Stalin.... and his use of body doubles.....

I ran across this article reading another historical magazine, and figured I would expound upon it.   I knew for a long time that Stalin had employed "doubles" to guard against assassination, and to do things that he didn't want to do.  Here is a picture of Stalin visiting Berlin.

 

The truth of the matter was that this was reenactment in 1949 and that wasn't Stalin.  Stalin never went to Berlin as I understand it.  he had a fear of flying and used trains exclusively, for his meeting in Potsdam and in Yalta. 

Mikheil Gelovani

In 1938, Gelovani first portrayed Stalin in Mikheil Chiaureli's The Great Dawn. His performance won him the Order of the Red Banner of Labour on 1 February 1939 and the Stalin Prize during 1941. Afterwards, Gelovani "established a monopoly on the role of Stalin", which he continued to portray in twelve other pictures until the premier's death.Gelovani greatly resembled Stalin physically, except in his stature: he was much taller than the latter. Reportedly, he was not the premier's favorite candidate for depicting himself on screen: since he was Georgian, he mimicked Stalin's accent "to perfection". Therefore, the leader personally preferred Aleksei Dikiy, who used classic Russian pronunciation. However, Gelovani appeared in his role much more than Dikiy. According to the The Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats, Gelovani had probably portrayed the same historical figure more than any other actor. When the two met, the general secretary told the actor: "you are observing me thoroughly... You do not waste time, do you?"
Soviet cinema played an important part in cultivating the leader's cult of personality: from 1937 and onward, in a gradual process, Stalin's reign was legitimized by depicting him as Vladimir Lenin's most devout follower^[ and by positively presenting historical autocrats - like in Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible.

Due to his identification with Stalin, Gelovani was barred from playing other roles in cinema; he was not allowed to depict "mere mortals." From 1942 to 1948, he was a member of the cast in the Gorky Moscow Art Theatre. During World War II, the personality cult was abandoned in favor of patriotic motifs, but returned already at the war's late stages, and with greater intensity than ever after 1945: Stalin was soon credited as the sole architect of victory. In the postwar films in which he portrayed him - The Vow, The Fall of Berlin and The Unforgettable Year 1919 - Gelovani presented the leader as "a living god."
The actor was awarded three more Stalin Prizes, all of which were granted for his performances of the premier in film: in 1942 for The Defence of Tsaritsyn, in 1947 for The Vow and in 1950 for The Fall of Berlin. On 3 June 1950, he was given the title People's Artist of the USSR.
After Stalin's death in 1953, Gelovani was denied new roles in films, since he was completely identified with the character of the dead ruler. From 1953 until his death in 1956, he acted in Moscow's State Theater for Film Actors. Andreas Kilb wrote that he ended his life "a pitiful Kagemusha" of Stalin. Gelovani is buried in the Novodevichy Cemetery, alongside his wife Ludmila.
Following Nikita Khrushchev's Secret Speech in 1956, most of the pictures he appeared in as Stalin were either banned or had the relevant scenes removed.

This is a clip of the Soviet Propaganda film that was used to help create this cult of personality around Stalin as the patient father figure....despite the gulags, the NKVD terror raids and other things he did to totally subdue Russia.  it was almost a "Stockholm Syndrome". type of effect that he had.

Felix Dadaev (left) in the 1940s and the real Joseph Stalin (right).

Rumors circulated in Russia for decades that Joseph Stalin had a “twin” who replaced him during certain situations. After decades of rumors, finally Stalin’s decoy decided to talk. Felix Dadaev, a former dancer and juggler was ordered to the Kremlin to work as Stalin’s body double. For more than half a century, Dadaev remained silent, fearing a death sentence should he dare to open his mouth. But in 2008, at the age of 88, and with the apparent approval of the Putin regime, he finally came forward to write his autobiography. Dadaev’s autobiography explains that he was one of four men employed to impersonate the supreme leader, taking his place in motorcades, at rallies, on newsreel footage etc.
Dadaev was born in the Caucasian highlands of Dagestan and when his family moved to Grozny, in Chechnya, he began taking ballet lessons. When the Second World War started, he was required to fight and was so badly injured during the Soviet liberation of Grozny in 1942 that his family was told he had been killed. He was one of seven corpses delivered to a hospital, but he and another guy were still alive. Fortunately, he got better, though that “death” was the start of a strange double life. Soon his resemblance to 60-year-old Stalin (which got him teased in school) caught the eye of Soviet intelligence agents, who started using him to save the real Stalin from assassination plots and lame public ceremonies.

Even Stalin’s closest comrades couldn’t spot the imposter.

Just into his 20s, Dadaev was a great deal younger than Stalin, but make-up and the strain of war meant that he could pass as a 60-year-old. “We had all experienced so much suffering that I looked much older than I was”, Dadaev said. Trained at the personal request of Stalin, Dadaev attended rallies and meetings across Soviet Union wearing the leader’s trademark Red Army cap and heavy overcoat encrusted with medals. He watched movies and speeches of Stalin to perfect the mimicry of his movement and intonation. Some say that Dadaev, like other Stalin’s body doubles, was trained by Alexei Diky, an actor who played the role of Stalin in propaganda films.

Felix Dadaev in his military uniform.

In an age before media dominated, he didn’t have to mimic perfectly Stalin’s vocal inflections, just his look and mannerisms. And he pulled it off so well even Stalin’s closest comrades couldn’t spot the imposter. “By the time my make-up and training were complete, I was like him in every way, except perhaps my ears. They were too small”.
Interesting facts:

• Another Stalin’s body double was a man identified only as “Rashid”. Rashid so closely resembled the dictator that when he joined the army he was dismissed almost immediately. Even his facial scars nearly matched the Soviet leader’s pockmarks from a bout with smallpox. He spent two years studying with Alexei Dikiy. Rashid claimed there were other Stalin lookalikes employed by the NKVD (predecessor of KGB), although he never met any. He claimed to have heard of another Stalin double who was hired to live in the dictator’s dacha outside of Moscow in the late 1940s and 1950s when Stalin was dying. After Stalin’s death in 1953, Rashid moved to a provincial city and shaved off his mustache and gradually became bald. Yet even then the resemblance proved so striking that he often received stares on the street, they were afraid that the dictator had gone into hiding with them.
• A man who looked so much like Josef Stalin
  that he was hired to sit in for the Soviet dictator
  at meetings and banquets has died in the southern city
  of Krasnodar. He was 93. The newspaper Rabochaya Tribuna
  identified the Stalin double only as Rashid and said without
  explaining further that he died "several days ago."
  
