Any detailed review of Suvorov’s argument is ob iously beyondrnthe scope of this article, nor is he my subject here. WhatrnI want the reader to consider, in the light of an argument that Irnpersonally regard as complete and irrefutable, are its politicalrnimplications. If Hitler was Stalin’s creature, were not Britainrnand the United States wrong to have weighed in on the side ofrnthe shrewder, not to mention ruore powerful, villain? If Hider’srnact of national suicide made havoc of Stalin’s master plan forrnthe conquest of Europe, the dawn surprise of Barbarossa havingrnpreempted the Day M of the Russian invasion by perhaps as littlernas three weeks, should not Britain and the United States rememberrnHitler as a hero and a mart) r? If Stalin was preparedrnfor a war of aggression but not for a war of defense, while HiHerrnwas prepared for neither kind of war and ended up having tornfight both, does this not mean that the much vaunted might ofrnBritain and the United States from 1941 to 1945, allied as it wasrnto that of Russia, is just so much self-congratulation and self-aggrandizement?rnAnd if Stalin was able to conceal from bothrnI3ritain and the United States his preparations for total war duringrnthe period of 193? through I94I, and his preparedness forrnthe planned war of aggression after 1939, what does that sayrnabout the likelihood of Western democracies understandingrnthe Russia of today, or indeed surviving long enough to see arnRussia of the future?rnYet there is one political implication that is more radical still,rnand it is one which is by far the most relevant to my subject.rnIf more than 50 years since the outbreak of World War II couldrnhave passed without the argument, now made by Suvorov, havingrnbeen made, and the questions which I am now asking—rnquestions that, after all, disturb the ver) foundations of 2()thcenturyrnhistoriography—having been asked, what chance has arnsmaller truth to survive and be heard in this cosmos of total,rnplacid, conformist oblivion? Perhaps the Martians did getrnsomebody’s daughter pregnant, perhaps the telephone companyrnis poisoning the wells, and the Jews may very well be in it together.rnTry telling that to the New York Times, my friends.rnI personallv believe that Skull and Bones, the Yale secret society,rnwas the founding and organizing force of the Central IntelligencernAgency, which began life in the basement of the SterlingrnMemorial Library on the university campus. I furtherrnbelieve that this secret society, which to date has produced threernAmerican presidents, has exercised a commanding influencernover American foreign policy in the last centur)’. I believe thisrnwas shown most dramatically during World War II —in therntwin debacle of Teheran and Yalta—through the figure of thernsociety’s “Big Devil,” Averell Harriman, a Soviet agent of influencernsince his first business visit to Russia in the 1920’s. I believernthat Harriman’s prestige increased after the war, and thatrnthe Andropov-Gorbachev dismantling of the Communist Partyrnand the subsequent reformation of Soviet totalitarianism occurredrnwith the naive and irresponsible connivance of the CIA,rnintent on broadening the business-interests Lebensraum of itsrnSkull and Bones keepers. And yes, unafraid to echo OliverrnStone, I believe that the Skull and Bones leadership of the CIArnis responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.rnWell, something good about that bunch an)’va’, I hear thernreader mutter. But the main question here is not whether thisrnor that Kennedy deserved to die, nor whether Harriman andrnother “Wise Men” did what they did for love or for money, norrneven whether—for the past 50 or 60 vears—the American bodyrnpolitic has been worked like a puppet theater bv a bunch of Yalernmilksops and ignoramuses, themselves manipulated fromrnMoscow as carefully and farsightedly as Hitler once was. Thernmain question is whether the absolute or nearly absolute lies ofrnhistorv can be manufactured, disseminated, and absorbed byrnentire nations without producing, by way of reaction, a deepseatedrnresentment on the part of those people who care even arnlittle about histor”s truths, without caring if they are relative orrnabsolute so long as they are not outright falsehoods. That reactionrnis called, by conformist opinion, paranoia. Those whornhave it are called nuts, while the truths they pursue are calledrnconspiracy theories.rnThe main question, for me, is whether the writing of historrn—which, I repeat, has more to do with exposing confoundedrnlies than with finding absolute truths shining like cities onrnhills —is ever possible without paranoia, albeit in this somewhatrnless than clinically accurate sense of the term. I do not think werncan afford to wait another 50 years in order to hear this crucialrnquestion answered by history itself, for the simple reason that, asrna paranoid conspirac- theorist, I believe that our time is runningrnshort. crnThe Articulationrnby Charles Edward EatonrnOne keeps thinking of the overlooked and d e e p -rnCities not yet discovered, races neer heard of,rnGreat causes, war, peace, ideologies gone to sleep.rnA subway train with more passengers than it can holdrnMa’ be rumbling over graves, likewise packed,rnSunken pools, baths, mosaic floors inlaid with gold.rnYou walk at midnight on a lonely street.rnThe bars almost closed, the shades in the brothels drawn.rnAnd think of suppurations, the number of ghosts that yourncould meet.rnA public drinking fountain poses as a little spoutrnWliere thirsty gladiators drank, the concubines cooledrntheir lips —rnYears from now, will that telephone booth, funereal, bernsomething to be talked about?rnThe pressing up and up forever, the pressing down ofrnyears—rnMy body feels compact, set in place, volcanic:rnThere must be urns and urns below solidified with tears.rnTherefore, the beauty of the mobile, the way the hand, thernfoot can move —rnA lady of the night, the last to leave the bar, knows vice butrnnot the vise:rnHow fabulous she is, drawing on a silken glove.rnMARCH 2001/15rnrnrn