antony sutton, usa helping soviet union
National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House (1973)
https://alor.org/Storage/Library/PDF/Sutton_AC_national_suicide.pdf
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
Profile photo for ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Antony Sutton's ideas on this topic are controversial and not universally accepted. However, it is true that some American companies did contribute to the development of industrial infrastructure in both China and the Soviet Union during the early 20th century. For example, Ford Motor Company established a manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and General Electric provided technical assistance to the Chinese government in the 1930s. These companies may have seen these activities as opportunities for profit, or as ways to expand their markets. Additionally, during World War II, American companies did supply materials and equipment to the Soviet Union as part of the Lend-Lease program, which was intended to support Allied forces. It is important to note that the actions of these companies were not necessarily malicious or unpatriotic, but rather a reflection of the complexities of global commerce and politics.
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
Antony Sutton's ideas on this topic are controversial and not universally accepted. However, it is true that some American companies did contribute to the development of industrial infrastructure in both China and the Soviet Union during the early 20th century. For example, Ford Motor Company established a manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and General Electric provided technical assistance to the Chinese government in the 1930s. These companies may have seen these activities as opportunities for profit, or as ways to expand their markets. Additionally, during World War II, American companies did supply materials and equipment to the Soviet Union as part of the Lend-Lease program, which was intended to support Allied forces. It is important to note that the actions of these companies were not necessarily malicious or unpatriotic, but rather a reflection of the complexities of global commerce and politics.
Tell me more
Certainly! Let's delve deeper into the topic.
During the early 20th century, there were indeed American companies that engaged in business activities with both China and the Soviet Union, which were later considered adversaries of the United States during the Cold War. Antony Sutton, an economist and writer, argued that these interactions played a significant role in the development of the industrial infrastructure of these countries. He believed that Western technology and investment assisted the rise of communism in both China and the Soviet Union.
One notable example is the Ford Motor Company's involvement in the Soviet Union. In 1929, Henry Ford signed an agreement with the Soviet government to establish an automobile manufacturing plant, known as Ford Gorky Automobile Plant (GAZ), near Nizhny Novgorod (formerly Gorky). The plant aimed to produce automobiles, trucks, and tractors for the Soviet Union. Ford provided technical assistance, machinery, and managerial expertise. This venture lasted until the late 1930s when political tensions and ideological differences led to its dissolution.
Similarly, American companies such as General Electric (GE) had interactions with China. In the 1930s, GE collaborated with the Chinese government to provide technical assistance and expertise in developing their industrial infrastructure. This involvement included the establishment of power plants and the modernization of China's electrical system. However, it's important to note that these activities were not exclusive to GE but involved various Western companies and countries seeking business opportunities in China.
The motivation behind these interactions was primarily driven by economic interests. American companies saw potential markets and business opportunities in these countries. At the time, China was undergoing a period of political instability, and the Soviet Union was in the process of industrialization. Some American businesses viewed these endeavors as ways to expand their market reach and increase profits. It's worth noting that these interactions occurred before the rise of communism in China and the Soviet Union, and the intentions of the companies involved were primarily commercial in nature.
During World War II, the United States implemented the Lend-Lease program to support its allies, including the Soviet Union. Through this program, the U.S. provided military equipment, supplies, and materials to the Soviet Union to aid in their fight against Nazi Germany. American companies, including Ford, General Motors (GM), and others, played a role in producing war materials that were supplied to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. These collaborations were driven by the common goal of defeating a shared enemy rather than a deliberate attempt to aid future adversaries.
While there is evidence of American companies engaging in business activities with China and the Soviet Union, it is important to approach Sutton's claims with caution. His interpretations of these interactions often emphasized conspiratorial elements and suggested intentional support for communist regimes. The motivations and consequences of these interactions were multifaceted, influenced by factors such as economic interests, geopolitical circumstances, and evolving international relations. The complexities of historical events and the actions of individual companies defy simple categorizations.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Antony-Sutton-correct-about-the-USA-helping-communist-China-as-well-as-the-Soviet-Union-first-develop-its-industrial-infrastructure-How-companies-like-Ford-GE-GM-etc-helped-develop-the-war-industry-of-the-USAs
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Senior Controller at NATOAuthor has 11.5K answers and 128M answer views1y
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
The US was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s.
US industry was the most advanced and Stalin wanted the best, so he hired Amercians and bought American industrial equipment.
At this point, the US did not consider the Soviet Union a threat and the Soviets paid handsomely, often in gold.
China got most of its industrial know-how from the Soviets in the 1950s until the Sino-Soviet split.
