it's time for the scales to fall from our eyes. Some things never change. The addiction to war-making rages still.

Ordinary people, for the most part, do not seek war. Even for the aggressor, war is a costly business -- and most of these costs are paid by us common folks, not by the rulers. It is we who get to sacrifice our sons and daughters, it is we who lose our savings when inflation of the currency is used to pay for the war, it is we who are sweetly lied to and drugged and poisoned with Fear, Hate and Cynicism, it is we who come back from the war broken, maimed and deranged.

There are some on the bottom of the pyramid who do love war -- the extremely gullible, the maniacal flag-wavers, the apocalypse-seeking religious fanatics -- but these groups are marginalized and slink back into the shadows as the mangled bodies come home and the bills pile up. War may not be hell for ordinary people, but the vast majority of us do understand that war is a negative thing.

Because we see war as negative, we assume that our government's war-making is necessary. We cannot imagine anyone actually choosing war or loving war or profitting from war.

How wrong we are! War, in fact, is the most lucrative business there is.

The big banks get to loan to both sides.
The big armament companies get to sell to both sides.
The big politicians get to distract people from domestic corruption.
The big oil companies get to build their pipelines and lap up the spoils.
And the big media get to talk about something besides Michael Jackson and Anne Nichole Smith.

For the elite, war is a godsend!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/pc-opinion/messages?msg=108582.146 -- Naomi Klein: Disaster capitalism profits from war

http://forums.delphiforums.com/pc-opinion/messages?msg=111328.2 -- USMC Ret. Gen. Smedley Butler: War is a racket

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
+(
War is a racket.

* It always has been.
* It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.
* It is the only one international in scope.
* It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about.

It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

* I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.
* I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
* I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
* I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912.
* I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.
* I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.
* In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. [19]
)+
-- Major General Smedley Butler (USMC, 1898-1931), two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Darlington_Butler

But what does Afghanistan have to offer the racketeers of war, besides the UNOCAL pipeline route? Jessie Ventura on CNN last night speculated that the ultimate target: The U.S. may actually be trying to flank Iran. The blood of the one million killed in Iraq is not enough to satisfy the thirst of the war-whooping neo-cons and their friends back in Israel:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-469972,00.html
+(
Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas / 05 Nov 2002

ISRAEL'S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.
....
)+
-- London Times, "Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel", 05 Nov 2002

Israel's 1982 "Oded Yinon" plan called for the dismemberment of the Middle East. The 1996 Zionist "Clean Break" plan called for the U.S. to use military force to reshape the Middle East to suit Israel's tastes. The holocaust in Iraq is one consequence of this Hitlerian plan, and the war-lovers are now hoping and praying for an even bigger holocaust in Iran.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Neoconservative_hopes_prays_Bush_will_bomb_0530.html -- Podhoretz "hoping and praying" for more war

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/21/podhoretz/
+(
Thursday June 21, 2007 08:58 EST
Face of a psychopath / Glenn Greenwald

Neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz followed up his Commentary article titled "The case for bombing Iran" -- excerpts of which were re-published in The Wall St. Journal -- with an interview elaborating on why he "hopes and prays" that we bomb Iran and how he envisions the bombings. Though he generously acknowledges that such an action would likely "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest" -- consequences to which he is transparently (and revealingly) indifferent -- he goes on to suggest that Europeans and even the Muslim world might be grateful for our attack; the bombs will be greeted as Bombs of Liberation and Protection ... )+

In a Commentary essay in 2002, Podhoretz called for the U.S. to start "World War IV". Other neo-cons -- former CIA head James Woolsey, for example -- have supported this call.

We could dismiss these statements as the raving of lunatics, if it were not for one thing: These are extremely influential men. These genocidal lunatics run the asylum.

But their aims extend even beyond Iran. Their ultimate aim is Russia, with its Siberian oil. The Oligarchs, thrown out by Putin, will take their revenge.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WIL20061007&articleId=3408
+(
The Emerging Russian Giant Plays its Cards Strategically
by F. William Engdahl / 07 Oct 2006 / GlobalResearch.ca
....
Mackinder's Heartland and Brzezinski's Chess Game

It's essential to understand the historic background to the term geopolitics. In 1904, an academic British geographer named Halford Mackinder made an address before the Royal Geographic Society in London which was to change history. In his speech, titled, 'The Geographical Pivot of History,' Mackinder sought to define the relation between a nation's or region's geography -- its topography, relation to the sea or land, its climate -- with its politics and position in the world. He posited two classes of powers: sea powers including Britain and the United States as well as Japan; and he posited the large land powers of Eurasia, which, with development of the railroad, were able to unite large land masses free from dependency on the seas.

For Mackinder, an ardent Empire advocate, the implicit lesson for continued hegemony of the British Empire following the 1914-1917 World War, was to prevent at all costs a convergence of interests between the nations of East Europe -- Poland, Czechoslovakia , Austria-Hungary--and the Russia-centered Eurasia 'Heartland' or 'pivot' land,as he termed it. After the Versailles peace talks, Mackinder summed up his ideas in the following famous dictum:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

Mackinder's Heartland was the core area of Eurasia, and the World-Island was all of Eurasia, including Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Great Britain, never a part of Continental Europe, he saw as a separate naval or sea-power. The Mackinder geopolitical perspective shaped Britain's entry into the 1914 Great War, it shaped her entry into World War Two. It shaped Churchill's calculated provocations of an increasingly paranoid Stalin, beginning 1943, to entice Russia into what became the Cold War.
)+