Who was Stepan Bandera – and how does his history help explain the present crisis? Peter Rushton reports from London and Washington’s secret files

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has prompted much ill-informed comment in nationalist circles. Many nationalists have chosen to believe an online fantasy world in which Vladimir Putin is really an Alt-Right or White Nationalist culture warrior. H&D‘s Peter Rushton has this week turned away from the propaganda and attempted to reconstruct a balanced assessment of Ukrainian nationalism based not on Google searches but on primary source documents. What follows is partly based on British intelligence reports, some only recently declassified and analysed publicly here for the first time. Not propaganda material for external consumption, but internal assessments aiming at accuracy – from the archives of MI5, the Foreign Office, and the CIA. In the latter case the relevant document (a detailed assessment of Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera) was written for the CIA by a senior MI6 officer. Despite the CIA archive’s attempt to delete his name, we here identify the MI6 author of that report for the first time, attempt to set this and other reports in context, and consider what lessons today’s European nationalists can draw from Ukrainian nationalist history.

Banners at Zhovkva Castle, Ukraine, greet German liberators in July 1941 with the words: “Heil Hitler! Glory to Bandera! Long Live the Independent Ukrainian State! Long Live Our Leader Stepan Bandera!”

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly sought to justify his invasion of Ukraine by asserting it was necessary to defeat “neo-Nazis” and “Banderites”. This not only emphasises the extent to which Putin’s image of both his nation and himself is bound up with Second World War propaganda, it also tells us something quite specific about this invasion, its motives and objectives.

Most importantly it tells us for certain that the invasion was launched not to defend ethnic Russians in parts of eastern Ukraine, where they were supposedly under threat from ethnic Ukrainians. Nor was it intended merely to conquer areas of Ukraine that are deemed by the Kremlin to be traditionally Russian.

Putin’s choice of “neo-Nazis” and “Banderites” to describe his targets shows that his objective is to restore the old Soviet borders, to conquer and incorporate the entirety of Ukraine, including those western regions variously known as Eastern Galicia or Ruthenia – regions that have never been ethnically, culturally or politically Russian but which became Soviet territory as a result of the 20th century’s wars and revolutions.

Steeped from childhood in Second World War mythology, Putin is referring to the bloody battles in the southern sector of the Eastern Front following ‘Operation Barbarossa’ from 1941-45; to the role of the Galizien Division of the Waffen-SS, created in April 1943 and formed of Ukrainian anti-communist volunteers; and to Stepan Bandera, the most famous Ukrainian anti-communist leader, who continued guerrilla activities against the Soviet occupiers of his homeland until he was assassinated by a KGB hitman in Munich in 1959.

The life and death of Stepan Bandera helps us to understand not only Putin’s strange obsession, but the reasons why H&D readers might – while denouncing Moscow’s aggression without hesitation or qualification – be in two minds about aspects of Ukrainian nationalism.

Galicia has a long and complex history, but the short, simple version for understanding the present crisis is that it straddles the border between modern Poland and modern Ukraine, and while its control has long been disputed, one thing’s for sure: it’s not Russia.

Its largest city (which I visited in 1993) is now called Lviv, in Soviet days was Lvov, but was for much of its history known by the German name Lemberg since it was incorporated in the Habsburg Empire from 1772 to 1918. In the chaos that followed the defeat and dissolution of that Empire, much of Galicia (including Lemberg) was incorporated into Poland, whose government proceeded to ignore its treaty obligations to respect Ukrainian culture and autonomy.

The result was that after 1918 Ukrainian nationalists (many of them originating from Galicia) fought against Bolshevik Russians – with some also fighting against anti-communist Poles. In the former case this inevitably also meant fighting Jews, because Jews played a grossly disproportionate role in the Bolshevik Party – in Ukraine as much as (if not more than) elsewhere in the nascent Soviet Union.

Symon Petliura, assassinated Ukrainian patriot

This can be seen most clearly in the case of Symon Petliura, the first of four Ukrainian patriot leaders to be assassinated by Russians within just over thirty years.

Having ousted the short-lived Cossack monarchist regime of the so-called ‘Hetman’ (Pavlo Skoropadskyi), Petliura fought for and led Ukraine from 1918 to 1921. During these years he was in alliance with anti-communist Poles, since in this period at least they shared anti-Soviet (indeed frankly also anti-Russian) territorial objectives. Jews have frequently asserted that Petliura and his Ukrainian forces carried out pogroms in which several hundred Jews were killed (atrocity inflation had not yet taken hold, so even Petliura’s critics speak of hundreds, not thousands or millions).

After the Bolshevik victory Petliura went into exile and was murdered outside a Paris bookstore in May 1926. His assassin was a Russian-born Jewish anarchist poet, Sholem Schwarzbard. While prosecutors alleged that he was a Soviet agent, Schwarzbard argued that as a Jew he was justified in murdering Petliura, in revenge for Ukrainian ‘atrocities’ against Jews.

Readers will not be surprised to learn that (even in this pre-‘Holocaustian’ era) the Paris court chose to believe this Jewish defence, and Schwarzbard was acquitted. British authorities refused him a visa to enter Palestine and he travelled instead to South Africa, where he died while raising funds for a Yiddish encyclopaedia.

OUN founder Yevhen Konovalets

The militant Galician/Ukrainian nationalists denounced by Putin as ‘Banderites’ can be traced back to Yevhen (or Eugen) Konovalets, a former officer in the Austrian army who (unlike Petliura) fought against both Russian Bolsheviks and Poles. This is an important distinction when in 2022 we consider slogans such as “no brothers’ wars”. Petliura believed in the transnational anti-communist alliance that these words imply – and so did his various sponsors including Britain’s intelligence service MI6 who helped Petliura’s Ukrainians and their Polish allies set up the ‘Promethean League’, in cooperation with anti-communists of numerous Eastern European nationalities.

It is vital to understand that when anti-communist Ukrainians were recruited into the Waffen-SS Galizien Division in 1943, these were the latter-day successors of Petliura and the once (and future) MI6-linked, and Vatican-linked Promethean League. (I shall be analysing long-secret intelligence documents about these anti-communist networks as part of my book later this year on British intelligence and the alleged ‘Holocaust’.) These SS men were not the people Putin calls ‘Banderites’, who as part of their Ukrainian nationalism were fundamentally anti-Polish and anti-Russian (at least to a large extent) as well as anti-communist, and to some degree anti-clerical. At the time when the Galizien Division was formed, Bandera and his allies were interned in German camps for political prisoners, because they were regarded as politically unreliable (i.e. too extreme in their nationalism).

In a far more extreme mirror-image of this ethnic chauvinism, Putin is not only anti-‘Banderite’, he wants to remove Ukraine from the map entirely!

Stepan Bandera was a 20-year-old nationalist student in Lviv when the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was formed in 1929, with Konovalets as its first leader. OUN is the group from which various future nationalist factions traced their lineage.

According to a 1942 British intelligence summary, Konovalets had been paid by German military intelligence since 1927 (i.e. first in the Weimar era, then in the national-socialist era). Until 1934 the OUN was encouraged by Berlin to attack both Polish and Russian targets, but after a German-Polish agreement was signed in 1934 Konovalets’ “activities on Polish territory were diverted to other parts of Central and Eastern Europe”.

