PURGE AT YOUR OWN RISK

“Over six hundred people at the NIH (National Institutes of Health) are going to walk into work in the morning and be sent home without a job that afternoon.”—Secretary of Health and Human Services Nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., speaking of his intention to purge the NIH of those with whom he disagrees.

“They’re traitors!  The military’s full of woke Generals who need to be purged!”—Secretary of Defense Nominee Pete Hegseth, speaking of changes he intends to make in the U.S. Military

By 1939, the Soviet Union had assembled the most massive military machine the world had ever seen. 

The Red Army.  The enormity of its soldiers, tanks, and planes dwarfed even the powerful Nazis just to the west. 

The Soviets’ sheer size alone seemed enough to deter any outside invader.  And dictator Joseph Stalin further hedged his bets by signing a non-aggression treaty with Hitler.  Known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it stated that the two countries would not go to war with one another for at least the next ten years.  They also agreed to remain neutral if either were attacked by third parties.

But what happened next shocked everyone.  The world’s most powerful far-right fascist and far-left communist regimes actually joined forces to invade Poland.  It fell in 36 days.  

The back-room deal was that Germany would take out western Europe, including England, and the Soviets would move into the Baltic States, Finland, and eastern Romania.  America, focused mostly on western Europe, really didn’t want a part of any of it.

For a while, the German-Soviet alliance seemed unstoppable.  The Nazis ran roughshod in the west, while Stalin tightened his control in the east.  With their advantage in land, resources, and troops, the Soviets felt they could safely bide their time.

Then came June 22, 1941, and Operation Barbarossa.  

With no warning, the Nazis attacked.  The stunned Soviets struggled to respond.  Units disintegrated and Russian soldiers were captured by the tens of thousands (most would later be starved to death on orders from Hitler).

The mighty Red Army started fleeing to the east.  Counterattacks failed, orders were confused, and through it all, the landscape was littered with destroyed equipment. 

And still the Nazis kept coming.  In less than 3 months, Kiev was surrounded and Leningrad under siege.  The advancing Germans were chewing up hundreds of square miles each day.  By the beginning of October, the Red Army had lost 750,000 soldiers, and the Nazis were within 200 miles of Moscow.  By the end of November, the distance was down to 12 miles.  German advance units were so close they could see the city with binoculars. 

Stalin ordered the Soviet government to evacuate.  The most powerful army in the world teetered on the verge of collapse.

How could this have happened?  The Soviets had superior numbers, far more tanks and planes, understood the landscape, and knew the region’s roads and geography.  Yet they were being pounded into submission by a smaller foe.

Why?  Because the Soviet military leadership was utterly incompetent. 

Say what you will about Joseph Stalin, but he was as paranoid and vengeful as he was ruthless.  Anyone who failed to display anything less than blind loyalty was eliminated.

The Russians simply called it the Great Purge.  Stalin’s “enemies within” were either executed or sent to starve in Siberia, over 2 million in all.

The military was no exception.  By the time the Nazis attacked, 90% of Russia’s Generals and nearly 80% of its Colonels had been purged.  Their replacements were a mixture of inexperience, inability, and incompetence.  But they all had one thing in common—the one thing Stalin valued most.

Blind loyalty.  To survive in Stalin’s Russia, it was the only thing that mattered.  Even General Mikhail Tukhachevsky, a brilliant strategist known as “the Red Napoleon,” was dispatched with a bullet to the back of his neck.

But the disaster wrought by the Great Purge was something the Soviets should have seen coming.  Earlier, in 1939, with inexperienced Generals at the helm, Russia had launched an invasion of Finland that ended in catastrophe.  In barely 3 months, the largely volunteer and vastly outnumbered Finns inflicted massive casualties on the Red Army, using a homegrown weapon of choice that’s remembered to this day.

A glass bottle filled with gasoline, stuffed with a burning wick.  Each time a Finn would hurl one into an oncoming Soviet tank, he’d shout, “here’s your cocktail, Mr. Molotov!”

