17th June 1953 – still relevant to us in 2022

This is a translation of a perceptive article posted online yesterday by the fast-growing German nationalist group Der III. Weg (‘The Third Way’ – no connection to the 1980s / 1990s UK organisation of the same name). Photos added by H&D: any errors in translation are our responsibility.

Almost 70 years have passed since people in central Germany rose up against the Bolshevisation of their homeland by Moscow’s GDR puppets and fought desperately against oncoming Soviet tanks, which finally violently crushed the uprising. 34 demonstrators lost their lives in the anti-Soviet uprising (Volksaufstand) that day. Subsequently, more insurgents died as a result of death sentences by Soviet court-martials or as a result of the conditions in the communist prisons.

On June 17th 1953, Germans had gathered in East Berlin, Halle, Magdeburg, Leipzig and Dresden with the Deutschlandlied on their lips and, in addition to social improvements, also demanded national goals such as the dismissal of the GDR government, which was dependent on Moscow, the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the Reunification of Germany. This uprising against the corrupt Soviet system, together with the “Prague Spring” of 1968, symbolises the resistance of the oppressed peoples in the Eastern Bloc countries against the Muscovite tyranny, against which the nations of Europe fought heroically in the years 1941-45, before they finally had to kneel before Moscow thanks to the alliance of Churchill and Roosevelt with Stalin.

Until recently, awareness of the Muscovite threat seemed to be shared only among the older generations among us. Too far away in the past was the time when the oppressive Stalinist regime in central Germany shot down rebellious workers who wanted a united German fatherland. The idea that Moscow could again reach out to Europe to seize parts of it and impose its system on them, as the Soviet predecessor system of today’s Russian Federation practiced against all western neighbouring states and on itself since the beginning of its existence, was too unreal. Though with the help of the Allies from 1945, it was even able to subdue the entire eastern half of Europe.

In the years that followed, Russia joined the ranks of the “democratic states” in the world. From then on, the USA and its allies were considered the only imperialists in the world who, with their wars of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and the continued presence of American military bases in Europe even after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, rightly earned the status of occupiers and warmongers . That changed when the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022 under the pretext of “denazifying” Ukraine, but actually wanting to reincorporate it into the Russian Empire. What had been hidden for years before was now openly apparent. The restoration of the old imperialist Soviet Union is a declared goal of the Kremlin’s policy under Putin.

Vladimir Putin with his old KGB boss Lazar Matveev

What happened almost 70 years ago in the cities of Central Germany, we are experiencing again just 2000 km to the east, in cities like Kherson and Melitopol, where the civilian population is making life as difficult as possible for the Russian occupiers, blocking the progress of military vehicles and gathering for mass protests on the streets under waving national flags, even at the risk of being gunned down by Putin’s troops. In Kherson, however, the Russian occupiers are planning to install another separatist bandit republic under the leadership of puppets loyal to Moscow – in the spirit of Ulbricht, Pieck and Grotewohl at the time of the early GDR – after the removal and arrest of local Ukrainian politicians.

A statue of Lenin reinstalled by Russian occupiers in Henichesk, Kherson Province, Ukraine

And the so-called “victory flag” of the Russians has not changed compared to then. The red flag with hammer and sickle is now waving in central squares in Russian-held cities where the national symbols of Ukraine have been removed. The Bolshevik monster was never dead, just slumbering for the past 30 years. Europe’s struggle for freedom against the old enemy did not come to an end after the fall of the Soviet Union, but is now experiencing a resurrection. Reason enough to commemorate June 17th 1953 and its freedom fighters more consciously than ever this year, because our people still have a long way to go before they have paid the last bloody toll in the fight against Bolshevism and Muscovite imperialism.

Ursula Haverbeck’s latest trial: Lady Michèle Renouf reports from Berlin

Ursula Haverbeck (second left) outside the Berlin court of appeal on 1st April 2022 with (left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

On April 1, 2022 an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allies (‘All lies’) Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense”!

After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry” (as dubbed by the late great Scots-French documents analyst and leading revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson).

Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one forensic off-limits historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the own-goal so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form the law deems to call criminal, e.g. stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm to show how high your dog can jump! (Currently the latter “crime” raised by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in Munich Prison!)

Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery…even as the Antifa hack was invited to take front row pride of place!

Luckily for me, although sad to see, the Public Gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer Siblings trial in Munich (July 2018), fear ‘being seen to take an interest’ in such ‘heresy’ trials. They have to show their identity papers, à la Orwell’s “Big Brother”, for likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow Attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and client exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for State-endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.

When Ursula emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Actually, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked me was “do you know Haverbeck?”. Proudly as an old personal friend, I proclaimed her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land – a national treasure!

Frau Ursula and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the “Collegium Humanum” in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either under Bolshevik Communism or Globalist Capitalism. It was at this time that Frau Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialised wartime phenomena worked and where were the physical remains of a “Holocaust”.

After the trial Wolfram Nahrath, Frau Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine too) gave the AFP, TBR and H&D readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.

MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?

Attorney Nahrath:
No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the Kammergericht (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.

MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populace (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions, the real crime!

Dr. Rigolf Hennig (above centre with Ursula and Michèle) – Ursula’s loyal comrade – was a freedom fighter in the early 1960s for the return from Italy of the South Tyrol for reunification with Austria. In part successful, for today children there are allowed to speak German in schools. A dedicated organizer of Europäische Aktion, Rigolf’s final action before he died last month, was to translate TBR interview by Dr. Edward de Vries with Lady Renouf on her attorney’s victory in Dresden, published in the magazine Volk in Bewegung (People in Movement). Incidentally, this TBR interview was also translated into French by the revisionist Francis Goumain and published by the Swiss revisionist Rene-Louis Berclaz in the Swiss-French magazine Courrier du Continent.

Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.

MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge – so “Woke” anti-culture in her biased mind, tone, and callous words – was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!

Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows” but then refused any reply.

MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes” was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?

Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison” and that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”

MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the documents analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” ie for a second time when dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France!) to Yahweh “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips”!
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that U.N. Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (ie a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among, but in service to Yahweh’s Chosen People). So much for our universal ‘we were never asked’ democracy!

Nahrath: As a defence attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defence. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e. it is obvious. For the defence counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial”.

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence

MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense, makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – an “Alice in Wonderland” accusation. Completely the reverse of a rational courtroom where to do otherwise would be deemed seriously incompetent and open to action by your client for professional negligence!

Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a “better” result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.

MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust-Leugnung“. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly lies when denying something – whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.

Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grande dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Wolfram Nahrath outside the Berlin court

MLR: Yes indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also, I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!

Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.

MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?

Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
Finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected, from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly. Then a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approx. 565,000 (356,000 of them in Auschwitz), and he moved the location of this alleged gassing to outside the central camp. It was after these developments that Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question: where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B”.

The great revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson outside one of his many court appearances

MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.

Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.

MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Planck Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.

Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific – and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.

MLR: I marvelled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause for well over two hours!

Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statement took in already known guidelines from other judgments.
She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime”, but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.

MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual calibre and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events, as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it “like a police detective”.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews”.
The little this “Woke”-blinded Judge knows about racial differences and indeed Judaic Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but “as cattle”. Thereby in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well”. This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two Germany ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust-denial” laws to be repealed.

Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone, she had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.

MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “Woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “Woke”, because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms – a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “Woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper – representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!

Nahrath: Years ago when the Americans sent weapons to the East, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WW3. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings not only to the causes of past events and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.

MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!

The aspect of that Day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly … once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.

Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller (above right) with his client Ernst Zündel and Lady Michèle Renouf on the day of Ernst’s release from Mannheim prison

At this moment RA Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the own-goal so-called victor Authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those sixteen years’ old survivors exemplify the four inseparable Classical Virtues, of Measure, Just Objectivity, Forensic attitude, and empathetic Courage.

The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.

It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!

Michèle, Lady Renouf

Tony Blair’s favourite oligarch hit by sanctions: ex-PM and ‘Holocaust’ lobby under scrutiny

Moshe Kantor hosting a conference in Terezin, Czech Republic, where he demanded that laws against ‘Holocaust denial’ be extended across Europe

As far back as 27th February H&D raised questions about former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his favourite oligarch Moshe Kantor, a close friend of both the ex-Labour leader and the Kremlin godfather Vladimir Putin.