  
  Later Rashid made a career as Stalin’s double. Officials
  at the KGB heard of his adventures at the Army recruiting office and
  eventually tracked him down. Rashid spent 2 years studying with Alexei
  Dikiy, an actor who played the role of Stalin in films. But Rashid's role was to
  play Stalin "live," at public functions such as banquets. (Was Dikiy jealous?
  Or too busy playing Stalin in the movies to play him in real life?)
  No mention is made in the obituary of the role Stalin
  played in his hiring, if any, or if Rashid was ever
  allowed to meet or study the man he was to impersonate.
  He may have been taught to impersonate by Stalin’s first impersonator,
  and by images of that impersonator on the silver screen.
  
  There are also other doubles mentioned in the obituary,
  doubles multiplying into quadruples and more. It’s not
  at all clear what the total number of Stalin’s doubles actually was (were?).
  Rashid never met with any other Stalin lookalikes except Dikiy,
  but he told of another Stalin double who was hired to live
  in the dictator's dacha outside of Moscow in the late 1940s
  and 1950s when Stalin was dying. This double filled in
  for Stalin for media events and other times when Stalin
  had to meet government functionaries and others.
   

 I was unable to find any photo's of "Rashid"

Perhaps some of the "Official" photo's of Stalin were of him...I don't know.

Stalin, the man of steel

I have blogged about Stalin in the Past, his effect on the Soviet Union and in the world, he has killed more people with the exception of Chairman Mao, The purges he did in the 1930 to the Ukrainians and wiped whole villages as he forced a man made famine as he seized their assets to finance the heavy industry he wanted.  Stalin created the first modern police state with the NKVD .  The purges he also forced on the Russian people after he disarmed him.  Stalin also purged the Red Army, killing off one third of the officers in a purge because of his paranoid nature and listening to his NKVD Chief Beria.    The resulting purge affected the Red Army during the Winter War and told Hitler that the Red Army was weak an disorganized and that the Soviet Union was vulnerable.


    Here are some facts about Stalin that wasn't commonly known.

The Second World War saw the rise of some truly monumental figures, on both sides of the conflict. With leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt in America and Britain’s Winston Churchill leading the battle for the world’s future, nations rose and fell on the decisions of a few incredibly powerful men.
One of these individuals in particular – Joseph Stalin – was a titan in the east of Europe, and was instrumental in winning the battle for the Eastern Front. From his poor beginnings in Georgia to the dark myths that still swirl around his time in power, here are four facts about the man who called himself the Man of Steel.

The Georgian Hero

There are few men more associated with Russia than Stalin, but he was not actually from there originally. He was Georgian, and although the country was ruled by the Russian Empire, he grew speaking the local language and maintained a close connection his original nationality.
Born in Gori, in the east of the country, he was originally named Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. The town of his birth remained extremely loyal to Stalin throughout the years, where he was held up as an inspiration and a national hero.
Decades later, after Stalin’s death, the new Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev presented a damning speech, in which he heavily criticized his predecessor and attacked the “cult of personality” he had helped create. Although the speech shocked and outraged people around the world, Gori actually erupted into riots as a result, with protests continuing unabated until a military crackdown days later.

Comrade Index Card

The Man of Steel’s rivals wanted to brand him as a menial secretary

It is clear that Stalin wanted to present himself as a hard and uncompromising man, determined to uphold his beliefs at any cost. To this end, he wrote articles under the moniker “The Man of Steel”, from which the name Stalin is actually derived.
However, a rival within the Communist Party had other ideas. When Stalin assumed the position of General Secretary within the organization, Leon Trotsky began referring to him as Comrade Index Card. This belittling title came about because of the slightly mundane secretarial tasks that Stalin had to carry out in his new role within the party.
Trotsky recognized his rival’s potential, of course, and probably wished to paint him as a minor bureaucrat, rather than the Man of Steel he claimed to be. The nickname wasn’t enough to hold him back, however, and Stalin’s rise to power soon had Trotsky on the run.

The Orthodox Priest

Orthodox churches were actually torn down under Stalin

One of the defining features of Stalin and his government was the promotion of atheism and the persecution of religious groups and practices. Churches were demolished, anti-religious laws instated and atheistic educational programs were widely implemented in schools.
Under Stalin’s rule, the Russian Orthodox Church faced intense opposition, and almost completely vanished during the 1930’s. Remarkably, however, he actually once trained to become an Orthodox priest himself.
In the late 1800’s, a young Stalin enrolled in the Spiritual Seminary in Tiflis, the capital of Georgia. Initially, he was an excellent student, achieving high grades and working hard. However, as time went on he had a change of heart and became a committed atheist, rejecting his original path and leaving the religious school in 1899.

The Sinister Scientist 

Ivanov is at the center of some dark and fantastical theories about Stalin

Inevitably, as with many of the most sinister figures from the Second World War, there is no shortage of lurid urban myths and unlikely conspiracy theories about Stalin. However, one that has gained particular traction – almost to the point of being recognized as fact – is Stalin’s desire to create a “super soldier” by crossing animal and human DNA.
The story goes that the Man of Steel tasked a scientist named Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov with the job of creating a chimpanzee-human hybrid. With substantial funding behind him, Ivanov then traveled to Africa to procure primates that could be artificially inseminated with human genetic material. His experiments were continuing apace, when the Soviet authorities changed their minds and had him fired.
However, although Ivanov was certainly keen to experiment in this dubious field of science, there is very little evidence that Stalin even knew about his work, much less that he was in favor of it. The story is largely rooted in a poorly-sourced newspaper article from 2005, and thankfully it is almost certainly no more than an urban myth.

     

"Where the Cold War Started"

 I saw this surfing the web, it is a different take, I thought the Cold war really started over Berlin with Stalin trying to cut off the city and force the allies to leave, although Sir Winston did say that the "Iron Curtain" was falling on Europe in his 1946 speech, but the Americans didn't really realize it until 1948.  Before then, we were in our postwar glow and the fastest demobilization in history, the Armies and Navies that defeated the Axis powers were "Demobbed" as they say and the equipment scrapped. Stalin was thinking postwar before the war was over and he played Roosevelt like a fiddle and he then snowed Truman, although I think Truman didn't buy the "Grandfather Russia" act that Stalin was running" unlike Roosevelt, Just my 0.02.