The OUN’s final anti-Polish operation in 1934 was a spectacular one: the assassination of one of Poland’s leading politicians Bronisław Pieracki. The gunman escaped, but several of the OUN team directing the assassination were caught and sentenced to death by the Polish authorities, a sentence that was commuted to imprisonment. These OUN convicts included the young Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed, whose on-off friendship and rivalry became important features of Ukrainian nationalist history.

The MI5 report continues: “Serious Nazi interest in the possibilities of an independence movement may be dated from 1935, when a Ukrainian Bureau, acting in an advisory capacity to the German Government and as liaison between Germans and Ukrainians, was established in Berlin. Since then most Ukrainian nationalist organisations in Europe have had some financial support from Rosenberg’s Aussenpolitisches Amt [i.e. the NSDAP’s Office of Foreign Affairs].”

Like his successor Putin, Stalin saw the OUN as a serious threat to the Kremlin’s control of Ukraine and ordered his intelligence service NKVD (forerunner of the KGB in which Putin was trained) to kill its leader. NKVD officer Pavel Sudoplatov infiltrated the OUN. In May 1938, meeting Konovalets in a Rotterdam restaurant, he handed the OUN leader a box of chocolates with a bomb inside, then made his excuses and left before the bomb exploded.

According to Sudoplatov, Stalin had personally told him (foreshadowing later Moscow plots against Ukrainian nationalists): “Our goal is to behead the movement of Ukrainian fascism on the eve of the war and force these gangsters to annihilate each other in a struggle for power.”

And after Konovalets’ removal, that internecine struggle was exactly what happened. In theory the new leader was Andriy Melnyk, who though himself having served four years in Polish prisons during the 1920s for paramilitary activity, was now less keen on ‘terrorism’.

UPA veterans in Kyiv celebrate their murdered leader Stepan Bandera

Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed either escaped or were freed from their Polish captivity soon after the German invasion in September 1939 – the precise circumstances are still unclear – and they soon became more militant rivals to Melnyk, at first fighting both Germans and Soviets – but then in 1941 becoming allies of Germany.

In the weeks before Hitler launched his attack on Stalin, the Abwehr (German military intelligence) worked with the OUN to set up two pro-German Ukrainian units that would act as part of the German spearhead, winning local support for the liberation of Ukraine from Stalin. These units were named ‘Nachtigall’ and ‘Roland’.

A priest in the Greek Catholic or ‘Uniate’ church – Fr. John Hrynioch – was attached to the Nachtigall unit and became a loyal ally of anti-communist Ukrainians throughout the various phases of the war, whether in the OUN or in the Waffen SS.

During these same weeks before Barbarossa, Bandera’s OUN faction held a conference in Krakau, issuing a policy programme for the future war where they explained the anti-Bolshevik context of what would now be called their ‘anti-semitism’.

“The Jews in the USSR constitute the most faithful support of the ruling Bolshevik regime, and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in Ukraine. The Muscovite-Bolshevik government exploits the anti-Jewish sentiments of the Ukrainian masses to divert their attention from the true cause of their misfortune and to channel them in a time of frustration into pogroms on Jews. The OUN combats the Jews as the prop of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime and simultaneously it renders the masses conscious of the fact that the principal foe is Moscow.”

It was in this context – an anti-Bolshevik rather than religious or racial ‘anti-semitic’ context – that Bandera’s men killed large numbers of Jews during the early stages of Barbarossa.

Richard Yary, OUN intelligence officer and Gestapo liaison

According to MI5 the most important Gestapo contact was Bandera’s ally Richard Yary (even though some of his rivals claimed that Yary was himself of partly Jewish descent, and the rival Melnyk faction of OUN predictably accused him of being a Soviet agent):

“It is believed that during the Polish campaign the dropping of saboteurs by parachute behind the Polish lines was organised for the Germans by Captain Yary, a leading Ukrainian Nationalist. According to a Polish source, a Ukrainian Gestapo Company, German-trained, appeared in the Cracow district in October 1940. By March 1941 a Ukrainian Military HQ in Vienna and a Military Academy in German-occupied Poland had been established, with the intention of raising six divisions for eventual use against the USSR.”

In the broader historical context it is especially interesting to note that none of these files, even when discussing the possible partly Jewish ethnicity of the main Gestapo contact in OUN, mentions anything about what is now called the ‘Holocaust’. It’s also important to note that German intelligence operations all over Eastern Europe and Russia often relied on Jewish or part-Jewish informants and contacts. This is partly because such people proliferated among smugglers and criminals (on a petty or grand scale) who could make themselves useful to intelligence services.

Here we need to take a step back and avoid the temptation to see Bandera and his colleagues as part of a generalised force of ‘nazis’.

They were certainly anti-communist – and this meant in a Ukrainian as in a broader Soviet context that it was logical also to be anti-Jewish. But it didn’t mean that they were going to be puppets of Berlin.

One problem for the Third Reich was that many of its actual or potential allies in Central and Eastern Europe hated each other, even though they might all share antipathy to communism. For example, German intelligence long hoped to make use of anti-communist Russians as well as non-Russian nationalities such as Ukrainians who had been subjected to Moscow. This involved inherent contradictions, because many anti-communist Russians were reactionary Czarists who wanted to re-establish or even extend their pre-1917 Empire.

We now know that German intelligence analysts on the Eastern front were systematically misled by their Soviet rivals into believing in non-existent Russian anti-communist groups. Amazingly, German intelligence even trusted as their main intelligence network on Russian soil the so-called ‘Klatt Bureau’ of supposedly anti-communist Russians, run by the Viennese half-Jew Richard Kauder, who is now known to have been a Soviet agent all along.

The story of the Klatt or ‘Max’ network is an aspect of the Second World War that is yet to be fully explored, partly because today’s historians prefer to see Jews as victims of events in the 1940s rather than as manipulators of events.

The half-Jewish Viennese spy Richard Kauder (alias Klatt) whose fake network fooled the Third Reich’s intelligence services; seen here with his Hungarian mistress Ibolya Kálmán.

There is some evidence that German intelligence was misled into over-rating the potential of ‘White Russian’ / Czarist Russians, and therefore under-utilised more genuine anti-communist Ukrainians in Bandera’s OUN. For whatever reasons, German forces soon decided that their initial ally Bandera was a troublemaker, and in September 1941 he and his right-hand man Yaroslav Stetsko were arrested and interned by the Gestapo. Yet even during their internment they retained links with some German intelligence and special forces operatives. For example Otto Skorzeny met with them in April 1944 to discuss potential anti-Soviet operations. And in early 1945 the SS Galizien Division’s Gen. Pavlo Shandruk negotiated a last minute deal between the various Ukrainian factions, bringing Bandera and Stetsko on board in a ‘Ukrainian National Committee’ and reforming part of the Galizien Division as a ‘Ukrainian National Army’.

