The Red Symphony

By Steven Bayes

" The Red Symphony " is the name of a historic recorded conversation between two political leaders which took place in 1938.

This conversation has been a subject of many speculations ever since.

The author provides the public domain conversation with many explanations, oppinions, views and information.

Those who do not know the conversation will equaly enjoy the book as well as those who do.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Aug 7, 2014
• ISBN: 9781312418189

Book preview

The Red Symphony

The Red Symphony

by

Steven Stanley Bayes

www.Steven-Stanley-Bayes.com

Chapter 1 : Preface

The Red Symphony is a name of the conversation between two politicians in 1938 where they discuss the politics of the era and before. The most referred to events took place in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century before the World War 2. Communism and capitalism are the most covered topics in the conversation. The conversation touches subjects ( although not the main subject of the conversation ) such as The Rulers of the World which have made the conversation very popular amongst people with such inclinations all over the world and mainly in the French speaking world and The U. S. A.

The author of this document has tried to provide the whole conversation as well as to offer an independent opinion on the conversation. The author expresses but does not impose this opinion on anyone. PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS MAY FIND THIS DOCUMENT INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY MAY LEARN OTHER THINGS WHICH THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN WHICH ARE INVARIANT ON THE AUTHOR’S OPINION. Those of them who want to continue with their personal opinions after they have acquired this knowledge can do this as they please.

Chapter 2 : Book Organization

This document provides the conversation between two political leaders of the first half of the 20th century known throughout the world with the name The Red Symphony . I have made comments to this in order to provide own opinion because, I think, the opinions of many people who have misunderstood this historic conversation are wrong. The comments are in Italic Bold and begin with SSB : , the original conversation is in normal.

Chapter 3 : Prerequisite

In order to understand the document, some preliminary knowledge is required. I will try to provide this in a very short form.

1.1  History :

The conversation, called by people The Red Symphony takes place before the World War II. Politicians in the whole world were then asking an important question : will Germany attack the Soviet Union or the possible war will take place only in the Western Europe?

One of the possible sub questions may have been : what is the National Socialist Party of Germany : more socialists than nationalists, more nationalists than socialists, more capitalist than socialist and nationalist combined, any other combination amongst these three or something else?

A second sub question may have been : does the National Socialist Party of Germany comply to logic or not? In case of yes, does the National Socialist party of Germany apply a stable, long term logic or are they just opportunists who do whatever they think is to be done only at a given point without having any agenda, program, schedule, plan? Or the two thereof.

Another outcome question : are the National Socialist Party of Germany politicians or economists ( money makers ) and or any combination thereof. In case of a combination, here and before, to what extend do they mix these two ingredients?

Another question : who are the enemies of the National Socialist Party of Germany inside Germany and out?

What kind of weapons do they have?

2.2 Politics :

Germany was devastated by the World War I with many parts taken by other countries, mainly adjacent to Germany and a part of Germany controlled by France to produce coal for France to pay reparations from World War I.

Neither The Soviet Union nor The U. S. A. have ever taken any German land. This means there is no any direct reason for Germany to enter a war with these two countries. Except the indirect incentive : a war against the Soviet Union is not a war against the Soviet Union per se but is a war against socialism and future communism. Such a war must, therefore, be strongly supported by all capitalist countries except these with which Germany is at war. Not except : even these countries should support Germany who comes to them as a liberator from socialism and communism rather than an occupying force.

However, there is another interesting scenario : Germany becomes a socialist country ruled by the National Socialist Party which becomes more socialist than nationalist and does not attack The Soviet Union nor The U. S. A. but only attacks the capitalist Europe thus being a liberator of Europe from capitalism.

The second scenario looks very promising for Germany except a few problems : The Soviet Union is not as stupid as the Western capitalist countries and The U. S. A. and will not bite this German hook. Neither will the internal German socialist and communist parties who, along with The Soviet Union, want either their way and not the promised National Socialist Party highway even though a divided one and strongly built by concrete autobahn. Even the best autobahn is useless when this autobahn goes in a wrong direction.

The internal capitalist parties and their protégés, the rich capitalists of Germany will strongly disagree which may lead to a loss of the shallow non full majority win of the National Socialist Party at the elections.

So, the political situation, contrary to what many think, is very weak for The National Socialist Party. THEY SIMPLY CANNOT DO THE JOB ON THEIR OWN AND THE WEAK PERFORMANCE AT THE ELECTION MAKES THE THINGS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE RULERS.

So they need an ally : who? The Western Europe and The U. S. A. because the National Socialist Party will give them the most desired gift : more desired even than their independence : the destruction of socialism thus inability of transferring to communism.