Here is a "Warsaw Uprising" blogpost I did 4 years ago, it explains a lot about the uprising.

 

                                    Monument to the Warsaw Uprising

Where the Cold War Began

Thoughts in and around geopolitics.

By

George Friedman

-

June 24, 2022

I stood on a balcony in Warsaw this past week to gaze at the Vistula River. The Vistula runs wide and deep, the guardian of Warsaw from the east. Poland has seen existential threats from all directions. In the 20th century, the danger came from Germany to the west and from Russia to the east. Poland was once an empire, but for much of its recent history, it has been a victim. And the Vistula is where we must remember an episode that may not have resulted in the most Polish deaths but that nonetheless exemplifies the brutality and betrayal that was visited upon the country not so long ago.

In 1945, Germany was collapsing. A quasi-government in Poland called the Lublin Committee was emerging from the ashes, preparing to build a free Polish government and allow Poland to take control of its destiny. The future of Poland had been discussed extensively at the meetings of the big three – Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Roosevelt and Churchill favored the Lublin Committee. Stalin was appalled. For Stalin, a pro-Soviet or at least a Soviet-controlled Poland was essential. Then as today, the Russian objective was strategic depth. Moscow had nearly fallen to the Germans, saved only by winter and distance. Controlling Poland was a simple matter of safety. Moscow therefore wanted the Lublin Committee replaced by a communist government under Russian control.

Roosevelt and Churchill opposed this, but they had a different sense of Stalin and how to handle him. Churchill saw Stalin as the moral and strategic danger to their plan to spread liberal democracy to the east. Roosevelt believed that whatever Stalin might be, he had to be persuaded that the Lublin Committee would not pose a threat to Russia. Roosevelt believed deeply in the power of personal relations to the point that it might overwhelm geopolitical imperatives. I don’t think he was naive, but he believed Stalin had the upper hand militarily and that the only viable option was trying to convince him that the U.S. and Britain had no bad intentions. What was benign to them was a mortal threat to Stalin. Even so, Stalin indicated vaguely that the Lublin Committee would be respected.

During World War II, as the Russians approached Warsaw from the east, the Polish Home Army, a resistance force inside Warsaw, rose up against the Germans. At this moment, Stalin halted the Russian advance. His explanation was that Russian forces needed to regroup and be resupplied. Warsaw was Stalin’s for the taking. Some reorganization might have been needed, but the Russian army stopped for weeks. The Germans carried out the slaughter they were famous for, decimating the Home Army and allowing Russia to enter Warsaw as the only force capable of governing. The Lublin Committee was brushed aside, and a communist party subservient to Russia was imposed, remaining in power until the Soviet Union fell. In other words, Stalin stopped to give Hitler time to slaughter Stalin’s Polish enemies, and once completed, Stalin advanced into a devastated city.

This is where the Cold War began. Stalin did not trust Churchill or Roosevelt. In his view, Russia paid the price for crushing Hitler – in spite of the fact that he had allied with Hitler to invade and divide Poland in 1939. Roosevelt believed he could forge personal trust with Stalin to avoid conflict, which was perhaps the only course possible since a Western military insertion into Poland was impossible. The deep doubts about Russia were frozen into a long-term distrust and created 46 years of conflict.

When I stepped out on that balcony in Warsaw, a cocktail in hand, I did not know that this was the river behind which Stalin halted, and to my rear was the city where he welcomed Hitler’s slaughter of the Poles. I saw a deep and deceptively calm river but could not see the blood that had been spilled to assure Russia’s strategic depth. The irony was that I was in Warsaw to address the strategic challenge posed in 2022 by Russia in Ukraine, the massive Polish effort to sustain the Ukrainian resistance, and my own country’s presence in Poland, supplying weapons to Ukraine and with the 82nd airborne deployed.

Russia continues to seek strategic depth all these years later, and continues the contest it began on the banks of the Vistula. Russia lost Poland, and now it’s fighting a war to take hold of Ukraine. It no longer has a Germany to do its dirty work. But it is important we remember the manner in which Russia pursues imperatives: What Moscow must have generates its operating principles. It cannot give up the search for strategic depth, nor can it obtain it without the ruthlessness reality demands. But history has a great sense of humor and demands patience. How much patience Ukraine can muster is, of course, unclear. How many times Russia must play the same game is even more so.

 

Could Stalin have conquered Europe at the beginning of WWII?

I am an avid student of History and especially Military History, and like Victor Suvorov wondered if Stalin was planning on invading the German Territories but Hitler got the jump on him with Operation Barbarossa before Stalin was ready.  I do know from my history books that Stalin had given stern orders to his generals not to provoke the Germans no matter what they did.  I also knew that Stalin had entire Field Armies stationed near the border.  Hitler had gotten a poor impression of the Soviet Armies from their dismal performance during the "Winter War" with Finland.  I will give my own impression before y'all read this article that follows the pic of Stalin.  The Soviets had better equipment especially their Tanks were superior.  What helped the Germans besides the Soviets being out of position was their far superior training and the Luftwaffe hitting all the airfields and destroying the Soviet Air armies while they are on the ground.  Part of what saved the Soviets in the end was that they were able to move their well equipped Eastern armies that were facing the Japanese after the Japanese let slip that they were focusing on the Americans and their own plans with the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and had no interest in dealing with the Soviets yet.  So the Soviets sent their Eastern armies west to launch the offensive that pushed the Germans away from Moscow.  The Soviets also used a dual organization for their army that created "Fronts" which is extra military organization that allows the Soviets to run 3 to 5 armies effectively in battle as the Germans found out.
    I read a book called "Inside the Soviet Army"in the mid 80's, and I used that book and anything else that I could find during that time to learn about my enemy and without bragging, it made me a pretty good analyst..as far as Soviet doctrine went and how they fight.

The article came from Here

For many years I maintained far too many magazine subscriptions, more periodicals than I could possibly read or even skim, so most weeks they went straight into storage, with scarcely more than a glance at the cover. But every now and then, I might casually browse one of them, curious about what I had usually been missing.

