Archive for the ‘ANTICOMMUNISM’ Category


July 12, 2018



On March 21 the Communists declared general strike and insurrection in Shanghai.

Chiang Kai-shek arrived in Shanghai on March 26. He did not act then but understood that he could not let the Communists take over Shanghai. He met with industrialists and businessmen and seperately with Green Gang leaders. Chiang offered to take charge of an anticommunist counterattack. Unrealiable troops were sent out of the city.

On April 2 a resolution went through to ”clean” the Kuomintang of unwanted members.

On April 18 Chiang proclaimed a rival Kuomintang government with seat in Nanking. He started consolidating his control over the lower Yangtse region.

There are a number of memorials in Shanghai and Nanking that remind of Chiang and Kuomintang.


Chiang retired in the interest of Kuomintang unity.


The National Government was moved on January 30 from Nanking to Loyang because of the Japanese invasion.


Chiang on February 19 initiated a ”New Life Movement” in Nanking.


An Emergency National Congress of the Kuomintang in Wuchang on April 1 elected Chiang as its tsung tsai (director general).


On September 6 Chungking was proclaimed co-capital of China. There are memorials in Chungking that remind of Chiang and Kuomintang.


On October 10 Chiang was sworn in as chairman of the National Government.


On August 14 Japan surrendered.


On May 5 the National Government was moved back to Nanking.


On January 21 Chiang announced his retirement from the presidency. He left for Hangchow. Vice President Li Tsung-jen was empowered to exercise temporarily presidential powers. Government forces on April 23 evacuated Nanking.

On May 27 Shanghai was evacuated. The office of director general of Kuomintang was established in Taipei. The National Government, having established its seat in Canton, on October 12 moved it to Chungking. On October 13 government troops evacuated Canton. Chungking fell on November 30. On December 7 the National Government moved its seat to Taipei. On December 10 Chiang flew from Chengtu to Taipei.



July 11, 2018


During the period from 1950 into the 1980s the National Government in Taipei constructed a number of monuments and buildings related to Chinese history since the founding of the Republic of China. Below is listed a number of those along with some buildings of historical interest for visitors to the island republic.

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (Guoli Zhongzheng Jiniantang) and the adjoining National Concert Hall and National Theater. The Memorial Hall has a Chiang museum….

Grand Hotel (Yanshan Da Fandian) in Taipei. For more on the relation between the Chiang family and the hotel see Laura Tyson Li, ”Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China’s Eternal First Lady” (2006).

Shilin Guandi was Chiang’s former residence in the Taipei suburb of Shilin built in 1959.

Chiang’s mausoleum in Taoyuan County is the Cihu Mausoleum. It is a temporary resting place. Chiang before he died in 1975 expressed a wish to be buried in his birthplace once China was recovered. In 1961 Chiang established the Project National Glory (PNG) for the recovery of China. Dazi Back Cihu is a former military base and was the command center of the PNG.

The Cihu Memorial Sculpture Park (Liang Jiang Wenyuan Yuanqu ming) was founded in 1997. Here was in 2000 started a collection of Chiang sculptures. There are a large number of bronze and stone statues of Chiang and other Kuomintang leaders. They have been donated from institutions from around the republic.

Chiang had between 27 and 30 guest houses around Taiwan.


Chiang Ching-kuo’s former home in Taipei is the Quihai House (Qihai Yusuo). The residence is located on Beian Road and was home for Chiang’s son for over 20 years. The first floor of the house was mostly used for receiving guests and family gatherings, while the second floor included office space and bedrooms for the former president and his family. The residence was listed as a municipal monument in 2006.


July 10, 2018

National Interest on July 9, 2018 warned that Taiwan faces an authoritarian threat from China. Professor June Teufel Dreyer called for greater vigilance in the West. Excerpts below:

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the rise of authoritarian governments. These administrations have been voted into office by their own citizens, sometimes in free and fair elections. Less talked about, however, is a democracy that is endangered by external pressure: Taiwan.

Since the victory of a presidential candidate it didn’t favor—the American and British educated Tsai Ing-wen—Beijing has been relentless in its pressures on this country of 23 million to join the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

…Chinese pressure forced the World Health Organization to bar Taiwan from its deliberations. A specialized agency of the United Nations, the WHO plays a major role in efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases from one country to another. In this era of ubiquitous air travel and major population movements, excluding any country for whatever reasons could have severe consequences not only for that country but for the world at large. Likewise, and with similar potential for disaster, China has made sure that Taiwan cannot join international aviation agreements or Interpol.

Four countries—Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Panama and Burkina Faso—have broken diplomatic relations with Taiwan, lured by promises of lucrative business deals with China, and also reportedly by bribes to leaders. Beijing has hinted that more will follow. Negotiations with the Vatican, Taiwan’s last remaining European ally, are ongoing. Several countries have been told to remove Taiwan’s trade offices from their capital cities and even to change their names. The name changes are part of a larger effort to “disappear” Taiwan: under pressure from China, the huge Marriott hotel chain changed the name on its website from Taipei, Taiwan, to Taipei, China. Forty foreign airlines were ordered to do the same if they wished to continue flying to Chinese destinations.

The soft-spoken Tsai, Asia’s first female president, has several times indicated her desire for negotiations with China, but has been spurned, with her overture rejected as“an incomplete test paper.” The price of talks, Beijing made clear, is Tsai’s acknowledgement that Taiwan is part of China—in essence, requiring her to giving away her negotiating position as a precondition for negotiation.

Meanwhile, China has increased its attempts to subvert Taiwan from within. Through the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), which is responsible for operations that influence the politics of foreign countries to support party policies, Taiwan’s Communist Party and its New Party, which espouse unification with China, are lavishly funded even though they get very few votes. Both are perfectly legal under Taiwan law, although not all of their activities are.

At the tertiary level, students from Taiwan are offered scholarships at China’s most prestigious universities. Already, according to China’s official press agency, two Taiwanese studying at China’s highest rated institution, Beijing University, have applied to join the CCP, one of them vowing his fervent desire “to become a participant in the mainland’s joint rejuvenation.” The large number of PhDs from Taiwan universities who have not been able to find employment there have been offered jobs in China. In January, Taiwan-born Hsieh Kuo-chun was selected to the top advisory board of the CPPCC, the non-party institutional face of the united front.

Since the bulk of Taiwan’s trade is with China, special attention has been devoted to business people. Those who endorse policies favorable to China receive appointments to PRC organizations and favorable treatment for their investments; those who do not find opportunities cut off.

The United States, bound by congressional legislation to make sure that any resolution of Taiwan-China differences is peaceful and consonant with the wishes of the people involved, has expressed both concern and reassurance. In May, in a belated but nevertheless welcome acknowledgement of China’s actions, a State Department spokesperson accused China of unilaterally altering the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, thereby “undermining the framework that has enabled peace, stability, and development for decades.” A few months earlier, Congress passed, and President Donald Trump signed, the long-delayed Taiwan Travel Act, which facilitates the exchange of high level officials between Washington and Taipei. An agreement has also been reachedto share information that would allow representatives of Taiwan’s research institutions and its Ministry of Defense’s Armaments Bureau to visit their counterparts in the United States for collaborative projects.

…National Security Adviser John Bolton has said it may be time to rethink the basis of America’s China policy. In the Senate, bipartisan legislation seeks an investigation into Chinese political influence in the United States, which includes efforts to change its policy toward Taiwan. Similar investigations have been taking place in Australia and New Zealand.

June Teufel Dreyer is professor of political science at the University of Miami and a past commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission.

