Scary ‘R’ Us 1: The Exaggerated Threat of Communism

10th September 2021

157

“Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbours….There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented.” (Joseph Schumpeter, 1919[i])

Governments throughout history have found it useful to have an external threat to create fear in the minds of the public, so they can be manipulated into uniting against a common foe and fighting a war. This is the first of three posts that discuss exaggerated threats.

Exaggerating The Threat of Communism

In 1945, at the end of World War 2, some countries in Eastern Europe were occupied by Russia. This group of countries became known as the Soviet Union. The economic system in those countries was called communism. From 1945 to 1989 leaders in Western countries tried to create the impression that at any moment the West might be invaded by communists. (Anti-communist propaganda actually became widespread much earlier, in 1917, and there are examples from even earlier.[ii]) In Britain, the government broadcast propaganda, labeled ‘public-information films’, about sheltering under a table or the stairs in the event of a nuclear attack. People in the US were told that communism is anti-American, it saps free will, and stops people from being individuals. Leaders in the US and Britain gave the impression that life under communism would be one great big concentration camp. President Reagan described the Soviet Union as “an evil empire” (not so different from George Bush’s use of the phrase “axis of evil”). Propaganda like “Better dead than Red” (red implied communist) was used repeatedly to scare people into believing that becoming communist was the worst thing that could happen.

The declassified files show that the US and British governments knowingly exaggerated the threat of a huge military invasion by the Soviet Union. This gave the US government an excuse to build up an enormous military, on the grounds that it might be needed to defend us. The size of the threat was usually described by saying that Russia had more missiles or bombers than the US had. This difference in numbers was referred to as the missile ‘gap’ or the bomber ‘gap.’ At one point US experts tried to claim that Russia had 100 nuclear missiles when in fact they had 4. Estimates were put out suggesting Russia had an immense bomber fleet, when in fact it was relatively small. In reality the ‘gap’ was in the other direction — the US had more missiles and bombers than Russia. Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defence from 1961–68, said that the Soviet military threat had been exaggerated for years. A later study by the US congress looked at the years 1978–1985 and concluded that Russian strength had been deliberately exaggerated every year in order to increase the US military budget[iii]. One military specialist said:

“The most critical special operations mission we have today is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us.”[iv]

On numerous occasions people in the West were told that the US government had to supply weapons to a country, such as Angola in 1974, in order to help locals being attacked by the Soviets. In many cases, the true order of events was that the people in these countries asked the Soviets for help after aggression by America or America’s allies. In the case of Angola, the Soviets were responding to an invasion by South Africa, backed by Britain and the US. This was summed up by one writer who said:

“You may have to sell [intervention or other military action] in such a way as to create the misimpression that it is the Soviet Union you are fighting”[v].

US propaganda presented all left-wing governments as agents of Russia. In reality, leaders in countries such as Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and China had many disagreements with each other[vi]. An honest summary of the situation was provided by a US Admiral in 1980:

“The Soviets are in six relatively unimportant countries today…They’ve been kicked out of Indonesia, China, Egypt and Somalia…If you look at the success of the Soviets as imperialists, they are flops…They have not had a major naval exercise for 5 years.”[vii]

Declassified British Intelligence files clearly state “The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war, or even limited war, in Europe”[viii]. In fact most Soviet wargames were based on suppressing dissent within the Soviet Union, making sure that uprisings could be quelled[ix]. The whole system was best described using the term ‘spheres of influence’. Russia was free to dominate within the Soviet Union, and the USA was mostly able to do what it wanted elsewhere. Over time there were exceptions, but for a while this ‘spheres of influence’ arrangement was acceptable to those in power in both the West and the East. This era was known as the cold war and lasted until 1989, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall, separating East and West Germany, was pulled down. It is not really possible to provide an accurate cost for the cold war, but a ballpark estimate is that the US spent approximately $10 trillion[x].

Blocking Independent Development and Fairer Societies

The true motive for exaggerating the threat of communism was to give the US government an excuse to use their military or their spy agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to overthrow other governments, or keep existing US-backed dictators in power, in order to control trade and resources. The US was afraid that countries would use their resources to develop a fairer society, and to help their own people escape poverty. The above explanation applies to many of the wars mentioned in other posts. Arbenz of Guatemala, Mossadegh of Iran, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nkrumah of Ghana, Jagan of British Guyana, Sihanouk of Cambodia — these are all examples of leaders and countries that wanted to try a form of independent development that have been overthrown by the US and replaced by US clients.[xi] Some of the countries targeted were very small, extremely poor, and offered no genuine threat to the US. However, if one poor country was able to demonstrate that independent development was possible, other countries might follow their lead and throw out exploitative US corporations and remove repressive governments. If the poorest countries could do this, slightly wealthier countries could do it even more easily, so the US actually considered the poorest countries to be the greatest threat. This was known as “the threat of a good example”[xii].

Cuba

A good example is Cuba. For many years, the Cuban dictator, Batista, had been supported by the US government. US businesses, including the mafia, controlled much of the Cuban economy. The Cuban people, led by Fidel Castro, overthrew Batista in a revolution in 1959 in order to end the tyranny and exploitation. When the revolution was successful, the Cubans threw the US corporations out of the country.[xiii] For some years the CIA attempted to overthrow Castro, but they were unsuccessful. This included a failed invasion in 1961, known as the ‘Bay of Pigs’.[xiv] The US government has imposed an embargo (meaning no one is allowed to trade with Cuba) ever since, and this has had an impact on Cuba’s prosperity. Despite this, Cuba has an outstanding healthcare system and provides excellent education and basic necessities for citizens. The US claims that the embargo is about a lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba, but in reality it is to ensure that the communist system in Cuba is not perceived as a good example, so others will not copy it.