Thus, in the summer of 2010, I happened to leaf through an issue of Chronicles, the small-circulation flagship organ of the marginalized paleoconservative movement, and soon began reading a blandly-titled book review. But the piece so astonished me that it immediately justified all the many years of subscription payments I had sent to that magazine.

The reviewer was Andrei Navrozov, a Soviet emigre long resident in Britain, and he opened by quoting a passage from a previous 1990 book review, published almost exactly twenty years before:

[Suvorov] is arguing with every book, every article, every film, every NATO directive, every Downing Street assumption, every Pentagon clerk, every academic, every Communist and anti-Communist, every neoconservative intellectual, every Soviet song, poem, novel and piece of music ever heard, written, made, sung, issued, produced, or born during the last 50 years. For this reason, Icebreaker is the most original work of history it has been my privilege to read.

He himself had written that earlier book review, which ran in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement following the original English publication of Icebreaker, and his description was not overblown. The work sought to overturn the settled history of World War II.

Icebreaker‘s author, writing under the pen-name Viktor Suvorov, was a veteran Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West in 1978 and subsequently published a number of well-regarded books on the Soviet military and intelligence services. But here he advanced a far more radical thesis.

The “Suvorov Hypothesis” claimed that during the summer of 1941 Stalin was on the very verge of mounting a massive invasion and conquest of Europe, while Hitler’s sudden attack on June 22nd of that year was intended to forestall that looming blow. Moreover, the author also argued that Stalin’s planned attack constituted merely the final act in a much longer geopolitical strategy that he had been developing since at least the early 1930s.

Following the Bolshevik Revolution, the new Soviet regime had been viewed with extreme suspicion and hostility by other European countries, most of which also regarded their own domestic Communist Parties as likely fifth columns. So to fulfill Lenin’s dream and carry the revolution to Germany and the rest of Europe, Stalin somehow needed to split the Europeans, and break their common line of resistance. He allegedly viewed Hitler’s rise as exactly such a potential “icebreaker,” an opportunity to unleash another bloody European war and exhaust all sides, while the Soviet Union remained aloof and bided its strength, waiting for the right moment to sweep in and conquer the entire continent.

To this end, Stalin had directed his powerful German Communist Party to take political actions ensuring that Hitler came to power and then later lured the German dictator into signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to divide Poland. This led Britain and France to declare war on Germany, while also eliminating the Polish buffer state, thereby placing Soviet armies directly on the German border. And from the very moment he signed that long-term peace agreement with Hitler, he abandoned all his defensive preparations, and instead embarked upon an enormous military build-up of the purely offensive forces he intended to use for European conquest. Thus according to Suvorov, Stalin ranks as “the chief culprit” behind the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the updated English edition of his book bears that exact title.

To my great surprise I discovered that Suvorov’s remarkable theories had gained enormous worldwide prominence since 1990, and had been widely discussed almost everywhere except in America and the other English-speaking countries. As Navrozov explained:

[The English edition of the] book sold 800 copies.

Some months later, a German edition of the book, under the title Der Eisbrecher: Hitler in Stalins Kaulkul, was published in Germany by a smallish house, Klett-Cotta, to timid and gingerly reviews. It sold 8,000 copies. In 1992, Suvorov’s manuscript was delivered to a maverick publisher in Moscow, and at last the book saw the light of day in the original Russian, quickly selling out its first print run of 100,000 copies. In the years that followed, over five million copies have been sold, making Suvorov the most-read military historian in history.

And yet, in the nearly 20 years that have elapsed between Icebreaker‘s launch in England and the present publication of The Chief Culprit, no British, American, Canadian, or Australian publisher saw fit to exploit potentially global interest in the drifting Icebreaker—or to so much as touch Suvorov with a barge pole—despite the fact that the almost unobtainable $20 copies of the long-out-of print Hamish Hamilton edition have been changing hands on the internet for upward of $500.

Since 1990, Suvorov’s works have been translated into at least 18 languages and an international storm of scholarly controversy has swirled around the Suvorov Hypothesis in Russia, Germany, Israel, and elsewhere. Numerous other authors have published books in support or more often strong opposition, and even international academic conferences have been held to debate the theory. But our own English-language media has almost entirely blacklisted and ignored this ongoing international debate, to such an extent that the name of the most widely-read military historian who ever lived had remained totally unknown to me.

Finally in 2008, the prestigious Naval Academy Press of Annapolis decided to break this 18 year intellectual embargo and published an updated English edition of Suvorov’s work. But once again, our media outlets almost entirely averted their eyes, and only a single review appeared in an obscure ideological publication, where I chanced to encounter it. This conclusively demonstrates that throughout most of the twentieth century a united front of English-language publishers and media organs could easily maintain a boycott of any important topic, ensuring that almost no one in America or the rest of the Anglosphere would ever hear of it. Only with the recent rise of the Internet has this disheartening situation begun to change.

Determining Stalin’s true motives and the basis of his foreign policy during the 1930s is hardly easy, and his statements and actions are subject to multiple interpretations. Therefore, the theory that the dictator spent all those years deftly preparing the outbreak of World War II appears quite speculative to me. But the other central claim of the Suvorov Hypothesis—that the Soviets were themselves on the verge of attacking when the Germans struck—is an extremely factual question, which can be evaluated based on hard evidence. I find the case quite compelling, at least if the facts and details that Suvorov cites in support are not totally spurious, which seems unlikely with the Naval Academy Press as his publisher.

The Eastern Front was the decisive theater of World War II, involving military forces vastly larger than those deployed in the West or the Pacific, and the standard narrative always emphasizes the ineptitude and weakness of the Soviets. On June 22, 1941, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, a sudden, massive surprise attack on the USSR, which caught the Red Army completely unaware. Stalin has been regularly ridiculed for his total lack of preparedness, with Hitler often described as the only man the paranoid dictator had ever fully trusted. Although the defending Soviet forces were enormous in size, they were poorly led, with their officer corps still not recovered from the crippling purges of the late 1930s, and their obsolete equipment and poor tactics were absolutely no match for the modern panzer divisions of Germany’s hitherto undefeated Wehrmacht. The Russians initially suffered gigantic losses, and only the onset of winter and the vast spaces of their territory saved them from a quick defeat. After this, the war seesawed back-and-forth for four more years, until superior numbers and improved tactics finally carried the Soviets to the streets of a destroyed Berlin in 1945.