Comment: The time is now to rethink US China policy. Taiwan is an important link in the chain of countries that for a long time have aided the United States in checking Chinese strategic actions aiming at greater influence in the Pacific area. In this effort Japan and South Korea should be willing to support US counter efforts in support of Taiwan. It is indeed time to rethink the basis of US China policy.


July 7, 2018

President Chiang Kai-shek once said that the Chinese Communists would be defeated 70 percent by politics and 30 percent by the military. One of the moving spirits in implementing the Fu Hsing Kang idea (political warfare) was President Chiang Ching-kuo, who was director of the Defense Ministry’s Political Warfare Department when the college was founded. Both women and men were enrolled at this unique school.

The College of Political Warfare had an enrollment of about 1,800, including 160 women. Graduates went to the Armed Forces as first lieutenants and served as morale officers and in similar capacities. They also had military training. The school had eight departments: political science, law, journalism, foreign languages, fine arts, music, cinema and drama, and physical education. Equipment was excellent. Applicants had to be high school graduates with the final selection by competitive examination.

The college (now Political Warfare Bureau (PWB) is situated at the base of Tatun Mountain on the Tamsui River in the Taipei area. Each student is required to pursue one solo activity and both radio and television, for example, are taught through actual pratice.

PWB was established at the Whampoa Military Academy as early as in 1924. After retreating to Taiwan , the Kuomintang government reformed the political warfare system in April 1950, and changed the original title, Political Work Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense, to Political Department of the Ministry of National Defense. In May 1951, it was renamed as the General Political Bureau. Later in August 1963, it was finally named the General Political Warfare Department, with several modifications to its organizational structure afterwards. On January 15th, 2000, the National Defense Act and the Organization Act of the Ministry of National Defense (the so called “Dual National Defense Acts”) were passed after the third reading at the Legislative Yuan. On January 29th of the same year, the Dual National Defense Acts were enacted by the President, establishing the legal basis for relevant political warfare system. After the Organizational Act of the Political Warfare Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense went through the legislative process, it was enacted and implemented in conjunction with the Dual National Defense Acts on March 1st, 2002.

The Bureau has been a first level agency under the Ministry of National Defense, commanded by the Minister of National Defense. As the highest commanding organization over political warfare of the national armed forces, it is responsible for the planning and supervision of the political warfare operations in the military. Externally, the focus of the political warfare operation will be on “propaganda and promotion”, “psychological warfare”, and “civilian services”. Internally, the Bureau will make “psychological counseling”, “psychological warfare training”, “military news handling” and “cultivation of soldiers’ spirits and combat abilities” the priority, in hope of achieving the goal of “Winning the Final Victory with Self Reinforcement”.

In the years after 1974, an increasing number of Central American officers went to Taiwan for political warfare training. Taiwanese political warfare manuals became commonplace on the bookshelves of this military personnel and Taiwan began holding military training courses in situ on ideology, counterinsurgency, political warfare and information extraction techniques.

For Further reading see “Political warfare : the missing link in the defence of the West” (1986) by Swedish author Bertil Häggman. The title is registered in the catalogue of the Library of Congress, Washington DC. The booklet was published by the Ukrainian Central Information Service in London, UK, and the Ukrainian Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.


June 19, 2018

Den hette Kampfgruppe gegen Unmenschlichkeit (KgU) eller Kampgruppen mot omänsklighet och hade grundats av den unge tyske juristen Rainer Hildebrandt på 1950-talet. Medlemmarna tog sig på hemliga vägar över till Östtyskland. Regimen i Östberlin hade stora svårigheter att spåra dem.

Huvudvikten låg dock på psykologisk krigföring med användande av flygblad. Miljoner av dessa smugglades in i den av Sovjet ockuperade zonen av Tyskland. Flygbladen spreds med hjälp av tiotusentals ballonger som varje dag, främst på sommaren, sändes i väg i mindre paket.

Vidare publicerades den antikommunistiska satiriska tidskriften Tarantel (Giftspindeln) och Kleiner Telegraph (Lilla telegrafen). Folkpolisen i Sovjetzonen hade stora svårigheter att stoppa den antikommunistiska informationskampanjen.

När KgU:s verksamhet upphörde inledde det tyska försvarets Avdelning för psykologiskt försvar en egen kampanj. Mellan 1961 och 1965 skickades mer än 100 miljoner flygblad österut med ballonger främst från området kring städerna Münster och Ulm. Utbildningen av ballongenheterna skedde i slottet Alfter och chef för utbildningen var överste dr Karl Christian Trentsch.

Den nya avspänningspolitiken under socialdemokraten Willy Brandt medförde att den psykologiska krigföringskampanjen upphörde under 1965, något som uppskattades av den tyska vänstern, både kommunister och socialdemokrater inom vänsterfalangen.

European Support for the U.S. Freedom Academy Concept During the Cold War

June 8, 2018

Preview of Vol.3 to be published in October 2018

Mr. Bertil Haggman, LLM, author

Publishing House Bertil Haggman

Vol. 3


ISBN 978-91-983996-1-5


Communist Political Warfare Training
The Orlando Committee and Alan G. Grant Jr.
The Freedom Academy
The Freedom Studies Center
A 1976 Seminar of the Freedom Studies Center


This is Volume 3 of Bertil Haggman’s political memoirs. The first volume was published by Kindle Direct Publishing in 2015 and is available from Kindle as an e-book. The second volume will be published in September 2018 on Bertil Haggman’s blog Academies like the Freedom Academy are important as a tool of freedom and democracy. This author has in the Swedish magazine Contra called for an American Freedom Academy to be established in the ongoing global war on terror.

Glimakra June 2018

Bertil Haggman


The American Freedom Academy concept is worth remembering in a time when the West is again challenged.. It was during the Cold War for decades much debated in the United States. It is a fascinating story on how an Orlando, Florida, grass roots group managed to attract interest, both in Congress and media, for a political warfare academy, a ‘civilian West Point’ to counteract hundreds of political warfare schools in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

Here the term political warfare refers to warfare other than military action used to enforce the will of a state upon its foe. Political war may be combined with violence, economic pressure, subversion, and diplomacy but the chief aspect is propaganda (if waged by a totalitarian state), information (when used by a democracy) and psychological warfare (Paul A. Smith Jr., On Political War, Washington D.C., 1989, pp. 3 and 227).

My interest in this subject stems from the fact that in 1966, when a privately financed freedom academy was inaugurated. I was the chairman of the Free Asia Committee in Scandinavia, an initial cooperating agency of the center. In my private archive I have letters exchanged on the subject and material related to the importance that the West establishes a sort of West Point for defense against communist psycho-political warfare.

The basic agenda in the field would be to educate citizens on the dangers of communist ideology not only in the United States but in all non-communist countries.

Communist Political Warfare Training

Communist political warfare was during the Cold War part of the revolutionary global civil war of communism from 1917 to 1991. It had its roots in the French revolution. V.I. Lenin argued that if a revolution was to be successful it had to be led by professional revolutionaries.

There were hundreds of Communist political warfare training schools in the Soviet Union and in other countries as well as on other continents. Best known is the central International Lenin School (ILS) established in 1926. Subjects were guerrilla warfare, revolutionary techniques, armed uprising, agitation and propaganda, political warfare etc.