Words are words, weapons are weapons : The National Socialist Party can pick any of these scenarios or chose many different ones BUT can they put their weapons where their mouths are? Bad news for the rest of the world : the answer is yes : the German weaponry is superior to any other in the world because of the non private economy Germany has enjoyed since 1932. For only 6 years, the National Socialist party has achieved what The U. S. A. and all the Western Europe has not achieved since their creations and before : much superior industry and product. Much to the dismay of The Soviet Union who stay big and undisturbed and so confident in the huge power and size so does not consider even to manufacture weapons. The U. S. A. can be represented as a sleeping giant. The Soviet Union as a Muscle Building Beauty Competitor, a fashion designer of a sort while Germany is the knocked down boxer who has not only fully recovered from the knock down when counted to 6 but has also become stronger taking the much needed rest of lying down for a while.

Yes, Germany did have the superior weaponry and the large amount of people needed to win any war against anyone even against the whole world. The question was to do so before the other caught up with the weaponry and also in the easiest way. And the easiest way looked to be to lie to the West and to attack the non trusting East.

But there is something to be added here : only one Soviet aircraft company was of the size of all German aircraft companies.

2.3  Hegel :

Hegel was mentioned throughout the conversation. Preliminary information is needed in order to understand the conversation.

Hegel is a German philosopher, scientists, thinker and, most importantly, logician.

Hegel is mistakenly pinpointed mainly by US ideologists and politicians as being a communist. This is very wrong and is applicable only to politicians such as McCarthy, to some extend Reagan and other of this sort. Hegel was working in these sciences much before socialism and communism were ever discovered, much before Marx and Engels, mostly likely, much before Tomas Man.

2.3.1        Author’s View on Logic :

Logic is an objective and strict science which shows people how to think objectively. As such, everything in logic has to be proven strictly mathematically in order to be used, i. e. there are theorems in logic which must be strictly proven, otherwise, in case they are not true, they will mislead, rather than help people think.

In the modern era, logic is mistakenly thought by people as what makes the computer software work ONLY. The problem with this common mistake is the word only. True, logic is used for to make computer software which is based on logic only but logic is not used in computer software only but everywhere in any human and, even, animal activity.

Logic with humans is not a must. People can opt out of using logic and say and do illogical things, for example, using religious believes blindly.

There are two levels of logic in terms of advancements in this science : simple logic and advanced logic. Simple logic is mistakenly called in English a common sense . Advanced logic is build in a level fashion up from the simple logic and the difference between simple and complicated logic is mainly quantitative which may or may not lead to quantitative differences. ( Quantity and quality are to be discussed ).

There are two types of logic by what they are and by application: analogue and digital. These two complement and mix with one another. Digital logic is based on strictly defined constants and variables which variables can only have one of the only possible two values. A toss of a coin is an example of digital logic : the outcome can be either one of the two possible. This digital logic can be simple or complicated. The complication comes from the amount of digital variables and interconnection thereof. In the example, a combinational choice of a winning combination among, say, 10 coins each of which can only land in only one of only two possible is an example of simple digital logic complication. Analogue logic is an amount logic and is based on amount. As an example, when a logger who makes a preliminary cut on a tree in order to use gravity to break the tree does not just make a scratch on the tree which will not do anything, neither does the logger cut across the whole tree which will either make the tree sit on the cut log when well balanced or will make the tree fall in the direction of the tree’s center of gravity. The logger plays with amounts : how much do I cut and how much angle do I give to the cut in order to use the gravity to make the tree fall in this direction? Analogue logic can be simple and complicated. An example when analogue logic can become complicated is when accuracy, precision, sensitivity, stability as well as multi variable interaction as well as multi type multivariable interaction ( many digital and many analogue variables ) are necessary. In the previous example the logger has a low accuracy of action required. A guitar maker has to cut wood with somewhat higher accuracy, hence making a guitar is more complicated than making furniture which is more complicated than making an outdoor bench which is more complicated than cutting logs.

The type of logic used in computer software is simple digital, also called mathematical logic. This can become somewhat more complex and mixed at upper levels of computer software development, mainly in areas such as artificial intellect.

Whether simple logic is analogue or digital, any simple logic is logic and not sense, thus human or animal thinking is necessary for everything AND NOT SENSE. This important difference is misunderstood mainly in the English Speaking World which comes mainly because of the stupidity of many British philosophers and thinkers centuries ago. These have consistently claimed there was not such a thing as simple logic but, instead, this is a sense which everyone has just the same as the instincts of animals. They have also claimed no thinking is necessary in simple logic. Thus, they have introduced the largely used term common sense . They have also been mislead by other scientists, mainly biologists, centuries ago who have been consistently claiming and continue to claim, animals do not think but, rather, they use their instincts. Animals DO think and instincts are nothing else but thinking. However, animals can only think to a given level and not beyond unlike humans. This is considered to be so because of the non complexity of animal’s brains as opposed to the complex human brain. A consideration in this is the number of neurons in human and animal brains.