Such is the traditional understanding of the titanic Russo-German struggle that we see endlessly echoed in every newspaper, book, television documentary, and film around us. But even a cursory examination of the initial situation has always revealed strange anomalies.

Many years ago, while in Junior High, I became an avid war-gamer with a strong interest in military history, and the Eastern Front of World War II was certainly a very popular topic. But every reconstruction of Operation Barbarossa always noted that the Germans owed much of their great initial success to the very odd deployment of the huge Soviet forces, which were all massed along the border in vulnerable formations almost as if preparing for an attack, and some writers casually suggested that this might have indeed been the case. But the sheer volume of supporting evidence amassed by Suvorov goes far beyond this sort of idle speculation, and he produces a historical picture radically different than what our standard accounts have always implied.

First, although there was been a widespread belief in the superiority of Germany’s military technology, its tanks and its planes, this is almost entirely mythological. In actual fact, Soviet tanks were far superior in main armament, armor, and maneuverability to their German counterparts, so much so that the overwhelming majority of panzers were almost obsolescent by comparison. And the Soviet superiority in numbers was even more extreme, with Stalin deploying several times more tanks than the combined total of those held by Germany and every other nation in the world: 27,000 against just 4,000 in Hitler’s forces. Even during peacetime, a single Soviet factory in Kharkov produced more tanks in every six month period than the entire Third Reich had built prior to 1940. The Soviets held a similar superiority, though somewhat less extreme, in their ground-attack bombers. The totally closed nature of the USSR meant that vast military forces remained entirely hidden from outside observers.

There is also little evidence that the quality of Soviet officers or military doctrine fell short. Indeed, we often forget that history’s first successful example of a “blitzkrieg” in modern warfare was the crushing August 1939 defeat that Stalin inflicted upon the Japanese 6th Army in Outer Mongolia, relying upon a massive surprise attack of tanks, bombers, and mobile infantry. And Stalin apparently thought so highly of many of his top military strategists in 1941, that despite his huge initial losses, many of them remained in command and were eventually promoted to the highest ranks of the Soviet military establishment by the end of the war.

Certainly, many aspects of the Soviet military machine were primitive, but exactly the same was true of their Nazi opponents. Perhaps the most surprising detail about the technology of the invading Wehrmacht in 1941 was that its transportation system was still almost entirely pre-modern, relying upon wagons and carts drawn by 750,000 horses to maintain the vital flow of ammunition and replacements to its advancing armies.

Meanwhile, major categories of Soviet weapons systems seem almost impossible to explain except as important elements of Stalin’s offensive plans. Although the bulk of the Soviet armored forces were medium tanks like the T-28 and T-34, generally far superior to their German counterparts, the USSR had also pioneered the development of several lines of highly specialized tanks, most of which had no counterpart elsewhere in the world.

(*) The Soviets had produced a remarkable line of light BT tanks, easily able to shed their tracks and continue on wheels, achieving a top speed of 60 miles per hour, two or three times faster than any other comparable armored vehicle, and ideally suited to exploitation drives deep into enemy territory. However, such wheeled operation was only effective on paved highways, of which Soviet territory had none, hence were ideally suited for travel on Germany’s large network of autobahns. In 1941 Stalin deployed almost 6,500 of these autobahn-oriented tanks, more than the rest of the world’s tanks combined.

(*) For centuries, Continental conquerors from Napoleon to Hitler had been stymied by the barrier of the English Channel, but Stalin was far better prepared. Although Stalin’s vast USSR was entirely a land-power, he pioneered the world’s only series of fully amphibious light tanks, able to successfully cross large rivers, lakes, and even that notoriously wide moat last successfully traversed by William the Conqueror in 1066. By 1941, the Soviets deployed 4,000 of these amphibious tanks, far more than 3,350 German tanks of all types used in the attack. But being useless in defense, they were all ordered abandoned or destroyed.

(*) The Soviets also fielded many thousands of heavy tanks, intended to engage and defeat enemy armor, while the Germans had none at all. In direct combat, a Soviet KV-1 or KV-2 could easily destroy four or five of the best German tanks, while remaining almost invulnerable to enemy shells. Suvorov recounts the example of a KV which took 43 direct hits before finally becoming incapacitated, surrounded by the hulks of the ten German tanks it had first managed to destroy.

Other evidence of the scale and intent of Stalin’s armies in the summer of 1941 are equally telling:

(*) During the early years of World War II, the Germans effectively utilized paratroops and air-mobile forces to seize key enemy targets far behind the front lines during a major offensive, and this was an important component of their victories against France in 1940 and Greece in 1941. Such units are necessarily lightly armed and no match for regular infantry in a defensive battle; hence their only role is an offensive one. Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops, a far larger force than anything found in Britain, France, America, Italy, or Japan. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers, and Suvorov believes that the true total was actually closer to 2,000,000.

(*) Sometimes the production decisions of major weapon systems provide strong hints of the broader strategy behind their development. The most widely produced military aircraft in history was the heavily armored IL-2, a powerful Soviet ground-attack bomber that was originally designed as a two-man system, with the rear gunner able to effectively defend the plane against enemy fighters during its missions. However, Stalin personally ordered the design changed to eliminate the second man and defensive armament, which left the bomber extremely vulnerable to enemy aircraft once the war broke out. Stalin and his war-planners had seemingly banked on possessing near-total air supremacy during the entire course of any conflict, an assumption plausible only if the German luftwaffe were destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack on the very first day.

(*) There is considerable evidence that in the weeks prior to the German surprise attack, Stalin had ordered the release of many hundreds of thousands of Gulag prisoners, who were issued basic weapons and organized into NKVD-led divisions and corps, constituting a substantial part of the Second Strategic Echelon located hundreds of miles from the German border. These units may have been intended to serve as occupation troops, allowing the much more powerful front-line forces to press onward and complete the conquests of France, Italy, the Balkans, and Spain. Otherwise, I can find no other plausible explanation for Stalin’s action.

(*) The planned invasion and occupation of a large country whose population speaks a different language requires considerable logistical preparation. As an example, prior to their attack the notoriously methodical Germans printed and distributed to their troops large numbers of German-Russian basic phrasebooks, allowing effective communication with the local Slavic villagers and townsmen. Ironically enough, at around the same time, the USSR seems to have produced very similar Russian-German phrasebooks, allowing conquering Soviet troops to easily make themselves understood to German civilians. Many millions of these phrasebooks had been distributed to Soviet forces on the German border during the early months of 1941.