The most common name in the West for the most important political warfare school in the Soviet Union is the International Lenin School but it has also been described as university, academy, institute and college (Lenin Institute of Political Warfare and Lenin University). Underneath is a quote from the testimony of Professor Stefan Possony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) :

“When Michael V. Frunze became Commissar of War in 1924 he started preparing for the establishment of a system of advanced training academies for foreign communists to make them professional revolutionaries. In 1925 the Hungarian Bela Kun, chief of Comintern’s Agit-Prop Department announced plans for a new Comintern school and the Lenin School was established in May, 1926. By 1959 the school had processed 120,000 pupils. The first graduating class was in 1928. ”….students came from many countries and were given an unusually intensive three year course designed to train them in all of the arts of a total power struggle. Guerrilla warfare, armed uprising, agitation and propaganda, legal and illegal methods, as well as advanced indoctrination in Marxism-Leninim, were all in the curriculum.” (United States Congress. Hearings on the Freedom Academy Bill 1964, p. 1194).

Teachers included Soviet leaders Stalin, Manuilsky, Bukharin, Molotov, Kuusinen, and Trotsky, before he had to escape from the Soviet Union (see below).

The school had two courses: the full course ran for three years while there was also a short course of one year.

One of the most extensive FBI reports on ILS in a synopsis of facts stated:

“Informants report Lenin School (LS) founded 1926 in Moscow, Russia to train Communist leaders from other countries both politically and practically. Other schools, such as Far Eastern University, also in progress in Russia simultaneously with LS. Branch of LS believed to have operated in Sweden. American students for LS were selected by CP, USA. A quota for each country assigned by Communist International. Those who were considered to be leadership material were selected. Travel to the school was paid by the CP and student received a subsistence for themselves and for their families while at school. Some informants state they were instructed to protect their identity while traveling. Students at LS transferred CP membership from country of origin to CP of Russia. At school, students were interviewed and indoctrinated concerning security. Most students assumed aliases at school. LS term was from 1 to 3 years. Classes held in various languages simultaneously. Instructors at LS were chiefly from Russia. Courses covered marxist philosophy and economics, history of CP movement, history of trade union work. Students received instructions in military training, firearms and illegal work. Some FBI informants report receiving instructions in espionage and sabotage. After completion of course at school, students toured Russia. Some were assigned in departments of CP of Russia. Others returned to country of origin to assume leadership role. Some students utilized as couriers during and after school year” (FBI Report, August 2, 1954, New York. Title: The Lenin School. 71 p.).

After the Soviet collapse it has been confirmed that the Soviets regarded ILS as very secret:

“Much of what went on at the ILS was secret. In 1930, William Weinstone, the CPUSA’s representative to the Comintern, rebuked the CPUSA’s Secretariat for publishing an article about the school. Weinstone told his comrades that the article ‘has aroused the School Administration and the students because there must be absolutely no publicity given in regard to the school or any of its activities…nothing like this must be repeated.” He also reminded the party not to send material to the students using an ILS address”
(H.Klehr, J.E. Haynes, F.I. Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism, New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 202).

Some of the more prominent pupils of the Lenin School were:

Chou En-lai, China
Harry Pollit, Great Britain
Sanzo Nosaka, Japan
Ernst Thaelmann, Germany
Maurice Thorez, France
Gus Hall, USA
L.L. Sharkey, Australia
Joseph Z. Kornfeder, Chzechoslovak-American communist defector
Sam Darcy, USA
Leonard Patterson, USA

Extensive material in files of the FBI is available on American trainees, but much information is blacked out.

Joseph Z. Kornfeder when testifying for the HCUA in 1959, presented as exhibit the curriculum of the Lenin School, which he had attended (“Curriculum”, Lenin University, Moscow, U.S.S.R., (as of 1944).

Below are the names of other Comintern training centers:

University of the Toilers of the East, Moscow (replaced the Tashkent School) was established on May 18, 1921. See also under section 8 below.

Trainees: Ho Chi-minh, Vietnam
Nalini Gupta, India
Raden Darsono, Indonesia

The Central European School in Moscow mainly had students from Balkan and Baltic countries.

The Sun Yat-sen University (Far Eastern University), Moscow trained Chinese communists. General Krivitsky wrote on this “university”:

“When the Comintern began to turn its attention to China, it created a university of the east, the so called Sun Yat-sen University, with Karl Radek at the head. Moscow was then in a frenzy of optimism over the prospects of a Soviet revolution in China. Sons of generals and high Chinese officials were invited to attend this special training school. Among them was the son of Chiang Kai-shek (Krivitsky, In Stalin’s Secret Service, NewYork: Enigma Books, 2000, p. 51).

The communist political warfare training system later went in the direction of greater diversification. For example, the Frunze Military Academy, for a while was the highest institution of military learning. It was established in 1918. This school was the equivalent of the Command and Staff School in the United States, something like the Ecole de Guerre in Paris.

In 1936 a new institution was created, the Voroshilov Higher Military Academy, which was the equivalent, on a somewhat higher level, of the National War College. It embraces all three military services, but, unlike the National War College, which is teaching essentially on the level of colonels, a great deal of the teaching at the Voroshilov Academy is at the flag rank level. In addition, it has extension courses, a research institute on doctrine, and also offers refresher courses for earlier graduates… (United States Congress. HCUA Hearings 1959, p. 81).

Among the trainees: Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslavia

The Tashkent School, Tashkent, Central Asia was established by Lenin in 1919 to train Asian communists. A special complex,”India House”, was to train Indian communists.

Trainees: Shankat Usman, India
Fazl Qurban, Pakistan
Manabenda Nath Roy, India

The New Lenin Institute (Institute of Social Sciences, Institute for Social Studies, International School of Marxism-Leninism), Moscow, was set up in 1967 and taught a systematic course in revolutionary techniques:

“…training [was] part of a systematic course in revolutionary techniques which has been on offer to carefully select Communists since 1967 but the existence of which was revealed only in 1973.The courses [were] run by the Lenin Institute,…Each course lasted about six months.” 300 to 600 were enrolled at any given time. The largest group was from Latin America. The training consisted of courses in armed and unarmed combat and guerrilla war, illegal operations, social psychology, open and clandestine journalism, subversive use of posters, radio, television, public speaking, and Marxist-Leninist ideology” (Brian Crozier, “Aid to terrorism”, Annual of Power and Conflict 1973-74 – A Survey of Political Violence and International Influence, London: Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1974).

Support in Scandinavia for the Subjugated Nations of the Soviet Empire 1943 to 1991

June 7, 2018

Preview of political memoir Vol.2 to be published in September 2018

Bertil Haggman, LL.M., author

Publishing House Bertil Haggman



All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without permission from the publisher.

ISBN 978-91-983996-0-8




The Organizations


From the beginning of the 1960s I knew personally H.E. Prime Minister Yaroslav Stetsko and his wife Slava Stetsko. They were leaders in a struggle to set the subjugated peoples of the Soviet Union free. Yaroslav Stetsko survived the Second World War with Stepan Bandera. After the assassination of Bandera in Munich, Germany, in 1959 the Stetskos took over the heavy responsibility to lead the Ukrainians and other peoples toward freedom. Mr. Stetsko did not live to see the collapse of the Soviet tyranny but his wife Slava did. She was even elected to the Rada in Kyiv in the 1990s.

There were a number of Scandinavians who supported and worked with the Stetskos. Some of them are mentioned in this second volume of my political memoirs. It is an attempt to show the link of Sweden and Denmark with Ukraine and the Baltic countries in the fight for freedom and democracy since 1943.