The Western media, particularly in the US, mostly repeat the simplistic government propaganda that the US and their allies are the good guys, and the people they are fighting against are the bad guys. Not everyone is quite as brainwashed as the populations of Britain and the US. On one occasion, a US representative wanted the Mexican government to try to convince its population that Cuba was a threat. The response was:

“if we suggest that Cuba is a threat to our security, 40 million Mexicans will die laughing”[xv].

The Pentagon Papers

As mentioned in an earlier post, one of the most brutal US interventions was in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos between 1954 and 1973. The US government used the exaggerated threat of communism to justify sending its military to these countries for many years. The real reason the US was involved in Vietnam was to help an unpopular leadership, which had already killed tens of thousands of its own people, to stay in power[xvi], against the wishes of most of the Vietnamese population[xvii]. As with many recent wars, the country targeted was destroyed. The British government was actively involved, although politicians tried to keep their activities secret. They flew in weapons, trained soldiers in jungle warfare, advised President Nixon on policy, provided intelligence to help intercept messages and to help bombers find targets, and provided propaganda support[xviii].

It was during Vietnam that a US military analyst, Daniel Ellsberg, made large numbers of classified documents available. These became known as the Pentagon Papers and they showed that the US government was lying to both the US Congress and the US population about the reasons for the war. These papers explained that South East Asia was an important source of raw materials, such as oil, tin and rubber, and the US had client regimes in many countries in the region, helping to control those resources. A peaceful negotiation had been possible for many years, but was sabotaged by the US[xix]. US leaders at the time were worried about what they called ‘the domino effect’ (similar to the ‘threat of a good example’ mentioned above). If they were unsuccessful in retaining control in Vietnam, other countries might follow, and the US would lose control of huge resources, particularly in Indonesia.

An investigation into a massacre in Vietnam known as ‘My Lai’, where over 500 villagers were murdered by US soldiers, shows how brutal US wars really are. US soldiers confessed to mass executions, scalpings and beheadings. They kept ears, made into necklaces, as trophies, and they raped women and children.[xx]

Operation Condor — Death Squads and Torture

Atrocities such as large-scale murder and torture were committed by numerous US-backed rulers, who were given weapons, training and intelligence by the US. The Indonesian leader Suharto repeatedly committed mass slaughter, on a scale that should be called genocide.[xxi] In the late 1970s, there was a notorious operation called Operation Condor in many South American countries, where the CIA trained dictators, their militaries and police in the use of death squads, kidnap squads, and torture techniques. It is impossible to know how many people were persecuted during this period. One estimate is that 50,000 people were murdered, and 30,000 disappeared without trace (presumably also murdered). Another 400,000 were imprisoned for their political beliefs in hundreds of secret prisons set up as torture centres.[xxii] Under President Ronald Reagan, similar crimes took place throughout Central America, in countries such as Nicaragua, Grenada and El Salvador.[xxiii] The US repeatedly justified their support by claiming that it was necessary to fight communism.

The US’s main enemy during these events was anyone within each country who believed that poor people should have a better life, or who believed that they should control the country’s resources. Those people did not want US companies controlling resources or exploiting people. For this reason, the death squads and torturers deliberately targeted religious leaders, union leaders, teachers and academics, critical journalists, and left-wing politicians.

Still using the ‘Russian Threat’ as Propaganda

The exaggerated threat of communism is no longer used to justify wars. It has been replaced by exaggerated threats of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the need for humanitarian intervention (all discussed in upcoming posts). However, in 2018, the US changed its main focus from terrorism to “inter-state strategic competition”, which means China and Russia, together with Iran and North Korea[xxiv]. The next time you hear a news program about China’s activities in the South China Sea, or anything to do with Russia, Iran or North Korea, remember that it is US propaganda to create the next exaggerated threat. The real criminals in these regions are the US military, trying to surround independent nations with warships, military bases and nuclear missiles[xxv].

Key Points

Governments create and exaggerate threats. They use our fear to justify wars.

The threat of a communist invasion was exaggerated for almost half a century.

This threat was used by the US to justify many of their invasions up until 1989. The real reason for most of these invasions was to stop others from running their countries independently and controlling their own resources.

Further Reading

Jim Garrison and Pyare Shivpuri, The Russian Threat — Its Myths and Realities

References

[i] Joseph Schumpeter, Imperialism and Social Classes, 1919

[ii] Josh Jones, ‘The Red Menace: A Striking Gallery of anti-communist posters, Ads, Comic Books, Magazines and Films’, Open Culture, 18 Nov 2014, at

The Red Menace: A Striking Gallery of Anti-Communist Posters, Ads, Comic Books, Magazines & Films

[iii] Garrison and Shivpuri, The Russian Threat, p.270

[iv] Michael Kelly, Deputy Assistant Secretary US Air Force, in Stauber and Rampton, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, p.161

[v] Samuel Huntington, cited in Chomsky, Profit Over People, p.140

[vi] James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, p.192

[vii] Admiral LaRocque, 1980, cited in Garrison and Shivpuri, The Russian Threat, p.167

[viii] William Blum, Rogue State, 2004, p.18

[ix] Admiral LaRocque, 1980, cited in Garrison and Shivpuri, The Russian Threat, p.167

[x] Robert Higgs, ‘The cold war economy: Opportunity costs, Ideology and the politics of crisis’, Explorations in Economic History, №31, p.291, July 1994 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498384710126

[xi] William Blum, Killing Hope, 2004, p.12

[xii] Dianna Melrose, Nicaragua: The threat of a good example?, 1995

[xiii] Scott M. Deitche, ‘The rise of Castro and the fall of the Havana mob’, The Mob Musem, 7 Jan 2019, at