Suvorov’s reconstruction of the weeks directly preceding the outbreak of combat is a fascinating one, emphasizing the mirror-image actions taken by both the Soviet and German armies. Each side moved its best striking units, airfields, and ammunition dumps close to the border, ideal for an attack but very vulnerable in defense. Each side carefully deactivated any residual minefields and ripped out any barbed wire obstacles, lest these hinder the forthcoming attack. Each side did its best to camouflage their preparations, talking loudly about peace while preparing for imminent war. The Soviet deployment had begun much earlier, but since their forces were so much larger and had far greater distances to cross, they were not yet quite ready for their attack when the Germans struck, and thereby shattered Stalin’s planned conquest of Europe.

All of the above examples of Soviet weapons systems or strategic decisions seem very difficult to explain under the conventional defensive narrative, but make perfect sense if Stalin’s orientation from 1939 onward had always been an offensive one, and he had decided that summer 1941 was the time to strike and enlarge his Soviet Union to include all the European states, just as Lenin had originally intended. And Suvorov provides many dozens of additional examples, building brick by brick a very compelling case for this theory.

The book is not overly long, running perhaps 150,000 words, and $20 plus a few mouse clicks on Amazon will provide you a copy to read and judge for yourself. But for those who desire a simple summary, Suvorov’s 2009 lecture at the Eurasia Forum of the Annapolis Naval Academy is conveniently available on YouTube, though slightly hindered by his weak English:

Also his C-Span series

Controversial theories, even if backed by seemingly strong evidence, can hardly be properly evaluated until they have been weighed against the counter-arguments of their strongest critics, and this should certainly be the case with the Suvorov Hypothesis. But although the last three decades have seen the development of a large secondary literature, much of it sharply critical, nearly all this international debate has taken place in Russian, German, or Hebrew, languages that I do not read.

There are some exceptions. Several years ago, I came across a website debate on the topic, and one strong critic claimed that Suvorov’s theories had been totally debunked by American military historian David M. Glantz in Stumbling Colossus, published in 1998. But when I ordered and read the book I was sorely disappointed. Although purporting to refute Suvorov, the author seemed to ignore almost all of his central arguments, and merely provided a rather dull and pedantic recapitulation of the standard narrative I had previously seen hundreds of times, laced with a few rhetorical excesses denouncing the unique vileness of the Nazi regime. Most ironically, Glantz emphasizes that although Suvorov’s analysis of the titanic Russo-German military struggle had gained great attention and considerable support among both Russian and German scholars, it had been generally ignored in the Anglo-American world, and he almost seems to imply that it can probably be disregarded for that reason. Perhaps this attitude reflected the cultural arrogance of many American intellectual elites during Russia’s disastrous Yeltsin Era of the late 1990s.

A far superior book, generally supportive of Suvorov’s framework, was Stalin’s War of Annihilation, by prize-winning German military historian Joachim Hoffmann, originally commissioned by the German Armed Forces and published in 1995 with an English revised edition appearing in 2001. The cover carries a notice that the text was cleared by German government censors, and the author’s introduction recounts the repeated threats of prosecution he endured from elected officials and the other legal obstacles he faced, while elsewhere he directly addresses himself to the unseen government authorities who he knows are reading over his shoulder. When stepping too far outside the bounds of accepted history carries the serious risk that a book’s entire print-run will be burned and the author imprisoned, a reader must necessarily be cautious at evaluating the text since important sections have been skewed or preemptively excised in the interests of self-preservation. Evaluating scholarly debates on historical issues becomes difficult when one sides faces incarceration if their arguments are too bold.

Can we say whether Suvorov is right? Since our information gatekeepers of the English-language world have spent the last three decades closing their eyes and pretending that the Suvorov Hypothesis does not exist, the near-complete absence of any substantial reviews or critiques makes it very difficult for me to come to any definite conclusion. But based on the available evidence, I believe it is far more likely than not that Suvorov’s theories are at least substantially correct. And if so, our current understanding of World War II—the central formative event of our modern world—is entirely transformed.

 Suvorov notes that treaties or pacts are traditionally named for the city in which they are signed—the Warsaw Pact, the Baghdad Pact, the Munich Agreement—and thus the so-called “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” signed in August 23, 1939 by which Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland should more properly be called “the Moscow Pact.” As a direct result of that agreement, Stalin gained half of Poland, the Baltic States, and various other advantages, including a direct border with Germany. Meanwhile, Hitler was punished by declarations of war from France and Britain, amid worldwide condemnation as a military aggressor. Although Germany and Russia both invaded Poland, the latter managed to avoid being dragged into any war with Poland’s erstwhile allies. Thus, the primary beneficiary of the Moscow Pact was clearly Moscow.

Given the long years of trench warfare on the Western front during the First World War, almost all outside observers expected the new round of the conflict to follow a very similar static pattern, gradually exhausting all sides, and the world has shocked when Germany’s innovative tactics allowed it to achieve a lightening defeat the allied armies in France during 1940. But at that point, Hitler regarded the war as essentially over, and was confident that the extremely generous peace terms he immediately offered the British would soon lead to a final settlement. As a consequence, he returned Germany to a regular peacetime economy, choosing butter over guns in order to maintain his high domestic popularity

Stalin, however, was under no such political constraints, and from the moment he had signed his long-term peace agreement with Hitler in 1939 and divided Poland, he ramped up his total-war economy to an even higher notch. Embarking upon an unprecedented military buildup, he focused his production almost entirely upon purely offensive weapons systems, while even discontinuing those armaments better suited for defense and dismantling his defensive lines of fortifications. By 1941, his production cycle was complete, and he made his plans accordingly.

And so, just as in our traditional narrative, we see that in the weeks and months leading up to Barbarossa, the most powerful offensive military force in the history of the world was quietly assembled in secret along the German-Russian border, preparing for the order that would unleash their surprise attack. The enemy’s unprepared airforce was to be destroyed on the ground in the first days of the battle, and enormous tank columns would begin deep penetration thrusts, surrounding and trapping the opposing forces, achieving a classic blitzkrieg victory, and ensuring the rapid occupation of vast territories. But the forces preparing this unprecedented war of conquest were Stalin’s, and his military juggernaut would surely have seized all of Europe, probably soon followed by the remainder of the Eurasian landmass.