We pointed out that since 2015 Blair has been chairman of Kantor’s ‘European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation’, which campaigns for ‘tougher laws against extremism’.

Naturally the extremism Blair and Kantor wish to criminalise involves such things as publishing a magazine or running a bookshop. For this type of extremism the likes of Blair and Kantor endorse the approach of Spanish prosecutors, who wish to jail Pedro Varela for twelve years, or German prosecutors who wish again to jail the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck, or German border guards who defy their own laws and their country’s obligations under the European constitution to deport the 19-year-old student Isabel Peralta.

Invading a neighbouring country is, by contrast, not ‘extreme’: not if the invader is Moshe Kantor’s close friend Vladimir Putin.

Moshe Kantor has founded and sponsored Jewish lobby groups and ‘academic’ foundations around the world: he is now under sanctions for his ties to the Kremlin’s campaign of propaganda lies and brutal aggression against its neighbours

Yesterday – more than five weeks after we raised these questions – the British authorities belatedly acted against Kantor, adding him to their sanctions list.

Kantor’s many leading positions in international Jewry and Zionism include President of the European Jewish Council; Vice President of the UK’s Jewish Leadership Council (a registered charity); Chairman of the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress; and President of the World Holocaust Forum Foundation.

In many of these roles he has worked closely with Tony Blair, who was one of the most pro-Israel Prime Ministers in UK history.

In 2015 Kantor organised a conference in the Czech Republic where he called on European governments including the UK to adopted standardised laws criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’. Defying the views of scholars and legal experts who wish to repeal these ‘historical memory laws’ that jail people for their opinions, Kantor wanted to make the laws stricter and the punishments harsher.

Tony Blair joined Kantor in promoting these arguments and demands for legal crackdowns on opinion-crime, via a major article in The Times newspaper.

The main vehicle for demanding these new debate-denial laws was the ironically named European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, with Kantor as President and paymaster, and Tony Blair as chairman.

Now Kantor himself is facing legal sanctions – not for opinions, but for his documented ties to the Kremlin’s war machine and lie machine.

Moshe Kantor and Tony Blair honouring Prince Albert of Monaco for his obeisance to the Holocaust lobby

It is now beyond dispute that for the past twenty years or more, Vladimir Putin has used Holocaust propaganda as an instrument of Russian diplomacy and as a justification for Russian military aggression.

Now is the time to ask the forbidden questions. Whatever European courts might say, it’s time to demand historical truth.

Back in 2007 – in a letter prominently published in a national newspaperH&D‘s Peter Rushton discussed the way that Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had used Holocaust propaganda to pressure US governments into allowing Israel to get away with nuclear proliferation. His letter ended: “Should a self-interested version of 1940s history be allowed to dictate the nuclear power politics of the 21st century, with potentially disastrous consequences?”

In 2022 the same question becomes more urgent, and we can no longer allow the risk of prosecution in many European countries to silence that question.

In 2015 Tony Blair and Moshe Kantor demanded new laws to crack down on ‘antisemites’ and ‘Holocaust deniers’.

Therefore this week H&D will launch a new website section – Real History and the True Europe – in which over the coming months we shall ask the important questions about Europe’s history and culture, including the ‘Holocaust’.

On this website, in our magazine, and in a book to be published later this year – The Dogs That Didn’t Bark: British Intelligence, International Jewry and the Holocaust (the first of a series examining aspects of Britain’s secret history with the aid of new archival discoveries) – we will examine whether, just as Moshe Kantor and Vladimir Putin have exploited ‘Holocaust’ stories for propagandist purposes, other official and unofficial propaganda agencies were behind parts of the original ‘Holocaust’ narrative in the 1940s.

We shall re-examine the work of revisionist scholars including the late Professor Robert Faurisson, including work newly available in English translation.

We shall have interviews and court reports from across Europe, as politically biased judges seek to jail nonagenarians for ‘criminal’ opinions.

And we shall reveal other political abuses of the judicial system, where a new generation of European political activist is threatened with prosecution to distract from government treachery and failure to enforce immigration laws.

This online project and publishing venture will look at many other topics besides the ‘Holocaust’, but we shall not be afraid to challenge the establishment consensus. Europe is again at war. Historical and political truth is too important for us to tolerate its restriction by the courts.