The Russians, of course, claimed the war as a victory, but as one general (who was later purged himself) admitted, “we won just enough land to bury our dead.”

Loyalty over competence.  Don’t disagree.  Don’t question.  Don’t tell me anything I don’t want to hear.

Anyone who has ever been in a position of leadership understands that often the most important thing a subordinate can say is “I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you, and here’s why.”

In fact, I can’t think of a single organization I’ve ever been a part of that lasted long when blind loyalty was the only thing that mattered.  I can’t think of even one that was successful when it “purged” itself of anything but yes-men.

Which brings us to today.

An angry, vengeful demander of total loyalty is about to assume the office of President of the world’s most powerful country and thus control the most massive military the world has ever seen.  He, too, speaks of revenge against “enemies from within.”  And to date, he’s been busy assembling a cast of enablers that demonstrate blind loyalty over competence.

An Attorney General whose own investigation for sex crimes he tries to hide.  A Defense Secretary who wants to perform his own “Great Purge” of American Generals.  A Health and Human Service’s Secretary who wants to purge America’s leading research agency of scientific researchers.  A Director of National Intelligence who’s an apologist for a Russian dictator.  A Director of Medicare and Medicaid who’s never cared for a Medicaid patient in his life.  A Secretary of Education whose background is in an imaginary performance art called “Professional Wrestling.”

A couple of bloated billionaires who think they can reform government. 

All have one thing in common.  Blind loyalty.

At this point, about the only Trump Loyalist that hasn’t been suggested for a high-ranking post is Marjorie Taylor Green, who thinks the government controls hurricanes.  Perhaps she’d be a perfect fit to head the National Weather Service.

Had Russia fallen in 1941, it’s hard to imagine what would have come next.  The Nazis could have easily started pushing south toward Asia and perhaps even India.  But of course, that didn’t happen.

Instead, Stalin was the beneficiary of two incredible strokes of good luck, which very likely saved him.  First, the vaunted Russian winter came early that year.  On December 1^st, with the season’s official start still 3 weeks away, the temperature dropped to 45 below. It was the most vicious European winter of the twentieth century.  The rapidly advancing Germans began to freeze.

And secondly, the Nazis’ eastern allies, the Empire of Japan, attacked the United States.  Within hours, Hitler also declared war on the U.S., and America responded in kind.  Germany’s relatively quiet western front would soon begin to dissolve.

Over the next three years, the Soviets gradually pushed the Nazis back.  Moscow survived by sending even school children to the front lines.  Volgograd residents (or Stalingrad, if you’d like) held on by eating rats—and sometimes each other.

But the price of blind loyalty came at a terrible cost.  Atrocities committed by both the Nazis and the Soviets were horrific. One out of every seven Russians died in the war—over 15% of its population.  Through it all, Stalin clung to power, all the while insisting on blind loyalty, flattery, and obedience.

But what if the Great Purge had not occurred?  What if competent leadership had been in place when Hitler attacked?  What if?

No, contemporary America is not the Soviet Union.  2024 is far removed from 1941.  And Donald Trump is not Joseph Stalin.  But we ignore the lessons of history to our own peril.

Blind loyalty to a single flattery-seeking leader will not make America great, and could do it great harm in the coming years.  Indeed, it could damage the entire world for decades to come.

It is up to the United States Senate, regardless of party loyalty and irrespective of fear of reprisal, to carefully consider each of these and other Trump nominees, and to carefully consider the impact that upcoming “purges” could mean for all of us.

Because in the end, at what point do we purge our nation of its own identity? 

STOP!  Before leaving this page, please also read the blog post Medicine and Social Justice: Raw milk, vaccines, and RFK, Jr: Some dates worth remembering by my friend and colleague Dr. Josh Freeman, for a sobering reality check on the threat to public health in America.