When the archives of ABN-EFC will be available in the future it makes it possible to more in detail describe the struggle that started in 1943 in Ukraine. Unfortunately the archive of the Baltic Committee in Sweden was lost in the years after 1991. Thus it has been possible to reconstruct some of its work only by way of the unpublished memoirs of its first chairman, Professor Birger Nerman of Stockholm. The book Baltiska Kommittén 1943 – 2008 (Stockholm 2008) mentioned below is based on excerpts from the memoirs of Professor Nerman. It is available in Swedish only but deserves translation into both English and Ukrainian.

In Swedish historiography the Soviet view concerning the liberation struggle of the subjugated peoples seems still, in 2017,
to play a role .

Glimakra in August, 2017

Bertil Haggman


The Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, the European Freedom Council and the Baltic Committee in Sweden were three important anti-communist organizations during the Cold War. A recent book on the Baltic Committee offers an opportunity of closer examination of these cornerstones of resistance to Soviet communism and imperialism for almost 50 years (see under Further Reading).

The Organizations

The Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN) was a co-ordinating center for anti-Communist political organizations from Soviet and other communist countries. The ABN attributes its existence and its ideological foundations to an underground conference of representatives of non-Russian peoples that took place during November 21-22, 1943, near Zhytomyr on the initiative of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. It was then a platform of joint revolutionary struggle against Russian communism was formulated. The goal of the ABN was to make the Soviet Union a real union of national states. It was organized in Munich, Germany, in 1946, and soon extended its scope of activity to include the Eastern European emigration. The following organizations were members of the ABN from its start or for periods of time: ‘Free Armenia’ Committee, Bulgarian National Front, Belorussian Central Council, Cossack National Liberation Movement, Croatian National Liberation Movement, Czech Movement for Freedom (Za Svobodu), Czech National Committee, Estonian Liberation Movement, Union of the Estonian Fighters for Freedom, Georgian National Organization, Hungarian Liberation Movement, Hungarian Mindszenty Movement, Latvian Association for the Struggle against Communism, Lithuanian Rebirth Movement, Slovak Liberation Committee, National Turkestanian Unity Committee, United Hetman Organization, and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Bandera faction). In the 1970s two anti-Communist organizations, For the Freedom of Vietnam and Cuba Libre, joined the ABN. It had membership organizations in the United States of America, Canada, Great Britain and ABN support groups, such as the American Friends of the ABN in the United States in others countries like Belgium, Italy and Australia. Here ABN was represented by branch offices and groups. Youth sections of the ABN were active in Great Britain and the United States. The list of membership organizations above may not be complete.

The ABN was headed by Yaroslav Stetsko from the foundation to 1986, the year of his death. He was succeeded by his widow, Slava Stetsko. The chairmen of the ABN Peoples’ Council included V. Berzins, V. Kajum-Khan, F. Ďurčanský, F. Farkas de Kisbarnak, and R. Ostrowski. The long-time general secretaries were N. Nakashidze and C. Pokorný. The ABN disbanded in 1996 following the dissolution of the USSR.

The ABN conducted information-propaganda activity through its periodical and non-periodical publications in various languages, including the bimonthly ABN Correspondence (1950–96; initially in English, German, and French, later in English only). Also associated with the ABN was the journal L’est européen (Paris).

The headquarters and cells of the ABN organized mass anti-Soviet rallies, protest demonstrations, press conferences, and international congresses, and the distribution of various memoranda. The ABN co-operated with the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) and closely with the European Freedom Council (EFC). Representatives from the ABN and related organizations participated in the congresses of the WACL and EFC.

Ukrainians formed the most active group in the ABN (specifically, the OUN (b) and organizations of the Ukrainian Liberation Front) and were also the main financers of its activities.

The European Freedom Council (EFC) was formed in Munich in 1967. It was to be an international coordinating body for organizations fighting for freedom and against communism.

1968 was not only the year of the brutal Soviet aggression against Czechs and Slovaks. Also it was the year of the visit of Alexei Kosygin to Sweden on July 11 to 13. Several Swedish organizations including the Baltic Committee organized a mass rally on Sergel Square in Stockholm attended by 3,000 participants. The rally was followed by a protest march which ended in a meeting with Swedish and international speakers. Two press conferences were held. One was for foreign correspondents in Sweden and the other for the journalists attending the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Uppsala.

In May 1970 the EFC met for an Executive Board meeting in Munich. Among the members of the board were the President Ole Bjoern Kraft, former Danish Foreign Minister, Chairman Jaroslav Stetsko of ABN, Ivan Matteo Lombardo, former Italian Minister of Foreign Trade, and Professor Theodor Oberländer, former German Federal Minister. The Board adopted a number of resolutions. One dealt with “The Year of Lenin” exposing him as one of the most cruel tyrants and perpetrators of genocide of all times and nations. It was pointed out that UNESCO, an organ of the United Nations, at the request of the Soviets, adopted a resolution proclaiming V.I.Lenin a “great humanist”.
On November 12 – 16, 1970, a joint international conference of ABN and EFC was held in Brussels. Hundreds of greetings were sent to the conference from among others Prince Albert of Belgium, Archduke Otto von Habsburg, the Spanish Information Minister Sanchez Bella, Franz Josef Strauss, head of the Bavarian Christian Social Union and former German Federal Minister, the Canadian NATO delegation and various members of parliament of the United States, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, India, Vietnam, Japan, Spain and from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Polish Government in Exile (London).

President Ole Bjoern Kraft of the EFC participated along with other members of the Council Board. President Kraft took part in a joint ABN – EFC press conference on the 13th. At next day’s EFC session Malta was admitted as member of the Council. President Kraft reported on the activity of EFC. Country reports were presented. Ole Bjoern Kraft was reelected president of EFC. Yaroslav Stetsko and Ivan Matteo Lombardo were reelected chairmen of the EFC Executive Board. On November 15 a mass rally was held at the Odergem Cultural Center in the Belgian capital attended by over 1,000 people. A reception was later given. Former Prime Minister Yaroslav Stetsko of the ABN in Brussels was to meet with the former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paul-Henri Spaak, a long time Secretary General of NATO.

At a meeting in June 1971 in Bonn, Germany, EFC adopted two resolutions. The first protested against and condemned the sequence of crimes and violations of human rights committed by the Russian Communist regime against the Ukrainian and other subjugated peoples. The second treated the responsibility to the Third World.

At an Executive Board meeting in Bonn in March1972 the EFC defended arrested writers in Ukraine and defended Human Rights and the rights of all nations to independence. EFC in the same resolution condemned Russian terrorism, wholesale persecution, and the imprisonment of freedom fighters and appealed for the release of all political prisoners in the Soviet Russian empire.

From Copenhagen at the Executive Board Meeting of the EFC in May 1973 President Ole Bjoern Kraft signed a statement protesting the mass imprisonment and harsh sentences meted out to cultural leaders and fighters for national independence and human rights in the countries subjugated in the Soviet Union. EFC also supported the strengthening of NATO.

To mark the 30th Anniversary of its foundation (on November 21-22, 1943, in Zhytomir, Ukraine) the ABN convened an international conference in London, August 24 – 27, 1973. On August 25 the EFC held a closed session with an opening address of President Kraft. Minister Kraft was then elected Honorary President of EFC and Honorary Member of the ABN Presidium. At the end of the closed session a statement was made on the international situation and the need to strengthen Western support of the oppressed nations fighting for national and human rights. An open session followed with a speech of Minister Kraft on the international situation and the tasks of EFC. On August 26 a mass rally was held at Trafalgar Square with 4,000 participants.

20 years after its founding the EFC was headed by an Honorary Presidium of President H.R.H. Otto von Habsburg, M.E.P., Sir Neil Cameron (Great Britain), Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Mr. Yaroslav Stetsko (Ukraine) – former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mr. Manuel Fraga Iribarne, M.P. (Spain) – President of the party Alianza Popular (AP) and Senator Dr. Cihad Fethi Tevetoglu (Turkey).