2.3.2 Hegel’s Invention : The Top of the Summit of Logic

Hegel has made an invention in logic and has proven two things : the first thing is this invention is true and the second thing is there is nothing else true but this invention as well as there is no way to have anything else true, i. e. THIS INVENTION IN LOGIC EXPLAINS EVERYTHING IN THE OBJECTIVE REALITY which is only and always objective.

Hegel’s invention says :

Everywhere in physics, logic and anything else, there is nothing but :

Unity ( balance ) and fight between contradictive things

Quantitative accumulations lead to qualitative changes ( quantity leads to a new quality ).

Negation of the negation : things negate each other, then other things negate these things and this is how things get dynamically created

Explanation :

The Universe, even more global , the reality is created by nothing but contradictory things and, in case of collaboration of SOME things, this collaboration is contradictory to one thing or a collaboration of more than one OTHER things. The best example is the Newton’s law of : every force gets countered by another force of equal strength and opposite in direction force. The two forces are in unity : they are present in the same place; they counter each other with equal force and different directions. Neither of them wins. Another best example is : Energy cannot be created nor stopped : energy only changes shape and does not get created nor lost. There are many best examples in quantum physics and in the theory of relativity : the electrons and the atoms fight against each other : the electrons want to break free, the atoms want to hold them and, as a consequence, the electrons get to stay OUTSIDE of the atom and AT A GIVEN DISTANCE defined by the force exerted by the atom which force can only keep the electrons at a distance which distance depends on the strength of the atom’s keeping force : the weaker the force the higher the distance.

I have been talking a lot on one important piece of this theorem : the balance and the lack thereof. I will not write a lot here for now but I will only say the contradictory forces may be in balance and they may stay in balance forever or one of them can win JUST TO SEE ANOTHER CONTRADICTORY FORCE AGAINST AFTER WINNING OVER TO THE PREVIOUS ONE. Thus the theorem never stops, much like soccer : one team wins just to see the next team and whoever wins the cup does so just to see the other team for the qualifications for the next cup. SO, THERE ARE ALWAYS UNITY ( BALANCE ) AND FIGHT AMONGST CONTRADICTORIES AND THERE IS NOTHING WHERE THERE AREN’T. The levels of indirection may change but the theorem always works.

The most important Hegel’s law ( theorem ) is the quantity makes quality law : the human brains are exactly the same as the animal brains JUST BIGGER, I. E., WITH A HIGHER QUANTITY OF NEURONS which higher quantity of neurons leads to a new quality of a brain capable of complicated logic. One gun does not make an army and does not make a difference. Many guns do.

Thus, whoever sees different quality of an object, say, a car, this is NOT a different quality BUT a different quantity which different quantity is above a given threshold above which the quality can be counted as being different : a four cylinder car is just the same as an eight cylinder car just the eight cylinders has four more cylinders ( which may be of the same size ) and thus a lot more power ( energy ) hence the eight cylinder car is a different quality JUST BECAUSE of the different quantity : one can road race an eight cylinder car and make this a road racer and cannot do so with a four cylinder car which can only be a turn racer on a rally with many turns. Road racers and turn races are different qualities. Why? Because of the different quantities of cylinders.

This law is also always present whenever there are different quantities : a person who has $1 and another person who has $2 are equally poor because the quantity of $1 difference does not jump over the threshold while a person with $1 Billion is a different quality as compared to the other two.

Negation of negation is the law with the strangest name. Basically, this says the countering things which, as mentioned, are in unity and fight, try to negate each other : to win over each other. One soccer team tries to negate the win of the other soccer team. To negate a win means to lose. So, one team tries to make the other one lose. To make a team lose means to win over this team. Thus, one team tries to win over the other team to make the other team lose. The other do the same. The two teams negate each other. In non tournament matches they may draw. In tournament matches, only one team will negate the other and there is no way to draw. The electrons say : we want to break free, the atom say : I want to keep you.

Here is an example where all three theorems ( laws ) are explained : The electrons want to NEGATE what the atom says. The atom wants to NEGATE what the electrons say. They exert countering forces to do so. These countering forces define the distance at which the contradictions stay at UNITY ( BALANCE ) AND FIGHT ( the forces are present ). In case we introduce a new electron in the atom, the QUANTITY of the electrons leads to an extra force which either changes the distance from the atom or makes another electron capable of breaking free. In any case this is a new QUALITY of atom electrons system or a new QUALITY is made called electrical current. In case we take an electron from the atom, the distance shortens and the other electrons have lower chance of breaking free. This is also a new quality of atom electrons system.