Then at almost the last moment, Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets, fortuitously catching them at the very point at which their own final preparations for sudden attack had left them most vulnerable, and thereby snatching a major initial victory from the jaws of certain defeat. Huge stockpiles of Soviet ammunition and weaponry had been positioned close to the border to supply the army of invasion into Germany, and these quickly fell into German hands, providing an important addition to their own woefully inadequate resources.

The enormous and fully-militarized resources of the Soviet state, supplemented by the contributions of Britain and America, did eventually turn the tide of battle and lead to a Soviet victory, but Stalin ended up with only half of Europe rather than its entirety. Suvorov argues that the fatal weakness of the Soviet system was its total inability to compete with non-Sovietized states in the peacetime production of civilian goods, and because such states had still survived after the war, the Soviet Union was doomed to eventual collapse.

Navrozov, the Chronicles reviewer, is a Russian Slav and therefore hardly favorable to the German dictator. But he closes his review with a remarkable statement:

Therefore, if any of us is free to write, publish, and read this today, it follows that in some not inconsequential part our gratitude for this must go to Hitler. And if someone wants to arrest me for saying what I have just said, I make no secret of where I live.

"The First Soviet Defector"

One of my farcebook friends had posted this, and I shamelessly cribbed it from her.   And I did look into the book mentioned..."I Choose Freedom"  I would have bought the book, but too rich for my blood, but I do check out used book stores...maybe I will get lucky.

"Viktor Kravchenko walked out of the Soviet embassy in Washington and never came back.

April 1944. He took a train to New York. Disappeared into the city.

A few days later, he held a press conference at the New York Times. Told American reporters Stalin was a tyrant. The Soviet system was a lie.

He was 38. An engineer. A captain in the Red Army. A senior Soviet bureaucrat.

The first Soviet official to publicly defect.

He had a wife and a son back in Moscow. He would never see them again.

Stalin would spend the next 22 years trying to have him killed.

Here's how he got there.

Kravchenko was born in 1905 in Ukraine. His father was a railway worker and a revolutionary socialist.

He grew up believing in the revolution. Joined the Communist Party in 1929. Trained as a metallurgical engineer.

At engineering school he was friends with a young man named Leonid Brezhnev. The same Brezhnev who would later rule the Soviet Union.

Kravchenko rose fast. Ran steel mills. Got promoted to senior official in the war industry.

Then he saw what the system actually was.

1932-33. The Holodomor. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians starved to death.

Kravchenko was sent to villages to enforce grain seizures. Watched peasants die in their houses. Watched mothers go mad from hunger.

""People dying in solitude by slow degrees,"" he wrote later. ""Dying hideously, without the excuse of sacrifice for a cause.""

Then came the purges. Stalin's terror. Millions arrested. Shot. Sent to gulags.

Kravchenko's own friends started disappearing. Colleagues vanished overnight. He waited for his turn.

It never came. Instead, in 1943, he was sent to Washington with the Soviet Purchasing Commission. Job was to acquire American industrial equipment for the Soviet war effort.

He saw his chance.

For months he prepared. Studied English. Memorized the city. Planned his escape.

In April 1944, he slipped out of his Washington apartment. Took a train to New York. Held a press conference. Defected publicly.

The Soviets demanded he be returned immediately. Called him a traitor.

Ambassador Joseph Davies took Stalin's request directly to FDR.

FDR refused. Granted Kravchenko asylum.

He lived under a pseudonym for the next 22 years.

He started writing. A memoir about life inside Stalin's system. A first-person account of the famine, the purges, the gulags.

Published in 1946 as I Chose Freedom.

It became one of the most important books of the Cold War. Bestseller in over 20 countries. Translated into 22 languages. Republished 73 times in English alone.

The first major Western account of Stalin's crimes from a senior insider.

Stalin's response was immediate. The NKVD tracked Kravchenko's family in Ukraine. More than 30 of his relatives were arrested, harassed, or killed.

His Russian wife was forced to denounce him publicly. His son Valentin grew up branded ""son of a traitor to the motherland.""

But the most public attack came from France.

On November 13, 1947, the French Communist weekly Les Lettres Françaises published an article titled ""How Kravchenko Was Manufactured.""

The piece claimed he was an alcoholic. A liar. A CIA stooge. That American intelligence had written the book, not him.

Les Lettres Françaises was a prestigious publication. Sartre had written for it. Paul Éluard. François Mauriac. The literary heart of the French left.

Kravchenko sued them for libel.

The trial opened in Paris on January 24, 1949. Lasted two months. Eighteen sessions. Over 100 witnesses.

Newspapers called it ""The Trial of the Century.""

The Soviet Union flew in his former colleagues. His ex-wife. His old bosses. They all accused him of being a traitor, a draft dodger, an embezzler.

A KGB officer testified that Kravchenko was mentally deficient. Kravchenko jumped to his feet.

""We are not in Moscow,"" he screamed. ""If you were not a witness, I'd tear your head off.""

Then his lawyers brought their witnesses.

Survivors of the gulag. Ukrainian refugees who had seen the famine.

The most devastating testimony came from Margarete Buber-Neumann. Widow of a German communist leader killed in Stalin's purges. Sent to a Soviet gulag in 1937. Then handed over to the Nazis under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp.

She had survived both Soviet and Nazi camps. She testified about both.

Simone de Beauvoir was in the courtroom. After hearing her, de Beauvoir said: ""Since I heard this German woman, I believe. I believe that Kravchenko is telling the truth about everything.""

On April 4, 1949, the court ruled in Kravchenko's favor. Les Lettres Françaises was fined 500,000 francs. Ordered to pay 150,000 francs in damages.

The French Communist Party was humiliated.

But they appealed. A higher court upheld the verdict. Then reduced the damages to 3 francs. Less than one dollar.

The court said the publicity had helped him sell more books.

He won. And was awarded one dollar.

After the trial, Kravchenko's life unraveled.

He moved to Peru. Tried to start mining ventures. Wanted to use the profits to help poor farmers.

The businesses failed one after another. His biographer later suspected the KGB was orchestrating the failures.

He moved back to New York. Lived alone. Wrote less. Drank more.