Vladimir Putin and Moshe Kantor during an ‘international forum’ that Kantor sponsored on the 60th anniversary of the Soviet ‘liberation’ of Auschwitz

Madeleine Albright and Mossad: the Jewess who ‘thought she was a Catholic’

Madeleine Albright – the diplomat who ‘didn’t know she was Jewish

Madeleine Albright – who served as Secretary of State in Bill Clinton’s second administration from 1997 to 2001, has died in Washington aged 84.

Soon after her appointment to the top job in US foreign policy at the start of 1997, Mrs Albright ‘discovered’ that she was racially Jewish, having supposedly been in ignorance of this for her entire life. Her parents had converted to Catholicism during her infancy.

However the Israeli government certainly knew about Albright’s Jewish roots as early as 1994, soon after her appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Their source was the British publisher George Weidenfeld, who had been a friend of Albright’s father, Czech diplomat Josef Korbel, when Korbel was in a senior role with the Czech government-in-exile in London during the Second World War. (In this capacity Korbel worked with British propaganda and other secret departments.)

Madeleine Albright with Hillary Clinton

H&D can today reveal a few details of Weidenfeld’s career as a Zionist and later Israeli intelligence operative, which make it likely that Mossad was well aware of Albright’s family background for decades – almost certainly as far back as the 1970s, when she worked as congressional liaison for the National Security Council.

Weidenfeld – this close friend of Albright’s father – was closely monitored by Britain’s security service MI5, who knew of his Zionist intelligence work and were concerned that he might be engaged in subversive activities in London on behalf of the nascent Israeli state.

Although his file has not yet been published in British archives and remains entirely secret, we can reveal today that Weidenfeld had a personal file at MI5 numbered PF 604363.

Israeli intelligence operative George Weidenfeld, close friend of Albright’s father

On 27th October 1949 MI5 recorded a conversation via its regular monitoring of a line at the Israeli Legation (later Embassy) in London. Weidenfeld was speaking with Reggie Kidron, a senior diplomat who was responsible for Mossad’s intelligence work in London.

During the conversation Kidron thanked Weidenfeld for certain “contacts”, referring to a recent lunch Weidenfeld had with the senior government minister Herbert Morrison, who was later to succeed Ernest Bevin as British Foreign Secretary.

Whereas Bevin had been staunchly anti-Zionist, Morrison was far more friendly to the new state of Israel. His daughter married the advertising manager of the Jewish Chronicle (London’s main Jewish newspaper) and his grandson Peter Mandelson (now Lord Mandelson) became one of the most influential, pro-Israeli politicians in Britain during the Labour governments of the 1990s and 2000s.

Peter Mandelson (above right) on holiday with Lord Rothschild.

Weidenfeld went on to work for Israel’s first President Chaim Weizmann as “foreign affairs adviser”, before returning to London where his publishing empire served as a convenient means to pass Israeli funds to favoured politicians, in the guise of cash ‘advances’ for books that were never going to generated the sums paid.

Recipients of this largesse included Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his political secretary Marcia Williams.

As we have recently reported on this site, Wilson and Williams had close relationships with several influential Jewish businessmen who were of concern to MI5, either because of their links to Zionist intelligence, or to Soviet bloc intelligence, or their general criminality.

An original page from the ‘lavender list’ on which Marcia Williams (Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s political secretary) listed Weidenfeld among those to be given peerages – note also the name of Joseph Kagan, fraudster and suspected Soviet spy.

Several of these characters received either knighthoods or peerages from Wilson, notably in his final honours list in 1976, known as the “lavender list” because it was drafted on the personal notepaper of Marcia Williams. The Mossad operative George Weidenfeld – having earlier been knighted by Wilson in 1969 – became Lord Weidenfeld on this 1976 list.

Last week H&D‘s Peter Rushton filed a Freedom of Information request for still-secret official files about this honours list, and the cabal of businessmen and suspected spies surrounding Harold Wilson.

Weidenfeld’s Mossad contact Kidron appeared in a ‘Top Secret’ British intelligence document drawn up in December 1949, listing twenty-five individuals who had wartime access to British secrets but who were now known to be serving the Israeli government. Kidron had been Jewish Agency liaison with the South African armed forces during the Second World War, and was feared to have had access to British military secrets, in addition to his dangerous intelligence work among postwar British politicians via Weidenfeld.