The US did start providing technological help in the 1970s after Nixon went to China.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-US-gov-allow-Ford-and-General-Electric-to-help-build-the-Soviet-Unions-the-People-Republic-of-Chinas-infrastructure-in-order-to-make-military-equipment-Did-they-allow-the-same-for-NAZI-Japanese-military
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Senior Controller at NATOAuthor has 11.5K answers and 128M answer views1y
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
The US was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s.
US industry was the most advanced and Stalin wanted the best, so he hired Amercians and bought American industrial equipment.
At this point, the US did not consider the Soviet Union a threat and the Soviets paid handsomely, often in gold.
China got most of its industrial know-how from the Soviets in the 1950s until the Sino-Soviet split.
The US did start providing technological help in the 1970s after Nixon went to China.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Dima-Vorobiev
https://www.quora.com/Is-Antony-Sutton-correct-about-the-USA-helping-communist-China-as-well-as-the-Soviet-Union-first-develop-its-industrial-infrastructure-How-companies-like-Ford-GE-GM-etc-helped-develop-the-war-industry-of-the-USAs
Dima Vorobiev
Former Soviet propaganda executiveUpvoted by
Philip W
, Major History Buff and
Roger Atkins
, Masters Professional Ed History & Politics, Deakin University (2008)Author has 4.3K answers and 158.3M answer views3y
Related
Why did China and the Soviet Union split in the 1960′s?
As a matter of fact, the USSR and China split as early as in the 1950s.
Simply put, the underlying logic of Mao breaking up with the USSR was the same as of Putin breaking up with the West some 15 years ago. It’s the logic of internal power game.
A good enemy is gold
Despite the appearance of solid control projected by the both rulers, several threats to them were smouldering under the surface. Many people who were instrumental in getting the two men to the top of power, had their own ideas of how things should be done—and were probably thinking of taking over the job.
When it comes to an enemy at the gates, nothing can beat it when you need to get rid of internal competition. In Russian, we say “Don't change horses in mid-stream” (Konéy na perepráve ne menyáyut).
Chairman Mao, like President Putin, grabbed the occasion. Amazingly, both did it in about the same time frame.
From 1949, it took seven years for Mao to experience the full horror of Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization resulting in the Hungarian uprising and Polish unrest of 1956. Likewise, it took Putin seven years of his presidency to get scared enough of the Western ideas of accountable government and rotation of power. This compelled him to directly challenge the West in his Munich speech (Munich speech of Vladimir Putin
). From there, it all only went south.
Also in the terms of propaganda, for both Mao and Putin it made perfect sense to break out of their junior roles. Both staked a claim as global iconoclasts.
PRC
In the 1950s, Khrushchev put on hold the international expansion of the Communist project. The flow of funds to our agents of influence abroad dwindled. The break with Israel and the anti-Stalinist revelations in 1956 shattered the support that the Soviet project used to enjoy among the liberals and leftists in the West.
Mao decided to fill the void of global revolutionary action. And as always with communists, “There can be only one!
”
On the home front, the string of Mao’s economic failures also required someone to be thrown under the bus. In the absence of the bourgeois class, the role of an internal enemy was assigned to the Communist elite—the same elite that in the USSR performed de-Stalinization. Later, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao simply did what he thought Stalin should have done before his death: prevent a bourgeois transformation of the Communist bureaucracy by another Great Purge. (Deng’s rollback of the Marxist project that started in the 1970s showed Mao was right.)
Putin
President Putin was tasked by Yeltsin’s family and our oligarchs with two tasks:
guarantee the immunity of state-oligarchical fortunes
make our elite an equal partner at the global table of power (“Project Londongrad”).
He half-delivered on the first one. He perpetuated predatory economic liberalism for the selected few, as well as added himself and his pals to the national roster of oligarchs. Sadly, he failed to deliver on the second one. He seemed to sense a serious threat to him as a deal-breaker.
Luckily for him, President Putin managed to accumulate enough power to confiscate oligarchical wealth and appoint his own oligarchs. He refused to be thrown under the bus himself. Instead, he appointed the US and their European allies to be the deal-breakers. He pointed at them as the sneaky enemies who seek to hamstring the new, resurgent Russia. It’s because of these perfidious, double-faced, back-stabbing “partners” in the West he didn’t deliver.
In the photo below, a T-62 tank captured by China from the Soviet Army in 1969 during the border fights in the Far East. It has been displayed in Beijing as an evidence of the aggressive nature of Soviet revisionism threatening Communist China. (President Putin has so far failed to produce a comparable artefact proving the Western threat. Which is why Ukraine being an evil American puppet is such a big deal for our loyalist media.)