The Baltic Committee (BK) was formed in April of 1943. Originally it consisted of four Baltic and four Swedish members of which one of the Swedes was Professor Birger Nerman (see below). The first task of the Committee was to publish a book on the Baltic peoples (Har de rätt att leva? Inför de baltiska folkens ödestimma, Do They Have a Right to Live? On a Fatal Hour of the Baltic Peoples). It had several contributors when it was published in the fall of 1943. The introduction was authored by former Estonian President and Minister August Rei. The book was followed by a series of booklets.

After the Second World War the Committee was active in trying to prevent the extradition of Baltic officers and soldiers who had fought the Soviets during the end of the war and had escaped to Sweden to avoid the revenge of the Communists. In 1955 the Baltic Committee organized a large meeting in Stockholm. The reason was the Geneva meeting of the great powers to negotiate the relations between West and East.

In 1956 a protest meeting was again organized in Stockholm. The Swedish government had invited a Soviet delegation of parliamentarians in which Baltic Communists was a part. The party leader of the Conservative Party of Sweden, Jarl Hjalmarson, spoke at the event. In November 1956 meetings to protest the Soviet crushing of the freedom rebellion in Hungary were held. At a mass rally in Stockholm a prominent speaker was the Liberal Party leader Bertil Ohlin.

Two years later the Committee protested the meeting of the Communist World Peace Council in Stockholm. The same year started what was to be an extensive Committee work on the international scene. A Swedish section of Comité International de Défence de la Civilisation Chretienne was formed.

In 1959 Khrushchev was invited to Sweden. Preparations for protests during his visit were made but the visit was cancelled. The extensive international contacts were continued.

A special June Committee was formed to protest the visit by Chrushchev in 1964 to Sweden and a book, Friheten möter diktatorn (Freedom Meets the Dictator) was published. The June committee was revived in 1966 when a visit by Soviet Premier Aleksey Kosygin to Sweden was announced. A new book was published, Frihet vid fritt hav (Freedom At a Free Sea). In the end the visit was cancelled. Kosygin, however, came to Sweden in 1968 and was met by extensive protests organized by the Baltic Committee and the June Committee.

It was in 1964 at a conference in Lund, Sweden, that I for the first time met Mrs. Slava Stetsko. First, however, a few words on an important media event in Stockholm in June 1964.

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yaroslav Stetsko, and his wife, Slava Stetsko, held a ceremonial wreath-laying ceremony at the memorial of the Swedish King Karl XII. In the eighteenth century Sweden and Ukraine were allies against Russia during the Great Northern War (1700 – 1721). The message behind this gesture was clear. Khrushchev was outraged, a fact international media used with relish.

Interestingly, another fact was left nearly untouched by media: the Stetskos had not acted as simple anti-Soviet emigrants; rather, they acted as leading members of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN).

In May 1964 an anticommunist conference was held in the university town of Lund, Sweden organized by the anticommunist organization, Inform – Free Political Information Service.

In March 1964 delegates of the Danish anti-communist organization Demokratisk Alliance, the Swedish anti-communist student organization Inform (formed in 1963 by Bertil Haggman, Sten Pålsson and Per-Erik Jangvert, three students of law at the University of Lund) and the West German organization of the international anticommunist network Comité International d’Information et d’Action Sociale (CIAS) had met in the Danish capital Copenhagen.

Even though it was mainly arranged for Swedish anti-communists, many of its participants were Ukrainian and Estonian emigrants—members of the ABN, Baltiska Kommittén (Baltic Committee), and the Estonian exile government administration. Furthermore, West Germans, members of the German territorial associations and anti-communist organizations, like the Vereinigung der Opfer des Stalinismus and the Ostpolitischer Studentenbund, attended the conference as well. Lectures were given, declarations prepared and decisions about pan-Scandinavian campaigns against Khrushchev’s visit were passed. Some of these had been with the support of Noemi Eskul-Jensen, a founding member of the Demokratisk Alliance of Denmark. It has been claimed that she had been encouraged in that effort by Alfred Gielen of the CIAS.

After the conference, selected delegates of Swedish, exiles and foreign organizations as well as several foreign experts met at a vacation home in a forest outside Lund, Sweden, to vote on ‘the actual’ next steps. Some of the participants were Mr. Mucenieks, representative of the Russian tradition union La Sentinelle in Brussel. Journalist Jon Skard, a Conservative Norwegian expert on psychological defense and warfare had to cancel his visit. Exiled Ukrainians and exiled Estonians were considerably involved as well. Concrete anti-communist activities were discussed and plans for information campaigns in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark campaigns against Krushchev were agreed upon.

I was delighted to take part in the conference as one of the organizers and pleased to meet Mrs. Stetsko, who lectured on the important nationalities question in the Soviet Union. In the beginning of the 1980s the EFC formed the Institute for a Political-Psychological Freedom Campaign (IPPFC). As its director I had the opportunity to serve first with Yaroslav Stetsko and then with Slava Stetsko. EFC made yearly statements at its conferences which I prepared. At the London conference in 1985 it was concluded that active Western policies during the 1980s had resulted in less Soviet influence in the world. Communism was clearly NOT the wave of the future. In 1987 the statement was headlined “Educated Public, Media – Best Defense Against USSR”.

Also in 1985 I was invited to speak at the conference “Ukraine during World War II” (June 4-8, 1985, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the United States).

At the University of Illinois I treated the Ukrainian resistance from 1942 to 1952 as a model for modern combat on communist territory (see below in the chapter “Lecturing in Canada in 1985”.

Two proposals were made by IPPFC in London. The first proposal was to publish a brochure on the work of EFC in support of the liberation of the subjugated peoples behind the Iron Curtain. The second proposal was to publish a booklet titled “Who Is the Imperialist?” which would detail Soviet subjugation of a number of nations since the beginning of the 20th century.

In 1993 IPPFC issued memoranda on the possible creation of An International Tribunal on the CPSU, the Communist Political System, Ideology and their Legacy.


June 4, 2018

1 juni 2018

T-kontorets inrikesverksamhet var av allt att döma av mycket begränsad omfattning. T-kontorets tonvikt på utrikes underrättelser framgår av de rapporter som bevarats i T-kontorets filmade arkiv (nu i Krigsarkivet) samt i de rapporter som delgavs säkerhetspolisen och som där arkiverats under några olika källbeteckningar.

Inriktningen låg på utländsk verksamhet. Men svenska företeelser i sig kunde vara av intresse. Rättshistorikern och tidigare ordföranden i Konservativa Studentförbundet, Erik Anners, spelade i detta sammanhang en viss roll.

Vid den kommunistiska Världsungdomsfestivalen i Helsingfors 1962 deltog fyra konservativa studenter från Lund respektive Uppsala som observatörer för T-kontorets räkning. De två från Lund var bägge engagerade i Konservativa studentföreningen i Lund. En av dem blev sedermera hovrättsdomare och den andre kom ett spela en betydelsefull roll i Moderata Samlingspartiet mediapolitik. Bägge är nu avlidna.

Det är möjligt att de två från Lund inte var medvetna om att det ytterst var för T-kontorets räkning som de deltog i festivalen. Det kan ha varit så att de trodde att de istället deltog för det Konservativa studentförbundets räkning.