Reggie Kidron’s name on a British intelligence list of suspected Jewish spies

Further aspects of our dossier on the fluctuating relationship between British and Zionist intelligence services, during and after the Second World War, will be published soon.

One strange coincidence which might disturb some on the ‘anti-Zionist’ left, is that the sister of this top Mossad officer Reggie Kidron became one of Britain’s leading Trotskyist activists.

This was Chanie Rosenberg, who died last year aged 99. She was married to the leading Trotskyist in Britain – Tony Cliff (born Ygael Gluckstein), founder of what is today the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

Even in old age, Rosenberg was an active militant ‘anti-fascist’, travelling to Burnley in 2002 to oppose British National Party election campaigning.

We wonder whether she ever told her comrades about her close family ties to Mossad?

Chanie Rosenberg – leading British Trotskyist and sister of a top Israeli intelligence officer – with her husband Tony Cliff (born Ygael Gluckstein) and family

Senior judges and eminent historians called for scrapping of ‘historical memory laws’ that seek to jail 93-year-old

Ursula Haverbeck (above, far left) with friends including Dr Rigolf Hennig, who died yesterday, and the Austrian attorney Dr Herbert Schaller, on the day that Ernst Zündel (above centre) was released from Mannheim prison.

93-year-old educator and publisher Ursula Haverbeck was in court again in Berlin today for a further appeal hearing related to a 12-month prison sentence for two ‘offences’ of ‘Holocaust denial’.

We reported aspects of this case on Friday, and will continue to give further details as it develops. The latest update comes in this video from Berlin, recorded by Ursula’s friend Nikolai Nerling and ending with a tribute to our great comrade Dr Rigolf Hennig, which H&D has now republished with English subtitles. (You can expand the video to full size so as to read the subtitles.)

For further video updates on this and other stories please follow our new Instagram account at https://www.instagram.com/heritageanddestiny/

One extraordinary aspect of the story is that more than a decade ago two of Germany’s most senior judges, as well as a panel of eminent historians (mainly Marxists or liberal-leftists) called for the scrapping of the ‘Holocaust denial’ laws that have since been used to jail many Germans including Ursula Haverbeck and Horst Mahler.

Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem

In 2008 the recently retired Constitutional Court (i.e. Supreme Court) judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem told a conference in Berlin: “Were I a legislator, I would not criminalise Holocaust denial.”

A few weeks earlier his fellow Constitutional Court Judge Winfried Hassemer told one of Germany’s leading newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung that he was “not a supporter of Holocaust denial being punishable. Of course, this is a special German problem, which is due to our unfortunate history. But it would be fine with me if we didn’t have this special problem any more.”

In principle, Judge Hassemer said he was “not a supporter of such laws that make wrong opinions a punishable offence”.

Judge Winfried Hassemer

And in October 2008 a group of eminent European historians meeting in France issued what became known as the Appel de Blois, similarly opposing laws that sought to regulate and criminalise historical memory.

The test of the appeal, whose signatories included two of the world’s most famous Jewish historians Eric Hobsbawm and Carlo Ginzburg, read:

“Concerned about the retrospective moralization of history and intellectual censure, we call for the mobilization of European historians and for the wisdom of politicians.
“History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions.
“We call on historians to marshal their forces within each of their countries and to create structures similar to our own, and, for the time being, to individually sign the present appeal, to put a stop to this movement toward laws aimed at controlling history memory.
“We ask government authorities to recognize that, while they are responsible for the maintenance of the collective memory, they must not establish, by law and for the past, an official truth whose legal application can carry serious consequences for the profession of history and for intellectual liberty in general.
“In a democracy, liberty for history is liberty for all.”

A conference of eminent historians at Blois, France, in October 2008 appealed for an end to laws against ‘Holocaust denial’

Commenting on this appeal, another of its signatories Professor Timothy Garton Ash wrote that such criminalisation of history was “dangerous nonsense”.

Garton Ash continued:
“Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes ‘grossly trivialising’ them?
“…The evidence must be uncovered, checked and sifted, and various possible interpretations tested against it.
“It’s this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom – subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride.”