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
Profile photo for ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Antony Sutton's ideas on this topic are controversial and not universally accepted. However, it is true that some American companies did contribute to the development of industrial infrastructure in both China and the Soviet Union during the early 20th century. For example, Ford Motor Company established a manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and General Electric provided technical assistance to the Chinese government in the 1930s. These companies may have seen these activities as opportunities for profit, or as ways to expand their markets. Additionally, during World War II, American companies did supply materials and equipment to the Soviet Union as part of the Lend-Lease program, which was intended to support Allied forces. It is important to note that the actions of these companies were not necessarily malicious or unpatriotic, but rather a reflection of the complexities of global commerce and politics.
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
Antony Sutton's ideas on this topic are controversial and not universally accepted. However, it is true that some American companies did contribute to the development of industrial infrastructure in both China and the Soviet Union during the early 20th century. For example, Ford Motor Company established a manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and General Electric provided technical assistance to the Chinese government in the 1930s. These companies may have seen these activities as opportunities for profit, or as ways to expand their markets. Additionally, during World War II, American companies did supply materials and equipment to the Soviet Union as part of the Lend-Lease program, which was intended to support Allied forces. It is important to note that the actions of these companies were not necessarily malicious or unpatriotic, but rather a reflection of the complexities of global commerce and politics.
Tell me more
Certainly! Let's delve deeper into the topic.
During the early 20th century, there were indeed American companies that engaged in business activities with both China and the Soviet Union, which were later considered adversaries of the United States during the Cold War. Antony Sutton, an economist and writer, argued that these interactions played a significant role in the development of the industrial infrastructure of these countries. He believed that Western technology and investment assisted the rise of communism in both China and the Soviet Union.
One notable example is the Ford Motor Company's involvement in the Soviet Union. In 1929, Henry Ford signed an agreement with the Soviet government to establish an automobile manufacturing plant, known as Ford Gorky Automobile Plant (GAZ), near Nizhny Novgorod (formerly Gorky). The plant aimed to produce automobiles, trucks, and tractors for the Soviet Union. Ford provided technical assistance, machinery, and managerial expertise. This venture lasted until the late 1930s when political tensions and ideological differences led to its dissolution.
Similarly, American companies such as General Electric (GE) had interactions with China. In the 1930s, GE collaborated with the Chinese government to provide technical assistance and expertise in developing their industrial infrastructure. This involvement included the establishment of power plants and the modernization of China's electrical system. However, it's important to note that these activities were not exclusive to GE but involved various Western companies and countries seeking business opportunities in China.
The motivation behind these interactions was primarily driven by economic interests. American companies saw potential markets and business opportunities in these countries. At the time, China was undergoing a period of political instability, and the Soviet Union was in the process of industrialization. Some American businesses viewed these endeavors as ways to expand their market reach and increase profits. It's worth noting that these interactions occurred before the rise of communism in China and the Soviet Union, and the intentions of the companies involved were primarily commercial in nature.
During World War II, the United States implemented the Lend-Lease program to support its allies, including the Soviet Union. Through this program, the U.S. provided military equipment, supplies, and materials to the Soviet Union to aid in their fight against Nazi Germany. American companies, including Ford, General Motors (GM), and others, played a role in producing war materials that were supplied to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. These collaborations were driven by the common goal of defeating a shared enemy rather than a deliberate attempt to aid future adversaries.
While there is evidence of American companies engaging in business activities with China and the Soviet Union, it is important to approach Sutton's claims with caution. His interpretations of these interactions often emphasized conspiratorial elements and suggested intentional support for communist regimes. The motivations and consequences of these interactions were multifaceted, influenced by factors such as economic interests, geopolitical circumstances, and evolving international relations. The complexities of historical events and the actions of individual companies defy simple categorizations.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Antony-Sutton-correct-about-the-USA-helping-communist-China-as-well-as-the-Soviet-Union-first-develop-its-industrial-infrastructure-How-companies-like-Ford-GE-GM-etc-helped-develop-the-war-industry-of-the-USAs
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Senior Controller at NATOAuthor has 11.5K answers and 128M answer views1y
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
The US was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s.
US industry was the most advanced and Stalin wanted the best, so he hired Amercians and bought American industrial equipment.
At this point, the US did not consider the Soviet Union a threat and the Soviets paid handsomely, often in gold.
China got most of its industrial know-how from the Soviets in the 1950s until the Sino-Soviet split.