By the time of Germany’s collapse in May 1945, there was therefore an uncertain alliance between two different groups of Ukrainian nationalists. Shandruk’s troops managed to trek to the Italian-Austrian border where they could surrender to British rather than Soviet forces.

Centrally important here – and a continuing reason for festering resentment in the mind of ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin – is that the Waffen-SS Galizien Division was accepted by the British as being immune from the requirement to hand back prisoners who were of Soviet nationality. (Unlike for example the Cossacks and other Russians who had fought with Germany, and who even after surrendering to the British were handed over to Stalin’s torturers and executioners.)

The vital difference was that the British accepted these Ukrainian anti-communists were ‘Galicians’, and therefore arguably of Polish rather than Soviet nationality. (There was of course at that period no official ‘Ukrainian’ nationality.)

Therefore as Jewish historians John Loftus and Mark Aarons later complained – and the like of Putin still complain – the SS Galizien Division was “the only Axis unit to survive the war intact, under arms and with their own officers”. An additional factor was that one of the British officers in immediate charge of assessing these 8,000 Ukrainians – Maj. Denis Hills – was himself a man of staunchly anti-communist (though maverick) opinions who had fascist sympathies in his Oxford student days and attended the 1935 Nuremberg rally.

We also now know from previously secret sources that the British and Americans – as well as the Germans – eventually found Bandera a difficult person to deal with. Though he has become a posthumous hero of the anti-communist cause, it seems that he could be arrogant and blinkered, vitiating his undoubted courage.

Senior MI6 officer Col. Harold Gibson who handled British intelligence liaison with the OUN for more than 25 years

A Top Secret MI6 assessment of Bandera can be read in CIA files, even though it is still unavailable in British archives. This was written in 1954 but looks back over more than a quarter-century of British intelligence involvement with Ukrainian nationalists. Though the CIA archive attempts to disguise the report’s authorship, I can reveal that it was written by Col. Harold Gibson, a senior MI6 officer, who writes that he had been in touch with the OUN leadership from the moment the group was founded, clearly aiming to cooperate with them in anti-Soviet covert operations:

“I was in touch with followers of Petliura and Konovalets in Romania in the late 1920s and in Czechoslovakia from 1933 to 1939 and was quite well impressed with their possibilities. It was not however until after the end of World War II that it was decided to use them operationally.”

Large numbers of Bandera’s guerrilla fighters continued to fight against the Red Army occupiers from 1945-48, and smaller numbers for another eight years under MI6 sponsorship. While the Americans chose to form links with the Melnyk faction, the British chose to work with Bandera and Stetsko.

Again these files are notable by the absence of any reference to what we would now call the ‘Holocaust’, but Gibson leaves no doubt that he was well aware of Bandera’s capacity for extreme violence. (This article is the first to quote or analyse Gibson’s assessment in detail, and the first to identify Gibson as Bandera’s senior MI6 contact.)

“In the summer of 1951, Stefan Bandera, the real leader of the movement, emerged from his clandestine concealment to have his first meeting with me in London. The following is an account of my impressions then of Bandera – impressions which in the main are still valid today:
‘Allowing for the fact that he was out to show himself in the best light, much of what he said sounded both convincing and sincere. We have to accept him for what he is; a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game, acquired by hard experience, along with a thorough knowledge of the Ukrainian people which I would judge to be more instinctive than deeply psychological. A bandit type if you like, with a burning patriotism which provides an ethical background and a justification for his banditry. No better and no worse than others of his kind I have had dealings with in the past. He appears to be genuinely grateful for the help given to him, but at the same time is certainly trying to get all he can out of it.'”

Gibson continued:

“Since that first meeting I have had occasion to see Bandera repeatedly. The contacts he and his people were to develop with us did have some effect on his character and outlook making him slightly less ruthless and uncompromising than he had been at first. But he nevertheless remains essentially the dictatorial type and as such a difficult customer both to his well-wishers and particularly to his political opponents.”

These problems led to serious difficulties during the early 1950s. Undoubtedly these problems were exacerbated by the mischief of Soviet agents. From 1949-51 the senior liaison officer between MI6 and the CIA was Kim Philby, a long-term Soviet ‘mole’ who also (as I shall discuss in my forthcoming book) had longstanding ties to Zionist intelligence organisations. This meant not only that the various factional differences could be continually stirred up rather than smoothed over, but also that many teams of Ukrainian anti-communists were sent straight to their deaths, because Philby had informed his KGB masters of their precise plans.

West Germany’s new intelligence service BND – run by the former Third Reich military intelligence chief on the Eastern front, Gen. Reinhard Gehlen, who had been recruited by the Americans – was likewise thoroughly penetrated by the KGB with fatal results for its brave Ukrainian recruits. And recent analysis by Polish scholars of their communist-era archives suggests that a Polish-based section of OUN was entirely under the control of that country’s communist intelligence service from 1948 until the mid-1950s.

But partly there was also a genuine strategic difference. MI6 had smuggled parties of Ukrainians into their homeland and Bandera wanted to use them to carry out aggressive anti-Soviet operations, such as ‘terrorist’ assassinations of Soviet officials. Some in MI6 agreed, while others (and especially their CIA friends) preferred to keep these assets safe behind the Iron Curtain, both to carry out intelligence missions and to be in place as a ‘stay behind’ army in case of World War III (similar to the so-called ‘Operation Gladio’ within western European countries deemed vulnerable to Soviet attack). The Ukrainian agents would then be able to carry out sabotage missions behind enemy lines, as part of undermining the Soviet war effort, not as a quixotic act of anti-communist gallantry.

This was the Ukrainian version of a much broader Cold War argument. Should anti-communist forces attempt to “roll back” the Red tide, to liberate “captive nations” from the Moscow yoke? Or should they bide their time and merely act as loyal eyes and ears for their Western allies?

In his long and detailed account of the MI6-OUN relationship, Gibson writes for example:

“At a meeting with Bandera in Germany in March 1953 I once again stressed the need for political peace in order to achieve the main purpose of our collaboration, namely the collection of worth while intelligence.”

Bandera’s sometime friend turned rival Mykola Lebed, who survived the many violent episodes of Ukrainian nationalism to die in the USA aged 89 in July 1998

By 1953 Bandera’s former ally Mykola Lebed (with whom he had plotted the Pieracki assassination in 1934 and served five years in Polish jails) had become a rival. Where Bandera was MI6’s man, Lebed was the CIA’s man. In the 21st century we are instructed to see all this through a ‘Holocaust’ prism and the main argument among modern historians is over whether Lebed was ‘protected’ by the CIA when he should have been prosecuted for ‘war crimes’.

Yet in Gibson’s report none of this is considered worth mentioning. Either MI6 didn’t believe there had been a ‘Holocaust’ of Ukrainian Jewry, or they didn’t consider it disproportionate or worth mentioning among the other horrors of war.

An earlier Top Secret document about Bandera – unlike the Gibson report which is only available via the CIA archives – is now available in the UK National Archives, where it had been marked as closed until 2028 but has now been released. This details a conversation at the Foreign Office in November 1951 between Stepan Bandera and three senior British diplomats and intelligence officers. The minutes of this conversation (which include several sections that remain blanked out in the version available at the Archives) include the following points made by Bandera:

“He thought that the Soviet Union would attempt to secure world domination by war if they could not achieve their aims otherwise. He admitted that he saw in war the only hope of the liberation of the Ukraine. He did not believe that independence could be achieved in other circumstances.