Unfortunately German prosecutors do not agree. They continue to drag Ursula Haverbeck and others before the courts. In doing so these prosecutors bring shame on the Federal Republic and expose ‘democracy’ to justified contempt.


Spot the criminal – Germany seeks to jail 93-year-old publisher while ‘Holocaust’ museums hang on to billionaire gangster’s donations

Ursula Haverbeck at the Berlin appeal court, 18th March 2022

Ursula Haverbeck – the extraordinarily courageous German patriot and educator now aged 93 – was back in court earlier today in Berlin, appealing against convictions for ‘Holocaust denial’ and a 12-month prison sentence.

This is a combined appeal against two convictions and sentences for similar ‘crimes’, one in 2017 involving a speech to an audience of 80 people in Berlin; the other in 2020 relating to a YouTube interview conducted by Nikolai Nehrling, known in German nationalist circles as the Volkslehrer.

Mainstream German press reports see nothing wrong in dragging a 93-year-old lady through the courts for the ‘crime’ of doubting and asking questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews by a mysterious unique mass murder weapon – the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

H&D’s assistant editor has met Ursula several times, and she could not be further from the stereotype of an ‘inciter of hate’. She is a polite, very well-educated lady who expresses her views in reasonable terms. And it should be noted that she is one of the last generation of Germans who experienced the horrors of fleeing with her family from the invading barbarians of Stalin’s Red Army in 1945.

Ursula Haverbeck knows what it means to be a genuine refugee.

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) with her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right) at today’s hearing

A very different type of human being is Roman Abramovich, chief financial fixer for the bloodstained tyrant Vladimir Putin.

BBC’s Panorama broadcast a detailed investigation of Abramovich’s criminal career on Monday evening. It is crystal clear that – aided and abetted by both Boris Yeltsin and in particular Putin – Abramovich built his fortune on defrauding the Russian people of literally billions of pounds worth of their national assets.

The beneficiaries of Abramovich’s loot include two of the world’s leading ‘Holocaust’ museums. A few days ago we discussed his links to Yad Vashem in Israel. Now it has become clear that the Imperial War Museum in London has no intention of returning the money given by Abramovich for its vastly expensive new ‘Holocaust’ gallery.

The museum has not disclosed quite how much Abramovich donated, but the total budget for the exhibition is at least £30.5 million.  In addition to his personal contribution (or should we say the contribution of the long-suffering Russian people, since Abramovich’s wealth comes from assets stolen from them) Abramovich also staged a fundraising event for the project at Stamford Bridge, the home of Chelsea Football Club, which he owned until his London assets were frozen this week.

London’s world-famous Imperial War Museum, founded in 1917, bends over backwards to avoid any association with ‘racism’ or ‘slavery’ – yet shamelessly hangs on to millions donated from the ill-gotten fortune of Roman Abramovich

At the time of the donation in October 2018, the Imperial War Museum’s director gushed that: “This donation will enable IWM to reinterpret these galleries, which will present critical insights into the Holocaust as well as integrate the devastating events of the Holocaust into the broader history of the Second World War, revealing why this often overlooked dimension is so important.”

Quite shamelessly – given that it is one of the world’s leading military museums so ought to be taking a close interest in the world-changing events currently under way in Ukraine – the IWM says it will be “retaining the funds from Roman Abramovich”, and in the sly tradition of the barrack room lawyer insists: “This is compliant with all government regulations regarding sanctions”.

Meanwhile Yad Vashem has said only that it is “suspending its strategic partnership” with Abramovich and has yet to confirm whether it will hand back any of the stolen money.

While the Kremlin dictator Putin attempts a real genocide, valiantly resisted by Ukrainian patriots, his gangster henchman Abramovich has funded several prominent examples of a one-sided view of history – exploited for the benefit of yesterday’s Soviet butchers, today’s Russian imperialists, and the shameless Zionist pirates of both yesterday and today.

Those like Ursula Haverbeck who face trials across Europe for the ‘crime’ of ‘denying the Holocaust’ doubtless appreciate the irony that official ‘Holocaust history’ is funded by one of the world’s worst fraudsters, whose career of theft and brutality has been protected by a genuine war criminal.

On Monday Ursula Haverbeck’s latest court ordeal continues in Berlin. H&D will carry further updates throughout the case, both here and in forthcoming issues of our magazine.