The theorem ( law ) of negation of the negation is a direct and important consequence of the previous two theorems ( laws ) and can be proven by them. However, the negation of the negation is a very direct and basic, as well as close to the other two theorems ( laws ) and also very important consequence which is worth putting as a separate basic theorem ( law). ANY OTHER THEOREM ( LAW ) OF LOGIC AND ANY OTHER SCIENCE CAN BE DERIVED FROM THESE THREE ( OR THE FIRST TWO BECAUSE THE THIRD IS A DERIVATION OF THE FIRST TWO ) yet the derivation of all other events is not as direct as the derivation of the third theorem ( law ) from the first two. Hence, the third theorem ( law ) makes every other easier to derive. However, there is another reason of the negation of negation theorem ( law ) to be put separately as a basic theorem ( law ). This theorem ( law ) as well as the first two, is ALWAYS PRESENT EVERYWHERE AND WITH EVERYTHING. Other theorems ( law ) derived from these three ( two ) may or may not always be present in everything.

Hegel’s theorems ( laws ) are proven with simple logic ( analogue and digital ) and bring logic to a different level of advanced logic. Everything higher and everything else is a derivation of these three theorems ( laws ). Thus, these three theorems ( laws ) are the GENERALIZATION basis of logic and any other science.

After this prerequisite, here is the conversation between Christian Georgievitch Rakovski ( marked with an R ) and Gavril Gavrilovitch Kuzmin ( marked with a G ) on January 26th, 1938, known as The Red Symphony with comments. Pay attention to these things : I think the only reason for this conversation is to be recorded and the recording to then be lost or stolen by the Soviet dual intelligence thus delivered to the Government of Germany and most importantly to Adolph Hitler to listen to. I think the message is very clear : Germany must NOT attack The Soviet Union but must find someone else to blame and to use as an explanation of any possible problems ( present, past and future ) problems as well as to use as a gift to the Western world. Who is this someone else ? Find out yourselves. Am I right or wrong? Also find out yourselves. Just to mention : THE INTERVIEW WAS RECORDED AND WAS IN FRENCH WHILE ALL PARTIES SPOKE RUSSIAN PERFECTLY. Some say the interview is in French, so the recording person ( a KGB officer, most likely ) does not understand what is said. The why do they need a recording officer at all. Even then the technology was intuitive and simple and everyone can make a recording on a reel to reel magnetic tape recorder just by a press of a button. In case a vinyl was being cut ( unlikely ) everyone can cut a record also by pressing one button. Reel to reel tape recorders were used in the 20’s and improved in the 30’s to record music quality which was improved in the 40’s to reach the so called high quality of analogue audio music recording or high fidelity. The Soviet Union was the leader or one of the leaders in tube technology since these were invented in 1890’s and 1900’s. For sure The Soviet Union had reel to reel tape recorders which can perfectly record SPEECH. Also, why speak French? And why afraid from a KGB officer? Who is this KGB officer from 1938 who would give information which Stalin and Stalin’s closest people refer to as a state secret ? This may happen only with an approval by Stalin and, in case Stalin wanted, Stalin was to get the information translated and then release to whoever wants. Not very nice to switch to a foreign language which may bring inaccuracy and miscommunication just because of a KGB officer, pretty useless in this case, who would never dare say a word. Unless they wanted to have this officer as a witness of the conversation and the witness of true recording and not tampering with the recording as well as editing OR FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO SECRETLY DISTRIBUTE TO WHOEVER STALIN SAYS TO.

Now, here comes the question : In case of such a top level Stalinist security, how can anyone believe this audio interview was distributed without the order of Stalin : Answer 1. : NO ONE EXCEPT KGB KNEW INFORMATION CANNOT LEAK FROM KGB. Rakovsky may or may not have known because Rakovsky is a USSR ambassador to France which means Rakovsky was a senior KGB officer yet at a slightly different level of indirection. Answer 2. : KGB CAN MAKE ANY DISTRIBUTION LOOK LIKE AN INFORMATION LEAK. There are many tricks for so. For example, KGB may attempt a delivery of the tapes to, say, The USSR ambassador to The UK. Then, during the delivery, the airplane or the train crash land in, say, Austria or German Switzerland. Then, with the highest probability, an Austrian German or a Swiss German will either deliver to Germany OR SELL the audio tapes to Germany, claiming high importance in the tapes after listening. In case Germany finds the importance to have not been so high, the seller would say : I am a simple farmer. I took the tapes from the plane or train crash and I listened with a cousin translating from French. Then I decided they are extremely important for Germany AND I WANTED TO HELP. No one would fight such an explanation nor ask for the money back or confiscate property instead.

Chapter 4 : The Conversation

Gavriil G. Kus'min ( G. ) : In accordance with our agreement at the Lubianka, I had appealed for a last chance for you; your presence in this house indicates that I had succeeded in this. Let us see if you will not deceive us.

Christian G. Rakovsky ( R. ) : I do not wish and shall not do that.

Steven Stanley Bayes ( SSB : ) These opening comments sound like an arrangement not only for an honest discussion but also and invitation of G. to R. to play along side The Soviet Union and not against regardless of R.’s