“…He said that the aim of his movement was the liberation of the Ukraine not merely from Soviet but also Russian influence. He said that they would never collaborate in any scheme or plan which entailed any form of connection with any Russian state regardless of its political outlook. Similarly, he was not prepared to have any contact with any émigré Russian body or group and disapproved of American attempts to bring Greater Russian and Ethnic Minority Groups in exile together, which he described as destined to failure.

“…In his opinion, an independent Ukraine was a viable state. His attitude to the problem of the viability of an independent Ukraine was unrealistic and it seemed clear that he had not seriously grappled with it. He admitted that any Great Russian state was bound to look on it with covetous eyes but suggested that it would be possible to preserve its security by a system of guarantee with other limitrophe states [i.e. potentially independent border states on the edges of Russia, such as the Baltic States].”

A 19-year-old Stepan Bandera (standing, third from right) with other young Ukrainian nationalists in Lviv, 1928

Two years later London’s relationship with Bandera had evidently soured. Writing in 1954, Col. Gibson of MI6 strongly criticises Bandera when reporting intense discussion during 1953 and 1954 when repeated attempts were made to persuade Bandera to work with a more collegiate leadership: a “Committee of Three” alongside Zinovii Matla and Lev Rebet. (The latter is also thought by some to have been of half-Jewish origin, but this had nothing to do with his internment by the Gestapo after 1941, which was – like Bandera – because at the time the Gestapo viewed the OUN as troublemakers.)

“A final attempt to bring Bandera to reason was made by me and meetings took place in London on 24th/25th February [1954]. At these meetings Bandera attempted to justify himself by producing instances of what he regarded as an abuse of power by Rebet and Matla of the Committee of Three. He accused them of manoeuvring to subordinate ZCh/OUN and implied that this was being done on instructions and indeed under pressure from the Americans.

“…Having wasted so much time over dealing with Bandera I decided to give him one last chance. Knowing that Matla would be transiting the United Kingdom on his return to the USA I suggested to Bandera that the three of us should meet together in a last effort to reach a settlement, or at least a compromise. Bandera refused this suggestion with arrogant finality. The break between us was complete.”

Paradoxically it was after Stalin’s death and during the apparent ‘liberalisation’ of the Soviet Union under Khrushchev that the KGB decided to kill the two most important Ukrainian nationalist leaders. Had the KGB for some reason lost confidence in their ability to contain and manipulate the Ukrainian anti-communist resistance? Perhaps we will never know for sure, but what we do know is that the KGB launched one of its most famous assassination plots to remove both Lev Rebet and Stepan Bandera.

Professional assassin Bogdan Stashinsky was sent to Munich and equipped with the latest KGB technology, a pistol that fired a spray of hydrogen cyanide directly into the face of the victim, who would ideally be presumed to have died a natural death. In the case of Rebet, whom Stashinsky killed in October 1957, this is exactly what happened; but after he killed Bandera with a modified version of the same gas-gun in October 1959, a post mortem revealed that the former OUN leader had died from cyanide poisoning.

It was not until August 1961 – when Stashinsky defected to the West and told the whole story to the CIA – that anyone knew Rebet had also been murdered. By that time Harold Gibson, the MI6 spymaster who had liaised with Ukrainian nationalists for a quarter of a century, had also met a violent end – shot dead, supposedly by his own hand, in August 1960 in Rome.

OUN activities continued for the rest of the Cold War – but now more as propaganda than as paramilitary activity, via the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN) and an associated World Anti-Communist League (WACL). Periodically, these ABN and WACL activists were accused of the terrible crime of ‘anti-semitism’ and there were frequent purges from WACL of ABN allies such as Lady Birdwood (see my article in H&D 106) and Dr Roger Pearson (in whose Washington office H&D‘s editor Mark Cotterill worked for several years).

When Soviet communism collapsed in the early 1990s, Ukrainian nationalists including the OUN’s old leaders became heroes of the new independent Ukraine. And evidently to this day their bold defiance of Kremlin domination still rankles with one old KGB man, Vladimir Putin.

What lessons should H&D readers draw from the complex saga of militant Ukrainian anti-communism?

OUN leader Lev Rebet and the KGB cyanide gun used to kill him in Munich in 1957

The OUN were undoubtedly brave, and the fact that their operations were almost all undermined by their enemies in Moscow does not detract from their courage.

Stepan Bandera was also a brave anti-communist who paid the ultimate price, but his uncompromising personality and chauvinist ideology caused grave problems for those who wished to work with him – whether in Adolf Hitler’s intelligence services or in MI6 and the CIA.

The bitter ethnic and personal rivalries that bedevilled the anti-communist cause in Central and Eastern Europe could probably only have been resolved by some overall discipline, either exerted by the New European Order envisaged by Adolf Hitler, or by a network united by Catholic religion. The problem with the latter is that this would inevitably be hostile to the other great Eastern European religious tradition – Orthodoxy – whereas National Socialism should (had history worked out differently) have had a chance of forging a modus vivendi between those of differing religions and those of no religion.

And what of Vladimir Putin, cast by so many blinkered Western nationalists as a potential ally in the ‘culture war’ against liberalism.

We should not be surprised that (as explained above) Putin’s rhetoric about “nazis” and “Banderites” betrays a world view thoroughly soaked in Second World War propagandist obsessions, and reveals that his objective is the destruction of Ukraine.

After joining the KGB in 1975, Putin spent a decade based mainly in Leningrad, before his first (and only) foreign posting to Dresden, from 1985 until the end of communist East Germany in late 1989 and early 1990.

During this period he worked for the senior KGB officer liaising with the East German Stasi – Lazar Matveev, one of many Jews to hold senior rank in the KGB. Putin was Matveev’s protégé and remains close to his old boss, who will be 95 next month.

Vladimir Putin greets his old KGB boss Lazar Matveev

Just as he has continued to do via the KGB’s successor agencies in the era of Facebook etc., Putin during his Dresden years worked on Matveev’s instructions to infiltrate and manipulate ‘extremist’ political groups in the West – both the far-left ‘Red Army Faction’ terrorists and some of Germany’s most militant ‘neo-nazis’.

In the latter case Putin’s main agent was Rainer Sonntag, a petty criminal who became close to Michael Kühnen, homosexual leader of one of Germany’s many neo-nazi factions. Kühnen died of AIDS in April 1991, and Sonntag was shot dead in Dresden a few weeks later. A neat and perhaps not coincidental way to prevent discussion of Putin’s operation in post-communist German courts.

By this time Putin was almost 40 and beginning his post-KGB ascent of the new and intensely corrupt Russian bureaucracy. A few weeks after Sonntag’s murder, Putin took the first of several influential jobs in the office of the Mayor of Leningrad (later St Petersburg), a man with close ties to the elite of Russian organised crime.