För att undvika att T-kontorets representanter hamnade i säkerhetstjänsternas register delgav man även säkerhetspolisen namnen på de konservativa studenter som skickats till Helsingfors. I säkerhetspolisens handlingar framgår också att tre av dessa strukits och alltså inte blev registrerade. Den fjärde, den blivande domaren från Lund, hade till Thede Palms (chef för T-kontoret) stora irritation, rest med falsk legitimation. Han kallade sig Stig Persson och därför också registrerats under sitt falska namn. Orsaken till att han använde en falsk legitimation var att han deltagit i aktioner i Berlin som syftade till att hjälpa människor att fly från östsidan.

Han kunde naturligtvis inte återfinnas varken i folkbokföringen eller vid Lunds Universitet, men registreringen kvarstod ändå till i april 1973.

Parallellt med denna studentkontakt etablerade T-kontoret i början av 1962 direktkontakt med en student i Lund som kom att rapportera om företeelser med anknytning till stadens akademiska liv under resten av 1960-talet. Hösten 1962 tilldelades källan täcknamnet ”Kandidaten”.

”Kandidaten” (i denna artikel används också initialerna JP för att beteckna denne) kom från en mindre ort i nordvästra Skåne och studerade slavistik. Inledningsvis rapporterade ”Kandidaten” mestadels om förhållanden och personer på den universitetsinstitution där han verkade (Slaviska språk). Från 1964 kom dock rapporteringen att vidgas till att omfatta vänsteraktivitet i Lund och kommunistisk infiltrationsverksamhet.

Namnet på ”Kandidaten” är känt av denna bloggare. Han är numera avliden. Vi bodde under några år på Helsingkrona nation på Tornavägen i Lund i samma korridor och hade långa och intressanta samtal om situationen bakom järnridån. ”Kandidaten” var en trevlig och vänlig person och som antikommunist kände jag samhörighet med hans åsikter. Vi hade tagit studenten vid samma skola.

”Kandidaten” etablerade kontakt med vår studentkrets, Informgruppen, som grundades 1963 av Sten Pålsson, Per-Erik Jangvert och denne bloggare. Vi var alla juridikstuderande som på egen hand och i samarbete med likasinnade i Danmark och andra länder verkade för att upplysa om kommunismen och faran av kommunistisk infiltration med huvudinriktning på det växande vänsterinflytandet i Lund.

Bertil Häggman blev jur kand vid Lunds universitet 1964. Efter ca 30 år som kronofogde är han pensionerad sedan 2001. Han debuterade som författare 1971 och har publicerat över 150 böcker och tidskriftsartiklar. Häggman bor i Östra Göinge kommun.

Sten Pålsson blev jur kand vid Lunds universitet och utbildade sig till domare. Han var bland annat sakkunnig vid rättssekretariatet på Utrikesdepartementets handelsavdelning 1988 – 1992. Under en rad år var han juridiskt sakkunnig vid Domkapitlet i Lunds stift. Pålsson var bland annat författare till den grundläggande skriften ”EG-fördragets inledande bestämmelser” (Publica EU: Kommentar till EG-rätten), 1996). Han är numera avliden.

Efter jur kand vid Lunds universitet blev även Per-Erik Jangvert domare. Han var också reservofficer. Jangvert är numera avliden.

Vilken var då denna konservativa grupp i Lund? I T-kontorets mikrofilmade arkiv finns ett brev från Bo Anstrin, som ansvarade för verksamheten i Malmö med omnejd, till T-kontoret daterat den 21 november 1963. I brevet omtalar Anstrin att hans ”sagesman” i Lund kommit i kontakt med två medlemmar i den Konservativa Studentföreningen i Lund. En av dessa var ingen mindre än den student, som året innan med falsk identitet rest till Helsingfors för att delta i Världsungdomsfestivalen, det vill säga Sten Pålsson.

Anstrins brev till Palm var emellertid inte första gången som svenska myndigheter uppmärksammade de antikommunistiska lundastudenterna. I maj 1963 hade det svenska sändebudet i Bonn i Västtyskland, Ole Jödahl, mottagit ett brev från ordföranden i den västtyska organisationen Kuratorium Unteilbares Deutschland, Dr Wilhelm Wolfgang Schütz. Kuratoriet grundades den 17 juni 1954 och var en bred, närmast officiös organisation, med antikommunism och kamp för tysk enhet på sitt program. Dr Schütz hade kontaktats av en representant för en svensk organisation med namnet Kamp mot kommunismen (KMK, som sedan blev Inform) med önskemål om litteratur och propagandamaterial varför Schütz nu ville efterhöra Informs systerorganisation i Danmark hette Demokratisk Alliance. Personer ur denna grupp samarbetade åtminstone i början av 1970-talet med den danska militära underrättelsetjänsten, Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste. Ledande kontaktman var Henning Jensen.

För beskickningen i Bonn var KMK en helt okänd organisation och därför ville ambassaden i Västtysklands huvudstad att UD skulle före-ta en diskret undersökning. Som bilaga till Jödahls handbrev, som var ställt till byråchefen vid UD, Lars von Celsing, fanns en kopia av ett brev som Dr Schütz erhållit från en juridikstuderande i Lund.

I brevet presenterades KMK:s program som innehöll planer på en konferens i början av september 1963 med föredrag och filmer mot kommunismen. Till konferensen hade även inbjudits personer från olika exilorganisationer. I och för detta önskade KMK/Inform nu komma i kontakt med välkända antikommunistiska organisationer för att erhålla informationsmaterial.

I brevet nämndes också att en annan medlem planerade att göra ett besök hos Dr Schütz för att närmare redogöra för KMK:s program. Enligt Dr Schütz hade denne juridikstuderande också mycket riktigt varit på besök hos Kuratoriet.

Förfrågan föranledde ingen annan åtgärd än att försvarsstaben vidarebefordrade uppgifterna till säkerhetspolisen. I en sammanfattande PM i september 1963 konstaterade säkerhetspolisen att KMK bildats av studenter vid Lunds universitet under våren 1963 och även gick under namnet Inform – fri politisk informationstjänst.

Omkring månadsskiftet juni-juli 1963 hade KMK i Lund och Trelleborg satt upp affischer mot svenskt deltagande i Östersjöveckan. I samband med utresan från Trelleborg samt ombord på färjan hade gruppen delat ut engelska, tyska och svenska antikommunistiska broschyrer. Materialet var huvudsakligen tryckt på västtyska tryckerier. Även östtyska radions utsändningar ska enligt säkerhetspolisen ha uppmärksammat KMK:s verksamhet.

De tyska kontakterna var emellertid inte de enda som KMK hade utomlands eller med representanter för främmande makt. Den 6 december 1963 inkom till statspolisintendent Thulin en PM skriven av Jan Lundvik på UD:s politiska avdelning. Lundvik hade några dagar tidigare samtalat med den brittiske ambassadsekreteraren Eland som berättat att han sedan någon tid stod i kontakt med en antikommunistisk grupp i Lund. Det var Per-Erik Jangvert som från brittiska ambassaden begärt informationsmaterial om kommunistiska förhållanden och fick nu regelbundet handlingar från Eland. I utbyte hade denne juris studerande lämnat prov på gruppens arbete vilket även väckt intresse bland experterna inom Foreign Office i London. En del av av informationerna angående förhållanden i Östtyskland hade man inte lyckats få från annat håll.

Juriststuderanden hade framfört önskemål om föredragshållare till gruppens sammankomster vilket nu Eland ville informera svenska UD om . Säkerhetspolisen noterade kontakterna i Västtyskland och med den brittiska ambassaden men ansåg uppenbarligen inte att detta utgjorde något problem ur säkerhetssynpunkt. Det var Inform som T-kontorets man i Lund (”Kandidaten”) hade kommit i kontakt med.

Enligt Bo Anstrins brev i november 1963 hade två av KMK:s medlemmar på egen hand i Lund bedrivit säkerhetsunderrättelsetjänst i syfte att avslöja den kommunistiska verksamheten inom universitetslivet i staden. De avslöjade kommunistinfiltration inom sitt eget politiska förbund, dels inom alla andra grenar av det akademiska livet i Lund.
Inform hade med en representant till Östersjöveckan i Rostock som tolk.

En person hade infiltrerat vänsterorganisationen Clarté.

På Ungdomsfestivalen i Helsingfors fanns också en representant.

Infiltratörerna stod helt utanför Konservativa Studentförbundet och kontakterna med dessa var mycket diskreta. På detta sätt hade insamlats rätt omfattande listor på kommunistsympatisörer samtidigt som man studerar metodiken för infiltration inom olika föreningar. Man undvek konsekvent medverkan från högerradikalt håll.

Anstrin ansåg det värdefullt om de uppgifter som de konservativa studenterna samlade in även kunde komma T-kontoret till del samt om man även kunde utöva viss styrning av verksamheten. För detta såg Anstrin tre möjliga vägar att gå. Antingen kunde T-kontoret stå i direkt förbindelse med den konservativa gruppen i Lund, eller så kunde man genom Anstrins kontakt ”Kandidaten”, låta förstå att en kanal fanns till den svenska underrättelsetjänsten. Den tredje möjligheten var att ”Kandidaten” på egen hand försökte få ut så mycket som möjligt av sina konservativa kontakter, vilket enligt Anstrin redan fungerade ”de facto”. Efter vilken linje kontakterna mellan T-kontoret och de konservativa studenterna i Lund utvecklades är inte helt klarlagt.

Samarbetet med T-kontoret skedde under konspirativa former var eller varannan månad. T-kontorets ansvarige i Malmö har uppgivit att han aktivt i början av 1960-talet sökte en person för uppdrag i Östeuropa. SÄPO förmedlade kontakt med en professor i Lund, som rekommenderade ”Kandidaten”. Från Slaviska institutionen i Lund gjorde denne regelbundna resor österut. Han var socialdemokrat med arbetarbakgrund, något som var viktigt för det parti som efter andra världskriget genom sin elit dominerade och kontrollerade Sverige. Då lämnades ensidigt uppgifter till Anstrin. Uppgifterna handlade om vänstern i Lund. Det förekom också att Anstrin kom med frågor som Informkontakten sökte besvara. Till kommissionen har uppgivits att Anstrin flera gånger bad om att få ta del av KMK/Informs register vilket han dock inte fick. Registret ska ha bestått av kortfattade notiser om vänstersympatisörer och omfattat några tusen personer. Enligt uppgift ska T-kontoret inte ha betalat för de upplysningar som erhölls annat än ersättning för utlägg. Sannolikt var det under år 1964 som ett mer etablerat samarbete mellan T-kontoret och KMK/Inform kom till stånd. Detta år fick T-kontoret nämligen del av KMK/Informs rapport från Östersjö- veckan 1963.

Även 1964 lyckades KMK/Inform infiltrera Östersjö- veckan vilket resulterade i en 30-sidig rapport som även delgavs säkerhetspolisen. Vad som ytterligare talar för att ett mer utvecklat samarbete kom till stånd omkring 1964 är en rapport från T-kontoret till säkerhetspolisen daterad den 16 mars 1964. Den är numera ”försvunnen” och har av författaren inte kunnat återfinnas i det SÄPO-arkiv, som förvaras på Riksarkivet.

Här bör nämnas att Anstrin uppmanade kandidaten att för att öka sin användbarhet vid operationer borde gå med i vänsterorganisationer som till exempel Clarté

I rapporten, som uppenbarligen var baserad på uppgifter från ”Kandidaten”, betecknades Clarté, Lunds Antikärnvapenkommitté och Sydafrikakommittén som ”mycket kraftigt kommunistinfiltrerade”. Vidare berättades i T-kontorets rapport att ”Kandidaten” tillsammans med med ”medhjälpare till honom” försökt skugga en person som brukade besöka föredrag arrangerade av den konservativa studentföreningen i Lund. Möjligen var de medhjälpare som nämns knutna till KMK/Inform.

Lundajuristen har dock i samtal med Säkerhetstjänstkommissionen uppgivit sig inte ha något minne av ”Kandidaten”. År 1965 slogs T-kontoret och Grupp B inom försvarsstaben ihop under ledning av Birger Elmér. Den nya organisationen fick så småningom namnet IB. De förtroliga meddelare som tidigare samarbetat med T-kontoret följde nu med in i den nya sammanslagna organisationen vilket inte torde ha inneburit några förändringar av vikt. ”Kandidaten” fortsatte därmed att rapportera som tidigare till Bo Anstrin. I SÄPO:s arkiv återfinns dock rapporterna från 1965 och framåt under källbeteckning ”Erik”.

Den 26 mars 1965 arrangerade Lunds antikärnvapenkommitté tillsammans med den Socialdemokratiska Studentklubben och Clarté debatt i Akademiska Föreningens konsertsal. Under rubriken ”Gagnar försvaret freden?” drabbade statssekreteraren Karl Frithiofson och ledaren för Demokratisk Ungdom, Kjell E Johansson, samman. Vid debatten var också ”Kandidaten” närvarande vilket resulterade i en rapport om debatten. I slutet av rapporten framgår att han i samband med debattkvällen anmälde sig som prenumerant och medlem i Clarté. Från denna stund måste ”Kandidaten” anses vara en infiltratör av studentvänstern i Lund. JP var chockad över extremismen i Lundagrupperna i vilka ingick personer som Jan Guillou, Jörn Svensson, Per Gahrton, Göran Rosenberg, Lars-Ola Borglid och Nordal Åkerman.

Under de följande åren skulle till IB och därifrån vidare till SÄPO inflyta en mängd rapporter om olika vänsteraktiviteter i Lund. Av rapporterna att döma blev IB:s infiltratör medlem i, förutom Clarté, även Lunds Vietnamkommitté, Lunds Socialdemokratiska Studentklubb, Svensk-Kinesiska Förbundet samt Föreningen Sverige-Tyska Demokratiska Republiken. I rapporterna varvades uppgifter om olika organisationers inre liv med tämligen närgångna personkarakteristiker. Det kan noteras att när Säkerhetstjänstkommissionen första gången förhörde Bo Anstrin om ”Kandidaten” förnekade Anstrin att denne kunde jämföras med Gunnar Ekberg som från slutet av 1960-talet infiltrerade Göteborgsvänstern. Efter att vid det sista förhöret förevisats dokumentation i stor mängd menade Anstrin nu att ”Kandidaten” utgjorde ett ”exakt parallellfall” till Ekberg. Anstrin menar att Ekbergs och ”Kandidatens” infiltrationsverksamhet var ämnad att stärka deras vänsteridentitet och inte i första hand att skaffa upplysningar om de vänstergrupper de gick in i.

Det är viktigt att konstatera att Anstrin själv säger sig inte ha känt till om någon samordning från försvarsstabens sida ägde rum 1963 för att kartlägga fredspropagandan i Lund eller om T-kontoret togs i anspråk för en sådan uppgift. T-kontoret ansvarade för underrättelseinhämtning utomlands.

Det är högst troligt att Anstrin hade regelbundna kontakter med min Inform-kollega Sten Pålsson. I Informs arkiv finns omfattande rapporter om Östtyskland och de kommunistiska Östersjöveckorna. I samband med rapporteringen inifrån Östtyskland fanns möjlighet till uppgifter om militära förhållanden. Som en ”biprodukt” förekom i rapporterna uppgifter om svenska kommunister. Då även borgerliga politiker med flera deltog i Östersjöveckorna är det också möjligt att dessa finns registrerade. Sannolikt var det så att Anstrin bad rapportörerna att hålla ögonen på svenska deltagare.

T-kontorets chef i Malmö bjöd aldrig in sina informatörer till bostaden och intressant är att konstatera att Anstrin inför Säkerhetstjänstkommissionen uppgav att han aldrig hört talas om KMK (Kamp mot kommunismen) eller Inform. Han hade, heter det i protokollet, haft kontakter med tusentals människor i tjänsten och kan omöjligt minnas dem alla.

Han fönekar också att han haft intresse för det påstådda Informregistret över kommunister och andra vänsteranhängare i Lund.

”Kandidaten” lämnade rapporter om vänsterorganisationerna i Lund fram till 1970 varefter han troligen fick andra arbetsuppgifter. Han är när detta skrivs avliden men hans hustru, nu i 80-årsåldern, bor kvar i Lund. Inform avvecklade sin verksamhet omkring 1967. En del av medlemmarna och ledningen fortsatte i Kommittén för ett fritt Asien (ordförande var Bertil Häggman) som bildades av konservativa och USA-vänliga kretsar som en motvikt till den svenska FNL-rörelsen.

Bertil Häggman


Den farliga fredsrörelsen SOU 2002:90 .

Anteckningar från kommissionsförhör med Bo Anstrin den 20 september 2001. Under förhöret biträddes Anstrin av advokaten Hans Ulric von der Esch.
Material ur Informs arkiv och ur Bertil Häggmans privatarkiv.

Giles Scott-Smith, Western Anti-Communism and the Interdoc Network – Cold War Internationale, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2012.

Skrifter “Östersjön – fredens hav?, Inform, 1963.

Minnesanteckningar från det förberedande förhöret med Bertil Häggman av Säkerhetstjänstkommissionen år 2000.


April 12, 2018

On November 7, 2017, the White House declared November 7 the National Day for the Victims of Communism. For official text see below:

Today,the National Day for the Victims of Communism, marks 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution gave rise to the Soviet Union and its dark decades of oppressive communism, a political philosophy incompatible with liberty, prosperity, and the dignity of human life.

Over the past century, communist totalitarian regimes around the world have killed more than 100 million people and subjected countless more to exploitation, violence, and untold devastation. These movements, under the false pretense of liberation, systematically robbed innocent people of their God-given rights of free worship, freedom of association, and countless other rights we hold sacrosanct. Citizens yearning for freedom were subjugated by the state through the use of coercion, violence, and fear.

Today, we remember those who have died and all who continue to suffer under communism. In their memory and in honor of the indomitable spirit of those who have fought courageously to spread freedom and opportunity around the world, our Nation reaffirms its steadfast resolve to shine the light of liberty for all who yearn for a brighter, freer future.


March 31, 2018

The Diplomat on March 29, 2018 reported on growing American concern about Chinese harm to national interests in the trade and investment area. Excerpts below:

[President Donald] Trump’s increasing anti-Chinese turn on U.S. industrial policy [has largely gone unnoticed].

Over the last five years, Chinese acquisitions in the United States boomed. As reported by the Rhodium Group, during this period Chinese companies invested $116 billion in the United States, raising the overall investments in the country to $138 billion. This sharp increase has produced several concerns in Washington, leaving many questioning the real intentions of the investors and their possible connections to the Chinese government.

A good share of these investments, indeed, have been directed toward strategic sectors with a high concentration of advanced technologies. Concerns stemmed from the possibility that these acquisitions could enable China to transfer cutting-edge technologies to its own companies, reinforce its high-tech industry, and pose a significant challenge to Washington’s technological supremacy.

Central to the reshaping of the relationship is the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States (CFIUS), an interagency committee tasked with reviewing inbound investments for national security concerns. Among its members, CFIUS includes the heads of the Department of Treasury (who chairs it), Commerce, Energy, State, Homeland Security, Defense, and other offices. Although usually working behind closed doors, it has the power to block multibillion dollar deals if they are judged detrimental to national interests.

The first evidence of the administration’s change of approach came last September, when CFIUS did not approve the acquisition of U.S. chipmaker Lattice by Canyon Bridge, a semiconductor investment fund sponsored by a Chinese state-owned asset manager.

Since December, the administration made its stance even more clear regarding the high-tech industry. The National Security Strategy document released that month labeled China as a “strategic competitor”and fixed as a priority the protection of the U.S. “innovation base” from IP theft by the Chinese in order to preserve the United States’ long-term competitive advantage.

Therefore, since January, a string of interventions highlighted this new outlook. First, the deal for Moneygram, the second biggest money transfer provider globally, came under fire. The acquisition for $1.2 billion had been agreed with Ant Financial, the financial arm of Alibaba specializing in internet and mobile payments. Alex Holmes, director general of Moneygram, acknowledged the changes in the geopolitical environment as one of the reasons behind CFIUS’ refusal to give the green light.

Shortly after, CFIUS discreetly raised its voice once more when it put on hold two investments by the Chinese conglomerate HNA into U.S. hedge fund SkyBridge Capital and miner Glencore until the the buyer provided adequate information about its shareholding structure.

A month later, the committee intervened again in order to make clear that it was unlikely that it could approve the acquisition of Xcerra, a U.S. semiconductor testing company.

Only a few days after the Moneygram deal collapse, Chinese smartphone manufacturer Huawei was going to announce a deal with U.S. telecom carrier AT&T, marking a breakthrough for its penetration into the U.S. market, when suddenly the partner company backed away.

Indeed, Washington has a long record of mistrust toward Huawei and the last move appears motivated by concerns over Beijing’s espionage and presence in a strategic sector like telecommunications.

…the most prominent chapter of this saga occurred this month, when CFIUS took some unusual steps to kill the biggest deal ever in the technology industry. Broadcom, a Singapore-based formerly U.S. tech company, offered $117 billion for the acquisition of rival Qualcomm, one of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturers and a prominent developer in the race for the next-generation high-speed wireless network known as 5G. Before the deal was even concluded, CFIUS made clear that it might not let the acquisition go through and soon Trump, building on the committee’s decision, issued an order to block the takeover.

This is probably the most interesting case to date because it shows a shift in how CFIUS thinks about the protection of national security.

After all, the massive bank borrowing required for the deal did anything but assuage that concern. Against that backdrop, CFIUS warned that China would be able to fill any void left by a “hostile” Qualcomm takeover: reducing its competitiveness and its standard-setting abilities, the committee said, would have a negative impact on U.S. national interests as Chinese companies such as Huawei would finally be able to take the lead in the development of the most advanced technologies. This, of course, could bear great military implications.

Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to reinforce CFIUS’ scrutiny powers. The reform, which appears to have bipartisan backing, would expand its jurisdiction to outbound investments from U.S. companies in order to fight China’s practices of forcing foreign enterprises to share their technologies in exchange for market access.

…economic tensions between Washington and Beijing are heightening. Despite Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s latest endeavors to reassure his counterparts, the U.S. perception that Chinese trade and investment practices are unfair and harmful for national interests is highly unlikely to go away and Trump’s announcement of a new round of tariffs last week proves that.