The US did start providing technological help in the 1970s after Nixon went to China.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-US-gov-allow-Ford-and-General-Electric-to-help-build-the-Soviet-Unions-the-People-Republic-of-Chinas-infrastructure-in-order-to-make-military-equipment-Did-they-allow-the-same-for-NAZI-Japanese-military
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Senior Controller at NATOAuthor has 11.5K answers and 128M answer views1y
Is Antony Sutton correct about the USA helping communist China as well as the Soviet Union first develop its industrial infrastructure? How companies like Ford, GE, GM etc helped develop the war industry of the USA's future enemies & why?
The US was the country that industrialized the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and 1930s.
US industry was the most advanced and Stalin wanted the best, so he hired Amercians and bought American industrial equipment.
At this point, the US did not consider the Soviet Union a threat and the Soviets paid handsomely, often in gold.
China got most of its industrial know-how from the Soviets in the 1950s until the Sino-Soviet split.
The US did start providing technological help in the 1970s after Nixon went to China.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Dima-Vorobiev
https://www.quora.com/Is-Antony-Sutton-correct-about-the-USA-helping-communist-China-as-well-as-the-Soviet-Union-first-develop-its-industrial-infrastructure-How-companies-like-Ford-GE-GM-etc-helped-develop-the-war-industry-of-the-USAs
Dima Vorobiev
Former Soviet propaganda executiveUpvoted by
Philip W
, Major History Buff and
Roger Atkins
, Masters Professional Ed History & Politics, Deakin University (2008)Author has 4.3K answers and 158.3M answer views3y
Related
Why did China and the Soviet Union split in the 1960′s?
As a matter of fact, the USSR and China split as early as in the 1950s.
Simply put, the underlying logic of Mao breaking up with the USSR was the same as of Putin breaking up with the West some 15 years ago. It’s the logic of internal power game.
A good enemy is gold
Despite the appearance of solid control projected by the both rulers, several threats to them were smouldering under the surface. Many people who were instrumental in getting the two men to the top of power, had their own ideas of how things should be done—and were probably thinking of taking over the job.
When it comes to an enemy at the gates, nothing can beat it when you need to get rid of internal competition. In Russian, we say “Don't change horses in mid-stream” (Konéy na perepráve ne menyáyut).
Chairman Mao, like President Putin, grabbed the occasion. Amazingly, both did it in about the same time frame.
From 1949, it took seven years for Mao to experience the full horror of Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization resulting in the Hungarian uprising and Polish unrest of 1956. Likewise, it took Putin seven years of his presidency to get scared enough of the Western ideas of accountable government and rotation of power. This compelled him to directly challenge the West in his Munich speech (Munich speech of Vladimir Putin
). From there, it all only went south.
Also in the terms of propaganda, for both Mao and Putin it made perfect sense to break out of their junior roles. Both staked a claim as global iconoclasts.
PRC
In the 1950s, Khrushchev put on hold the international expansion of the Communist project. The flow of funds to our agents of influence abroad dwindled. The break with Israel and the anti-Stalinist revelations in 1956 shattered the support that the Soviet project used to enjoy among the liberals and leftists in the West.
Mao decided to fill the void of global revolutionary action. And as always with communists, “There can be only one!
”
On the home front, the string of Mao’s economic failures also required someone to be thrown under the bus. In the absence of the bourgeois class, the role of an internal enemy was assigned to the Communist elite—the same elite that in the USSR performed de-Stalinization. Later, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao simply did what he thought Stalin should have done before his death: prevent a bourgeois transformation of the Communist bureaucracy by another Great Purge. (Deng’s rollback of the Marxist project that started in the 1970s showed Mao was right.)
Putin
President Putin was tasked by Yeltsin’s family and our oligarchs with two tasks:
guarantee the immunity of state-oligarchical fortunes
make our elite an equal partner at the global table of power (“Project Londongrad”).
He half-delivered on the first one. He perpetuated predatory economic liberalism for the selected few, as well as added himself and his pals to the national roster of oligarchs. Sadly, he failed to deliver on the second one. He seemed to sense a serious threat to him as a deal-breaker.
Luckily for him, President Putin managed to accumulate enough power to confiscate oligarchical wealth and appoint his own oligarchs. He refused to be thrown under the bus himself. Instead, he appointed the US and their European allies to be the deal-breakers. He pointed at them as the sneaky enemies who seek to hamstring the new, resurgent Russia. It’s because of these perfidious, double-faced, back-stabbing “partners” in the West he didn’t deliver.
In the photo below, a T-62 tank captured by China from the Soviet Army in 1969 during the border fights in the Far East. It has been displayed in Beijing as an evidence of the aggressive nature of Soviet revisionism threatening Communist China. (President Putin has so far failed to produce a comparable artefact proving the Western threat. Which is why Ukraine being an evil American puppet is such a big deal for our loyalist media.)
No comments:
Post a Comment