Putin’s subsequent close ties to Russian oligarchs (many of them Jews, including some of the world’s leading promoters of ‘Holocaust’ education such as Roman Abramovich and Moshe Kantor) are too well-known to need further discussion here.

For the purposes of this article, the important point is that these many Jewish connections will have reinforced Putin’s obsession with the Second World War and his obsession with restoring Soviet-era Russian prestige by wiping Ukraine off the map and making Russia’s south-western borders similar to those of the Soviet Union.

Racial nationalists are a long way from power, though interest in our ideas and our ideological heritage has spread considerably in recent years. If we are to continue to build on that heritage we must avoid the wishful thinking that has led so many on the Alt-Right to see Putin as some sort of hero, simply because he has outraged sections of liberal opinion.

If we are to maintain and extend the relevance of our ideas, we must build on a foundation of truthful and honest analysis, not wishful thinking. That means dissociating ourselves firmly from Putin’s brutal aggression and territorial aggrandisement. It also means recognising that – even aside from the particular transient problems presented by today’s Ukrainian government, whose leaders are quite obviously hostile to our entire world-view – the complex and tragic history of Ukrainian nationalism itself reveals many pitfalls, some related to personal vanities, others to chauvinist ideologies.

We cannot easily dismiss this chauvinism as petty. For countless numbers of Central and Eastern Europeans, speaking the wrong language (or even the wrong dialect) or having the wrong religion would have meant for generations that they and their children would be excluded from decent jobs, and possibly face worse forms of persecution.

“No brothers’ wars” is an easy slogan, but a difficult reality. As with so many other areas of our racial nationalist struggle for the true Europe, we cannot expect an easy victory. Perhaps there will be no victory in our lifetimes. But I’m confident that we are now beginning to attract the calibre of activist who can make very significant progress in laying the foundations for that victory.

Those foundations cannot include a morally and politically toxic association with Vladimir Putin and his apologists.

‘Holocaust’ memorial appeal judge is wife of leading Jewish politician

Plans for the giant ‘Holocaust Memorial’ dwarfing London’s major heritage sites

Regular H&D readers will know that there has for several years been a plan to build a gigantic ‘Holocaust memorial’ in the heart of Westminster – close to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey – and taking over one of Central London’s few green spaces, Victoria Tower Gardens.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton submitted a detailed report in 2019 to the original Westminster City Council planning enquiry, which went on to reject the planned memorial.

However government ministers appointed a central inspector who override the decision of local planners.

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Today that central government decision is being challenged in court, reopening the question of whether this monstrous ‘memorial’ will ever be built.

Readers can assess the arguments for themselves by reading Peter Rushton’s fully documented article here.

And we shall of course report on the progress of today’s appeal.

However one strange fact is worth pointing out immediately. The judge in this High Court Appeal is Mrs Justice Thornton – better known as the wife of former Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.

Justine Miliband with her husband Ed – then Labour Party leader – on election day. Swapping her political hat for her judicial one, Mrs Miliband – aka Mrs Justice Thornton – is now sitting in judgment on the London Holocaust Memorial plans.

In 2015 her husband publicly supported the initial plan for a London Holocaust Memorial – and now Mrs Miliband (aka Mrs Justice Thornton) is sitting in judgment on the final version of the same project. We have no reason to believe that Mrs Miliband/Thornton is anything other than totally honest and unbiased, but can this be right, when justice must be seen to be done?

Ed Miliband’s grandfather Sam was a committed communist who fled to London as an illegal immigrant from wartime Belgium. He had earlier fled from his Warsaw birthplace after betraying his own country to fight alongside Trotsky’s invading Red Army during 1920. See our report a decade ago.

Ed Miliband’s grandfather Sam (left) and father Ralph were illegal Jewish Communist immigrants. His wife Justine is now sitting in judgment on plans for a giant ‘Holocaust Memorial’ in London.

Berlin court sets crazy timetable for Ursula Haverbeck, 93

(above left to right) Ursula Haverbeck, Rigolf Hennig and Lady Michèle Renouf

H&D readers will be familiar with the case of Ursula Haverbeck, the courageous German publisher and activist – now aged 93 – who has been subjected to repeated persecution by the German authorities for the ‘crime’ of asking questions about her own country’s history.

Former co-organiser of the Collegium Humanum which staged conferences and lectures featuring some of the greatest names in German academia, Ursula Haverbeck is herself a survivor of one of the most traumatic episodes in German history, having had to flee East Prussia as a 16-year-old when her country was invaded by Stalin’s brutal Asiatic hordes of the ‘Red Army’.

From 1992 to 2003 she founded and chaired the Verein Gedächtnisstätte (Memorial Sites Association) which aimed to build a suitable memorial to German civilian victims of the Second World War, and to end “the unjustified unilateral nature of the view of history”.

Since 2004 she has been repeatedly prosecuted under Germany’s notorious Volksverhetzung law which forbids rational discussion of alleged events now taken out of history and sacralised as the quasi-religion of ‘Holocaust remembrance’. It is forbidden in Germany to investigate whether, where and how the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers’ on the alleged orders of Adolf Hitler actually took place.

Following several convictions, Ursula Haverbeck was jailed in May 2018 at the age of 88 and remained incarcerated for more than two years. H&D‘s great comrade the late Richard Edmonds addressed a rally in Germany on Ursula’s 91st birthday in 2019 – click here for details.

H&D has just published a groundbreaking revisionist essay by assistant editor Peter Rushton, dedicated to Ursula Haverbeck and her fellow campaigners for free historical research Lady Michèle Renouf and Isabel Peralta. Click here for details.

At the age of 93 there are several further ‘criminal’ proceedings against her. (In Germany it’s common for several stages of appeal to take place before a jail sentence is actually served.)

Court hearings like other aspects of life have been affected by the pandemic, but the Berlin appeal court has now ordered that this 93-year-old lady must attend four days of hearings spread over three weeks, on March 18th, 21st and 25th, and April 4th 2022.

This necessarily involves either repeated travel from Frau Haverbeck’s home (more than 200 miles from Berlin) or a long stay in a Berlin hotel, which might not even be allowed under CoVID regulations.

Ursula Haverbeck at one of many court appearances with her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath

There are strong differences of opinion among H&D readers about these CoVID regulations, so that aspect of the argument should be for the moment ignored. Even if one regards the German government’s CoVID measures as entirely justified, what surely cannot be justified is the continued persecution of a brave 93-year-old simply for asking questions about her own country’s history.

Frau Haverbeck’s alleged ‘crimes’ would of course be perfectly legal in the UK, and in the USA would be protected by constitutional rights.

The continued existence of the Volksverhetzung law and its use in this manner to silence dissent is a disgrace to a nominally ‘democratic’ nation. H&D‘s assistant editor remembers his arrest and interrogation by the East German communist secret police in 1987, when he was a young student. Today’s ‘democratic’ authorities in the Federal Republic have shown themselves to be no better.

Prosecutor seeks 12-year prison term for leading Spanish nationalist

Prosecutors in Barcelona are demanding a total of twelve years imprisonment for the leading nationalist activist, author and publisher Pedro Varela in the latest sign that Spain is on the frontline of the struggle for European civilisation and real history.