Abramovich disgraced – a nation mourns

Vladimir Putin’s favourite oligarch – Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich – is now in disgrace. He faces a range of sanctions by the British government and today was disqualified by the Premier League as a Chelsea director. The billionaire Abramovich is no longer regarded as a fit and proper person to be involved in the running of a football club. His assets at the club and elsewhere in the UK have been frozen.

One of the most recent causes to benefit from Abramovich’s largesse was Yad Vashem, the most prestigious international museum of ‘the Holocaust’. On February 22nd – just two days before his close friend and ally Vladimir Putin began his brutal invasion of Ukraine – Abramovich and Yad Vashem announced a “strategic partnership” in which the tycoon would donate tens of millions of dollars.

The Abramovich donations, it was said, would be “significantly enriching Yad Vashem’s world-renowned International Institute for Holocaust Research … at the center of ground-breaking research initiatives in the field of Holocaust studies, which serves as the basis for both commemorative and educational activities related to the atrocities committed by the Nazis and their collaborators before, during and after the Holocaust. This new strategic partnership will expand and bolster Yad Vashem’s research activities, at a time when Holocaust distortion, denial and politicization are rising alarmingly worldwide. The partnership will provide support over a period of five years, to further expand and develop the Institute’s activities on a global scale.”

At first Yad Vashem was lobbying governments not to sanction Abramovich. But less than three weeks later, the deal is off, in the face of real atrocities committed across Ukraine by the generous donor’s closest political ally.

Abramovich is not the only big donor to Israeli causes who is now under international sanctions, though it remains to be seen whether these wily operators will be able to evade the world’s financial regulators in time-honoured fashion.

Roman Abramovich (above right) at a Chelsea match with his close business associate and fellow director Eugene Shvidler, another Putin-linked billionaire now under scrutiny

Some of his closest associates include Eugene Shvidler, partner in many Abramovich businesses and once a fellow director at Chelsea FC. A private jet linked to Shvidler was impounded at a UK airport earlier this week.

Another is David Davidovich, Abramovich’s righthand man in his earliest days in business, who made more than $1 billion from his sale of Russian oil interests. Davidovich also owns Russia’s second largest meat and meat-processing business. He gives his nationality as “Israeli”.

Abramovich attending court with his longtime business partner David Davidovich, an Israeli citizen who became a billionaire from Russian oil and Russian meat processing.

Abramovich is not the first unusual ‘businessman’ to be a major donor and facilitator of Zionist operations.

During the Jewish terrorist war against Britain from 1945-48, prominent figures in the US Mafia helped smuggle weapons to Palestine from New York docks. These included the notorious killers Mayer Lansky, Albert Anastasia and Joe Adonis whose daily business was known as “Murder Incorporated”.

Other important allies of the Zionist terror gangs included Sam Kay, a leading Jewish gangster in Miami; Bugsy Siegel, pioneer of Mafia interests in the Las Vegas casino and entertainment business; and Mickey Cohen, then the leading mafioso in California.

Cowardly Manchester newspaper censors report on 98-year-old Ukrainian hero after ‘anti-fascist’ bullying

98-year-old Ukrainian patriot and war hero Iwan Kluka

On Monday March 7th the Manchester Evening News printed a remarkable report about a 98-year-old Ukrainian hero – Iwan Kluka – who defended his homeland against a previous generation of Moscow invaders.

Mr Kluka together with fellow Ukrainian nationalists – as explained in my recent article on this site – escaped Stalin’s Red Army and their murderous KGB henchmen, taking refuge in Glossop, near Manchester.

He still drinks regularly in Stockport’s Ukrainian club, where he told the Manchester Evening News reporter: “I live here, but in my heart I am Ukrainian – that’s my country. What Putin is doing is unbelievable. It’s inhumane.”

Mr Kluka’s nephew was fighting the latest Kremlin invaders, defending his home city of Kharkiv, but is now out of touch with his family who fear he has been killed.

Now adding insult to injury, the notorious thug Matthew Collins and his cowardly colleagues at Hope not Hate have bullied the Manchester Evening News into taking down the online version of their report on Mr Kluka and his fellow Ukrainian veterans. Mr Collins once boasted of poisoning schoolchildren’s pet fish while working ‘undercover’ as an ‘antifascist’.