His American partner Cynthia raised their two sons under a fake name. Anthony and Andrew didn't know their father's real identity until 1965.

Andrew met his father once. He was 15.

On February 25, 1966, Viktor Kravchenko was found dead at his desk in his Manhattan apartment. Gunshot wound to the head. A note beside him.

Officially ruled suicide.

President Lyndon B. Johnson didn't believe it. Ordered the FBI to determine if the suicide note was authentic or a Soviet forgery.

The FBI eventually said the note was real.

But the details never added up. His son Andrew has spent his life arguing the KGB killed him.

Either way, he was dead. 60 years old. The man who had told the West about Stalin.

Here's what makes his story matter.

Kravchenko was the first major Soviet defector. The first senior insider to tell the world what the Soviet system actually was.

He wrote about the Holodomor when no one else would. Exposed the gulags when Western intellectuals still defended Stalin. Compared Soviet and Nazi camps when that comparison was banned in polite company.

For this, the Soviets killed his relatives. The French left called him a fraud. Sartre's friends called him a CIA stooge.

He won his case. Got vindicated in court. And destroyed in the process.

Thirty years after the trial, the editor of Les Lettres Françaises who had run the attack articles wrote in his memoir: ""Kravchenko was right.""

Three words. Decades too late.

Solzhenitsyn read about the trial verdict in a Soviet prison camp. He said it gave him a glimmer of hope. That maybe the West wouldn't stay fooled forever.

The book is still in print. Almost nobody outside Ukraine and Cold War historians remembers Kravchenko's name.

He told the truth about Stalin's crimes. The truth got him hunted for 22 years.

He died alone in a Manhattan apartment with a bullet in his head. Maybe his own. Maybe not.

Viktor Kravchenko. Engineer. Defector. Author. The man who showed the West what was happening behind the Iron Curtain.

His crime? Telling the truth too early. Too loudly. Too publicly.

His legacy? A book the Soviets couldn't kill. 30 dead relatives in Ukraine he never got to mourn.

He died vindicated. He died destroyed.

The two often go together when you tell the truth about an empire.

Possible assassination attempt of the Duke?

 I couldn't post Yesterday, I had a lot of ...you Guessed it..

I am a huge John Wayne fan, his rendition of the "Scout Law" I have posted 2 times on my blog.  John Wayne was a fervent supporter of the Boy Scouts of America.  John Wayne also played the all American hero, his attitudes and beliefs became the what the average American boy ascribed to when he became a man.  John Wayne Had several phrases that I have used, one was this one, I have it on my toolbox at work

I also use this one when I am talking to a scout when I am talking about ethics and doing the right thing. I would say "Courage is being scared and doing the right thing anyway".  I also remembered when John Wayne passed on beyond the rim in 1979, a Japanese Newspaper had a quote "Mr. America passes on" and that was pretty much accurate, John Wayne embodied the traditional American values that used to be celebrated.
    I clipped this from the Guardian, I had seen something in my Facebook feed about an assassination attempt on John Wayne and when I clicked it, it was clickbait, so after I extricated myself from that mess, I figured I would look up the story and "googled" it.    I knew that John Wayne was virulently anti-communist, when he made the movie "Green Beret" in 1968, it was direct "shot across the bow" of the anti-war movement. 

Joseph Stalin ordered the KGB to assassinate John Wayne because he considered his anti-communist rhetoric a threat to the Soviet Union, according to a new biography of the film star based on interviews with Wayne's close associates and the movie legend Orson Welles.

Stalin apparently learned of Wayne's popularity from the Russian filmmaker Sergei Gerasimov, who attended a peace conference in New York in 1949. Michael Munn, a film historian and author of John Wayne - The Man Behind The Myth, said Gerasimov told Stalin of Wayne's fervent anti-communist beliefs.
"Stalin decided that he would have him killed," said Mr Munn, who says he was told of the plot by Orson Welles at a dinner in 1983. Welles had said that the KGB was given the task of assassinating Wayne.
"Mr Welles was a great storyteller," said Mr Munn, "but he had no particular admiration for John Wayne." He said that Welles had offered the story without prompting, and that his sources were excellent.

Alexei Kapler after 10 years in a Soviet Prison

A prominent Russian filmmaker, Alexei Kapler (who was imprisoned for an affair with Stalin's 16-year-old daughter, Svetlana), had told another Russian filmmaker, Sergei Bondachuk, about the order. Bondachuk was sceptical at first, but after Gerasimov confirmed the story, Bondachuk told Welles.
Mr Munn said Wayne had also told him that his friend, the stuntman Yakima Canutt, had "saved his life once". Mr Munn later asked Mr Canutt what he had meant by this comment. The incident is thought to have taken place in the early 50s.
"Yakima told me that the FBI had discovered there were agents sent to Hollywood to kill John Wayne," said Mr Munn. "He said the FBI had come to tell John about the plot. John told the FBI to let the men show up and he would deal with them."
Wayne then apparently hatched a plot with his scriptwriter at the time, Jimmy Grant, to abduct the assassins, drive to a beach and stage a mock execution to frighten them. Mr Munn said he did not know what transpired, but heard the two men stayed in the US to work for the FBI.

Advertisement

"Afterwards though, John shunned FBI protection and did not want his family to know. He moved into a house with a big wall around it."
Wayne then relied upon a group of loyal stuntmen who infiltrated communist cells in America and learned of plots to kill him.
"He then gathered all the stuntmen, went to the communist meetings, and had a huge fight," Mr Munn said. This was when Wayne believes Mr Canutt saved his life.
A further attempt to kill Wayne was made in Mexico on the set of the film Hondo (which was released in 1953), led by a communist cell, according to Mr Munn.

The book claims that Stalin's order was cancelled by his successor Nikita Krushchev after the dictator's death in 1953. The book says Krushchev told Wayne in a private meeting in 1958: "That was a decision of Stalin during his last five mad years. When Stalin died, I rescinded that order."
Wayne also told Mr Munn about an attempt to kill him by an enemy sniper while he was visiting the troops in Vietnam in 1966. "One of the snipers was captured," said Mr Munn, "and said there was a price on John's head, put there by [China's communist leader] Mao Tse Tung."
Mr Munn said he had gathered the anecdotes over decades of work in the film industry. "I am quite convinced that it was not propagated by John or his inner circle," he added.