Varela (now 64) has for decades been among the most courageous and intelligent racial nationalists in Europe, and has already faced years of legal persecution. For fifteen years during Spain’s transition to ‘democracy’ following the death of the country’s military leader General Franco, Varela was president of CEDADE (‘Spanish Circle of Friends of Europe’) which had close international links with defenders of the true Europe including the Tyndall-era BNP.

During the 1990s the first BNP delegation to the annual November commemorations for Franco and Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera – a delegation which included H&D‘s assistant editor – visited CEDADE’s Madrid office, and even then Pedro Varela was in jail (that time in Vienna, where he was eventually acquitted).

Pedro Varela introducing the British historian David Irving

CEDADE was officially dissolved in 1993, but Pedro Varela continued operating the Europa bookshop in Barcelona and associated publishing houses. Meetings at the bookshop have been addressed by guest speakers from across our movement, including Lady Michèle Renouf and the late Richard Edmonds.

After a conviction in 2008 for “justifying genocide”, Varela spent time in prison between 2010 and 2012. In 2015 he addressed a meeting of the London Forum organised by Jez Turner, and was given the ‘scandal’ treatment by the Mail on Sunday.

A Barcelona court in 2016 ordered the closure of the bookshop which was searched by a squad from Spain’s political police: these latest charges are a delayed outcome of those raids, but also reflect a new hardening of Spain’s left-wing government, determined to construct an undeniable ‘official history’.

We are sure that H&D readers will support Pedro Varela and our Spanish comrades in every possible way as the battle for real European history moves into a new and more intense phase. Both here and in our magazine, we shall soon have major updates on that battle.

The new radical nationalist group Bastion Frontal is – like Pedro Varela – fighting for all true Europeans against what Yockey called the “culture distorters”.
The late Richard Edmonds was one of many leading figures in the racial nationalist and historical revisionist worlds who spoke at Pedro Varela’s bookshop meetings in Barcelona over the years.

Jewish lobby seeks to censor BBC

Lady Mosley pictured on the front cover of society magazine The Tatler, December 1938. Now – nineteen years after her death – Lady Mosley remains the target of a vengeful Jewish lobby.

Desert Island Discs is one of the longest-running radio series in the world, having recently celebrated 80 years on the air since its first broadcast in January 1942. As all British readers will know, the programme features a different guest each week who is asked to select eight records, one book, and one ‘luxury item’ they would choose if ‘cast away’ on a desert island in the manner of Robinson Crusoe.

More than 2,300 episodes are now available on the BBC website, but last weekend the Sunday Telegraph focused on just one of them: broadcast in November 1989 when the ‘castaway’ was Lady Mosley (the former Diana Mitford), widow of British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley.

This theoretically conservative newspaper seems to have joined forces with the Anglo-Jewish lobby to complain that the Mosley episode of Desert Island Discs is freely available for today’s listeners without any “introductory warnings that it may contain material of an offensive nature”.

Government ‘anti-semitism’ adviser Lord Mann told the paper: “It would be appropriate to put a warning in relation to this broadcast and the holocaust denial that is spewed out by Mosley.”

And Dave Rich from the Jewish lobby group Community Security Trust kvetched that Lady Mosley’s “anti-Jewish animus and her admiration for Hitler shine through. Most objectionable of all is her denial that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. The whole package could not be more repulsive. There is no mention of any of this in the blurb that promotes the episode on the BBC Sounds website.”

(above left) CST founder Gerald Ronson – a veteran of the violent Jewish ‘anti-fascist’ 62 Group, with London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Rich’s organisation CST was founded and is chaired by Gerald Ronson, a veteran of the violent Jewish ‘anti-fascist’ 62 Group, some of whose history will be exposed in a forthcoming two-part review article in Heritage and Destiny Issues 107 and 108.

There is no law against ‘holocaust denial’ in the UK and the problem seems to be simply that Lady Mosley attempted to give truthful answers to questions about her attitude to the Third Reich. Speaking of Adolf Hitler she said: “He had so much to say, so interesting, so fascinating… I can’t regret the relationship.”

And when pressed about the ‘Holocaust’ she replied: “First of all, after the war, I simply didn’t believe it, having been in Germany … And it was years before I could really believe that such things had happened.”

Pressed further as to whether she now believed in the extermination stories, she replied: “I don’t really, I’m
afraid … believe that six million people were … I just think it’s not conceivable, it’s too many.”

For today’s fanatical Zionist censors, even this now classes as ‘Holocaust denial’. Just what are they afraid of? H&D readers will soon find out…

New light on Hitler’s Political Testament in groundbreaking H&D publication

Coinciding with the award of the 2022 Robert Faurisson International Prize to the courageous German-Canadian siblings Monika and Alfred Schaefer, Heritage and Destiny begins a new phase of the international campaign for historical truth.

Later this year our assistant editor Peter Rushton will publish a comprehensive re-examination of British intelligence services’ knowledge (or otherwise) of the alleged ‘Holocaust’ – the alleged murder of six million European Jews in homicidal gas chambers on the orders of Adolf Hitler’s national-socialist government.

An essay which will appear as an appendix to this book – discussing the relevance of a controversial Testament which (if genuine) records comments made by Adolf Hitler to his inner circle during the last months of the Second World War – is published here today in PDF, free to download for H&D readers.

Those who wish to assist our forthcoming book and further publications in our campaign for historical truth should email heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com for details or sign up to our new free newsletter Exactitude – free our history from the debate deniers.

In this essay, which was inspired by comments Prof. Faurisson made during a wide-ranging interview in 1979 with an Italian magazine, recently republished in a new English translation – Peter Rushton uses recently discovered archival documents to demolish the central argument of a 21st century anti-revisionist scholar.

In doing he so he reflects on the implications of this document for our knowledge of Hitler’s attitude on key questions: his attitude to the Jews; to the British Empire; to the war against Bolshevism; to the USA; and to European friends and foes.

This essay is dedicated to three great Europeans of our time, whose courage and insight give us hope that the battle for historical truth – for what Professor Faurisson termed Exactitude – can be won:
Ursula Haverbeck, Lady Michèle Renouf and Isabel Peralta – defenders of the right to historical truth – champions of European civilisation’s essential values.

Click here for your free download of The Hitler-Bormann Testament: Truth or Lie? (This is a 36-page, 1.6 MB PDF file.)

An English translation of selected writings and commentaries on the ‘Holocaust’ by Prof. Robert Faurisson is available from Historical Review Press: click here for order details.

Ursula Haverbeck with her lawyer Wolfram Nahrath, who also represented Lady Michèle Renouf and this year’s co-recipient of the Robert Faurisson International Prize, Monika Schäfer, as well as many other campaigners for historical truth and justice in Germany.
Professor Robert Faurisson with Lady Michèle Renouf. In October 2018 the Professor died immediately on returning home to Vichy from his final speech at a conference organised in his honour by Heritage and Destiny in Shepperton, England
Isabel Peralta in February 2021 at a commemoration of the heroic Division Azul (Blue Division), Spanish volunteers who fought Stalin’s Red Army on the Eastern Front in unimaginable conditions during 1941-1944.

Robert Faurisson International Prize awarded to Monika and Alfred Schaefer

On what would have been the 93rd birthday of the great revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson – who died on 21st October 2018 seconds after returning home from his final conference in Shepperton, West London, organised by Heritage & Destiny – the fourth Robert Faurisson International Prize was awarded to the courageous German-Canadian brother and sister, Alfred and Monika Schaefer.

The award ceremony took place via videoconference, involving Monika Schaefer; prize chairman Joe Fallisi; his committee colleagues William Nichols and Lady Michèle Renouf; and Monika’s German lawyer Wolfram Nahrath.

The wording of the award plaque reads: “To the heroic Alfred and Monika Schaefer, brother and sister, examples of honesty and uprightness in the fight for historical truth.”

Alfred Schaefer remains in prison in Munich, having been convicted under Germany’s notorious debate-denying volksverhetzung (public incitement) law, so his sister Monika accepted the award on his as well as her own behalf.

Monika Schaefer said:

“I am honoured to accept this award on behalf of my brave brother Alfred Schaefer and myself, with a strong emphasis on Alfred who is currently still behind bars in the occupied territory of Germany. I consider myself to simply have been in the right place at the right time, with an apology to my mother.

“My simple action took place in 2016 in the form of a six-minute video called “Sorry mom, I was wrong about the holocaust” (“Entschuldigung Mama, ich hatte Unrecht was den Holocaust betrifft” in German), in which I apologized for reprimanding my mother many years ago, for not having stopped the holocaust from happening.

“Since about 2011 when we began our awakening to the truth about what is going on in the world, Alfred and I have become a team, strengthening and encouraging each other along the way. There is a multiplier effect, and it is much greater than one plus one.

“We stand on the shoulders of Giants before us, most notably the late great Robert Faurisson in whose name this award is being given. He and countless others (if I start naming them, I am afraid I will miss some…) toiled hard to research and tell the truth, and many of them endured great suffering for their efforts. We sailed in on their waters, and are so grateful for all their work.

Alfred and Monika Schaefer

“Alfred and I both recognize the critical importance of this topic — “the Holocaust” — to both sides.

“What makes Alfred who he is and what makes him tick? Alfred has had many adventures in his life. He has been a hang-glider pilot, a sailor, and has cycled around three continents – North America, Europe and Africa. He had some very close calls, and could write several thriller books about his journeys. Those experiences would tend to sharpen an appreciation of what we have, and crystallize an understanding of what is at stake. When Alfred began to learn the truth about world events, he knew he could not be a by-stander, in this war that we find ourselves in. He put his skills to work and became a truth warrior, blogging, producing high-quality videos, leafletting and speaking. He never backed down.

“Alfred’s spirit is undaunted, and he retains his excellent sense of humour, even as a Prisoner of War since over three and a half years, and being held in solitary confinement since over a year. He radiates a positive outlook through his letters. No matter how grim things look, and no matter how hard they try to break him, he projects a winning attitude. He is like the General taking his troops into battle, boosting our morale and injecting us with the fighting spirit to take us to victory!”

The Robert Faurisson International Prize Committee hopes and expects to return to the Professor’s home town of Vichy for the 2023 prize ceremony. Previous winners of the prize are Ursula Haverbeck, Vincent Reynouard, and the late Wolfgang Fröhlich.

Coinciding with this year’s award and this 93rd birthday of Professor Robert Faurisson, Heritage and Destiny today publishes a groundbreaking essay by our assistant editor Peter Rushton – The Hitler-Bormann Testament: Truth or Lie?

This essay (which will also appear in print as an appendix to a forthcoming book) explores many aspects of Third Reich historiography, and uses new archival discoveries to demolish the core argument of a recent scholar regarding a controversial record of Adolf Hitler’s alleged comments during the last months of his life.

The Hitler-Bormann Testament: Truth or Lie is published in honour of Robert Faurisson’s scholarly legacy and of this year’s and previous years’ prize laureates. It is dedicated to three great Europeans of our time: Ursula Haverbeck, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Isabel Peralta – defenders of the right to historical truth, and champions of European civilisation’s essential values.

Click here to download this new publication in PDF.

The truth at last! How British codebreakers fought Jewish terror

Britain’s famous codebreaking centre at Bletchley Park: equivalent efforts against Jewish terrorist codes were until now far less well known

In the latest of a series of stunning developments at the UK National Archives, H&D‘s Peter Rushton last week became the first person outside the British intelligence and security services to view documents that had been Top Secret for 75 years.

These files record successful efforts by British codebreakers in the 1940s to crack codes used by Zionist organisations which were fighting a brutal war of terrorism and subversion against the British Mandate in Palestine.

They show close connections between Zionist Jews belonging to ostensibly rival, ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ factions, but in reality working together on major terrorist operations.

They shed light on bribery and blackmail used by Zionist gangs to undermine criminal investigations.

And they even offer some evidence of Jewish terrorists plotting ‘reprisal’ attacks in the Middle East against German prisoners of war, eighteen months after the end of the Second World War.

The latest archival discoveries are part of a continuing fight for real history. That war for historical truth continues: click here to read its latest episode, Peter Rushton’s ‘Illicit Signals Palestine – The Ispal Codes’.

Sir Gyles Isham – baronet, actor, historian, and head of Britain’s intelligence war in Jerusalem against Zionist terror

A Merry White Christmas to all H&D readers

The Heritage and Destiny team wishes all readers a very Merry Christmas!

And as a present to new readers we have made available an online version of a major historical investigation previously published in two parts in our magazine during 2020.

Peter Rushton opens the files to uncover 40 Years of Propaganda Lies.

  • How the same propaganda agent – János Békessy alias Hans Habe – was used against Adolf Hitler in 1932 and David Irving in the 1960s and ’70s.
  • How Békessy’s lies continue to be recycled in the 21st century.
  • How Britain’s wartime propaganda and dirty tricks department adapted to the Cold War.
  • How the British establishment feared David Irving’s researches into the ‘accidental’ death in Gibraltar of Poland’s wartime commander General Sikorski.
  • How a National Theatre production was suppressed.

Click here to read this major investigation of treachery, lies and possibly murder, now free to read online – for when you get tired of turkey and Christmas pudding, and your football team’s Boxing Day match has been cancelled by CoVID!

If you need to buy a last minute present for a comrade, click here to buy an H&D subscription and/or back copies!

We look forward to seeing you all again after the festive season. Issue 106 of Heritage and Destiny will be published in the first week of January.

Two faces of heroism: Wolfgang Fröhlich and Admiral Sir Tom Phillips

Wolfgang Fröhlich earlier this year with his 2021 Robert Faurisson International Prize

Ending a sad month for H&D, following the loss of our comrades John Bean and Ian Carser, we learned that the great Austrian revisionist – 70-year-old chemical engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich, who earlier this year was awarded the Robert Faurisson International Prize – has died. His longstanding comrade Franz Radl informs us: “As I was told he had to spend several weeks in the intensive care unit because of his Covid-19-illness.”