His latest achievement is to censor a local newspaper’s interview with a 98-year-old war hero.

Meanwhile Mr Kluka’s fellow Ukrainians – including the Azov Regiment whose official video we posted this morning – bravely continue their remarkably successful defence against Moscow aggression.

Since Hope not Hate cannot censor us, we reproduce here the opening paragraphs of the censored report as it appeared in the Manchester Evening News:

Stockport’s Ukrainian Club is alive with activity – and concern. In one room, a child’s birthday party is well underway. Another room sees Ukrainians discussing the ongoing situation, each updating one another on how their families are doing. Another group is ferrying donations up and down the stairs.

Amidst all of this is Iwan Kluka. He’s surprisingly mobile for a 98-year-old and is keen to be involved with the discussions. If anyone knows the terrible costs of war in the region, it’s Iwan.

He fought against Stalin’s Red Army as it took the country in the Second World War. Iwan was one of the lucky ones, being given refuge by the British Army in Glossop shortly after the end of the war.

He tells the Manchester Evening News that 30,000 of his fellow volunteer soldiers were executed by the Soviets after the fall of Berlin.

And now, he says, Russia’s ‘inhumane’ invasion might have claimed the life of his nephew. “It’s terrible,” he says, pausing for thought.

“I live here, but in my heart I am Ukrainian – that’s my country.

“What Putin is doing is unbelievable. It’s inhumane. What I experienced [in the 1940s]… to see those atrocities… they just don’t have any feeling for the human being.”

For Iwan, the war is not just a distressing attack on his homeland which he fought for. It’s also an attack on his family.

“I had a nephew in Kharkiv,” he explains.

“It fell. He was fighting, I think I have lost him. I cannot get in touch with him. I don’t know [if he is alive].”

Iwan also does not know how his niece is doing. He adds: “She’s in southern Ukraine. She was alright when I rang her a week ago.

“I do not know how she is today. There’s no answer.

“I feel horrible.”

Putin attacks ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘Banderites’: who does he mean and what does this rhetoric reveal?

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referred to the need to crush ‘neo-Nazis’ and ‘Banderites’ as the key motives for his invasion of Ukraine.

Neither Russian nor Western media have adequately explained what he means.

Stepan Bandera was a Ukrainian nationalist leader assassinated in 1959 by the KGB (for which Putin himself later worked for sixteen years).

But why should Putin in 2022 be so obsessed by this long-dead nationalist and his movement?

In a major archival investigation for H&D, our assistant editor Peter Rushton visits recently declassified archives – including one document still secret in Britain but which can be accessed indirectly via CIA files.

Today he uncovers the complex story of Stepan Bandera and Ukrainian nationalism; its connection to both Third Reich and British intelligence agencies; the bravery of Ukraine’s anti-communist partisans but also the problematic aspects of their legacy; the reasons for Putin’s ‘anti-nazi’ obsessions; and how all this can inform a rational and honourable policy for today’s European nationalists.

Click here to read Who was Stepan Bandera?

Alisher Usmanov with his friend Vlad

PS: Just in case readers thought Putin’s favourite billionaire oligarchs were all Jews, here’s a Muslim one. But with a Jewish wife.

In 1980 as a hard-working young lawyer in Brezhnev’s decaying Soviet Union, Alisher Usmanov was the victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding that earned him an eight-year jail sentence for fraud and theft. Twenty years later, when he had become a tycoon, he was able to get the whole business straightened out and his conviction was quashed.

And until this week there had been no looking back. British readers will know Mr Usmanov for his decade of investment in Arsenal Football Club, which at one time he seemed likely to take over, though he later sold his shares for more than £500 million.

Mr and Mrs Usmanov – a heart-warming tale of love across the ethnic divide

Sadly, Mr Usmanov has fallen victim to another misunderstanding this week due to his innocent friendship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. His £437 million yacht has been seized by German authorities.

Especially after reading the heart-warming story of this honest Muslim billionaire’s marriage to a Jewess, we are sure readers will all be hoping that Mr and Mrs Usmanov get their yacht returned some time soon. Perhaps in time for Purim.

The Usmanovs’ yacht – a typically modest oligarch bauble

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.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers