Conspiracy Theory: A Russian Example

If you consider yourself to be a student of history or even pursue it as a “light” hobby, then you and the rest of mainstream society are probably familiar with conspiracy theories. It seems that as more time surpasses our present era, the more conspiracy theories pervade our social and popular cultures. In particular, the emergence of conspiracy theories as themes in popular works of literature and cinema has led the everyday ‘Joe’ to question the merits of actual history. I’ll provide an example or two in the coming paragraphs to prove my point.

The modern definition of the conspiracy theory took off in the 1790’s in France. Conspiracy theories about the monarchy were the cornerstone of the French Revolution. But it wasn’t until the advent of modern communications technology that conspiracy theories began to take hold in society. For example, in October 1917 (in western time it was November) the Bolshevik Revolution took hold in Russia, ending over 700 years of imperial rule. In the beginning months of the revolution, Tsar Nicholas II and his family (The Romanov mystery) were taken to a remote area in the Caucus Mountains and subsequently executed. It wasn’t until 1979 that family’s makeshift grave was discovered. Oddly enough though, the remains of Anastasia, one of the Romanov daughters was not located.

The remains were eventually exhumed and placed in St. Petersburg in 1998. An imposter, Anna Anderson paraded around claiming to be Anastasia for most of her life, but DNA evidence revealed that she was not in fact Anastasia. So what happened to Anastasia? Steve Berry took the question up in his book entitled “The Romanov Prophecy.” Even though the book is a novel (fiction), it reeks of conspiracy theory. Berry asserts that Anastasia and another of the Romanov children escaped their demise by playing dead in the room where the family was executed. After surviving the slaughter, he then has an under cover Menshevik (white) smuggle the remaining children out of the area. One can guess where the rest of the plot goes; at least one child makes it to adulthood to have children, hence carrying on the ‘royal’ bloodline.

I’ll admit that the book was rather compelling and hard to put down. But I do not for one moment believe that any of the Romanovs survived on the night of July 16, 1918 in that small cellar. The Bolsheviks were ruthless and sometimes sloppy, but it would be assumed that the bodies would’ve been checked after the massacre. Yet, people such as Anna Anderson stir up our wildest dreams; that Anastasia may have lived. In this specific case, I believe that people would hold onto such fallacies out of sheer curiosity of the past. Plus, it would be rather entertaining to know if one of the last dynasties on Earth has living blood relatives. Yes, there are Romanovs out there that are related to the royal family, but not in the way that any of us want.

The point is that conspiracy theories involving popular figures such as JFK (too many to count), Marilyn Monroe, Roswell, NM, Stalin, The Da Vinci Code, etc… fill most of us with excitement. What if these people and countless other did not really die or were killed in different fashion? These stories allow our imaginations run wild with the countless possibilities of ‘what if.’ I’m not claiming that every aspect of history is 100% correct by any means; some things we will never know. But there are some issues that have been studies over and over by countless prominent scholars and if they conclude what the previous scholars concluded, I am inclined to believe the legitimate historical version. Never the less, conspiracy theories are entertaining to say the least.

Bush: Iraq as Johnson: Vietnam

I’m sure that you have read it countless times over the past two years; Iraq is George W. Bush’s Vietnam. The actual “war” itself does not compare to the catastrophe that Vietnam was to a generation of Americans. But the political context of the comparison reigns true. Who supports the war? I mean more 70% of the American public disagrees with “King George’s War.” Yet, the president continues to defy those who put him in office. It is no secret that President Bush is paranoid about receiving a negative legendary status similar to that of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the war lord of the 60’s.

Johnson presided over a war similar to our current situation in Iraq. Johnson stuck his vain nose into a fire ant nest in which there was no way out. From 1959 to 1975, over 58,000 Americans lost their lives in the jungles of Vietnam. It was the first time in our nation’s history that our armed forces had to deal with a new style of warfare, that of guerilla warfare. Any traditional sense of warfare that had pervaded the upper echelons of the armed forces was thrown to the wind in favor of fighting a war “from the seat of our pants.” This is what is happening in Iraq today in a variety of ways that surpasses Vietnam.

The Bush Administration tells us that we are there to fight terror; to stop those who blew up the World Trade Towers from ever doing a heinous act like that again. But to many observers it seems as if we have exacerbated the situation even more so than before. Yes, we overthrew a horrible man by the name of Saddam Hussein, but at a cost that has yet to be determined. Our troops now find themselves not in the middle of fighting terror, but instead in between sectarian violence; a civil war. With Hussein and his regime out of power, it was simple a matter of time before someone started to vie for power.

As with the case of Vietnam, we have installed a “puppet government” in Iraq. The South Vietnamese government located in Saigon was less organized and even more powerless than the mafia. It is obvious that the “government” in Iraq is rather similar, if not worse. They have no real power; they do not control the country. Those who control the country generally have control of the hearts and minds of a public, this government does not. Instead, a majority of those in Iraq are more concerned with fighting for the Kurds, Shiites, and the Sunnis; factions that have been in place for over a millennia.

If “King George” is simple minded enough as LBJ to believe that American might and firepower can change centuries upon century’s worth of discontent, then we have truly elected a tyrant. History tells us that tyrants are not stupid people, but are vain and naïve; George Bush and those advising him fit this stereotype to the “t.” Vietnam went down as the biggest military debacle in out nation’s history; we left and the North Vietnamese stormed the south five minutes later. Richard Nixon had to clean up what LBJ did and I have a feeling that our next president, whomever that may be, will have to clean up “King George’s debacle” at the cost of this nation’s reputation.

I’m afraid that George W. Bush may very well be correct in his comparison with LBJ. The question is now, who destroyed America’s image and worldly spirit more? You decide.