This tragic news arrived just as I was writing a historical article for this website about the events of December 1941, and it seems now strangely appropriate to combine the two, and reflect on two different but complementary faces of heroism with regard to the Second World War and its legacy for us in the 21st century.

Wolfgang Fröhlich’s heroism was that of a man who speaks the truth as he sees it, with the benefit of specialist technical knowledge and scholarship, knowing that the personal consequences will be catastrophic. In this respect (though from Catholic Austria) he stood in the tradition of Martin Luther who reputedly said in 1521 when summoned to recant his ‘heresy’: “Here I stand, I can do no other”. There is no reliable record that he actually said those words, but he did defy his inquisitors, and we know that he did say: “I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”

Beginning in the 1990s, Wolfgang Fröhlich similarly stood by his seriously researched and thoughtfully expressed views which amount to the most serious ‘heresy’ of our times: challenging historical orthodoxy regarding the purported extermination of six million European Jews in ‘homicidal gas chambers’ on the orders of Adolf Hitler.

Wolfgang Fröhlich appeared as an expert defence witness at the 1998 trial of Jürgen Graf (above left) and was himself arrested five years later. Alongside German-Canadian revisionist Ernst Zündel (above right), Fröhlich became (in the words of Prof. Robert Faurisson) one of the first victims of President George W. Bush and Rudolph Giuliani in their efforts to crush revisionism.

This challenge began when Fröhlich appeared as an expert defence witness during the trial of Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf and his publisher Gerhard Förster in 1998. By that time he had for a few years been distributing revisionist texts to Austrian politicians, journalists and others. Based on his own expertise as a specialist in the use of poison gas for exterminating vermin, Fröhlich had concluded that the ‘official’ story about ‘homicidal gas chambers’ being used to kill Jews and others with hydrogen cyanide (‘Zyklon B’) in German ‘extermination camps’ was scientifically impossible.

Even after the Graf trial, it took some time before Fröhlich himself was troubled by the authorities. In 2001 he published a 368-page book entitled Die Gaskammer Lüge (‘The Gas Chamber Lie’). This led to a warrant for his arrest, but no immediate proceedings followed.

It was not until June 2003 that Fröhlich was arrested, an event which according to Prof. Robert Faurisson seems to have been linked to a speech in Vienna by President George W. Bush’s special envoy on combatting ‘anti-semitism’, the notorious Rudolph Giuliani, later right-hand-man to President Donald Trump.

Giuliani demanded action against revisionists, writing in the New York Times that “revisionist viewpoints put us at risk of a repetition of race-based genocide”. Washington demanded, and Vienna obeyed. Wolfgang Fröhlich was arrested on 21st June 2003 and spent twelve of the next sixteen years in prison – the rest of the time on trial or awaiting trial. During one of these intervals of semi-liberty, in 2006 Fröhlich attended the Tehran International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust – an event offered uniquely by Iran as being open to all sides of debate on this topic – accompanied by his indefatigable Viennese attorney, Dr Herbert Schaller. He received an ovation from the Iranian audience after simply telling them that he was legally prevented by the Austrian authorities from expressing his views even in Tehran.

Wolfgang Fröhlich (second right) with fellow speakers at the 2006 Tehran Conference including his attorney Dr Herbert Schaller (centre) and Lady Michèle Renouf (far right).

Austria became among the most oppressive of the many European countries that during the past quarter-century have criminalised ‘Holocaust denial’, with increasingly severe penalties against those who apply normal historical methods to a period that has been taken out of history and turned into a secular religion.

Even after his release in March 2019, Fröhlich spent the rest of his life as a condemned criminal without normal pension and other citizen’s rights. He was even labelled by prosecutors (in true Stalinist fashion) as a criminal ‘lunatic’ as punishment for the lucid, rational expression of his historical and scientific views. During his last two years, Fröhlich was engaged in a series of legal battles to expose the unprofessional conduct of ‘expert’ psychiatric witnesses who had been prepared to parrot the prosecution’s line.

During one of Fröhlich’s court ordeals in 2015, Prof. Robert Faurisson wrote:
“I know Wolfgang Fröhlich. He masters his subject. He expresses himself with moderation. He is not an excited or fanatical person. On the contrary! He honours his country and historical science.
“His fate is upsetting. We must always remember the degree of ignominy to which the ‘elites’ who rule the German-speaking world have sunk and, in particular, the German or Austrian magistrates capable of sending a man of this quality to prison for thirteen years.”

Wolfgang Fröhlich’s heroic stand for truth and justice is sure to survive his death, and inspire future generations as Europe recovers its dignity, sovereignty and traditions.

Admiral Sir Tom Phillips (1888-1941) died eighty years ago this month in a war that he deeply opposed, seeing it as the consequence of disastrous decisions by British governments.

By contrast another very different hero – Admiral Sir Tom Phillips – was lost in the mists of history until I found a document in the wartime diaries of Hugh Dalton, the minister in Churchill’s wartime government who took charge of the ‘dirty tricks’ department of Britain’s war effort, the Special Operations Executive.

Admiral Phillips was a hero of a type familiar to students of Greek tragedy – where one often finds a man trapped by circumstance, who has no alternative but to confront his fate.

In June 1940, just a month after Churchill had taken over as Prime Minister and taken Britain over the brink into ‘total war’ – Admiral Phillips told Dalton that this war was a disaster for Britain and was the consequence of several appalling decisions that had alienated countries that should have been our allies.

“He does not care anything about the Italians, who are a worthless lot, but the Spaniards are a very different story. To have Spain as an enemy would jeopardise the whole of our control, both of the western Mediterranean and the Atlantic sea routes. It is unthinkable that we should have been brought to such a point. We backed the Bolsheviks in Spain in 1936 and ’37 against the only man who, in modern times, has been able to make Spain strong. The horrors committed by the Bolsheviks in Spain were seen by our sailors and are on record.

“This was the climax of a foreign policy which had first adopted an attitude towards Germany which made war with her inevitable; had then successively alienated Japan, Italy, and now, finally, Spain. The French had not been fighting in these last weeks. This was because they too had become Bolsheviks. Weygand [the French supreme commander from May-June 1940] had said that the only tough troops in France were the Poles, and that if he had had ten more Divisions of them, he would have won the battle.”

Despite his perception that this war was a disaster for his country, Admiral Phillips took command of British naval forces in the Far East in October 1941. Immediately after Pearl Harbor he set out on his flagship HMS Prince of Wales to confront Japanese forces (the very forces whom he believed should have remained British allies – a view also taken by his former colleague, the ex-Director of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, who by this time had been interned without trial in England for opposing Churchill’s war policy).

On 10th December 1941, the Prince of Wales and her fellow battleship HMS Repulse were sunk by Japanese air attack. Admiral Sir Tom Phillips – who had so strongly opposed the entire war policy – went down with his ship.

Had he the opportunity, no doubt the Admiral – like Wolfgang Fröhlich – would echo Martin Luther: “I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”

Piece by piece, their fellow Europeans will recover accurate knowledge of their own history.

George Orwell wrote in 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Our task, in our present, is to recover that control.

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers