Archive for the ‘GEOPOLITICS’ Category


July 12, 2018

National Interest on July 10, 2018 published a kong article by Zalmay Khalilzad on the need for a NATO overhaul. Below excerpts from the article with the main proposals:

NATO is ill-structured, ill-equipped and ill-financed to deal with the European region’s two major security problems—an aggressive Russia and the spillover of instability and terrorism from the Middle East and North Africa—leaving aside emerging global security challenges. Worse, at times some members can even be said to have enabled the threat. One example being the massive German purchase of Russian gas, which provides Putin with ongoing financing. To deal effectively with these challenges on an equitable and sustained basis among allies, the terms of the partnership must be renegotiated and its common ground redefined. This is in Europe’s best interest too.

Many of NATO’s members have effectively disarmed since the end of the Cold War, with only eight of NATO’s twenty-eight members even spending the required 2 percent of GDP on defense.

A reformed NATO must hold members accountable in terms of actual military capabilities they can field. Those who care about NATO should criticize free-riding alliance members, not the efforts of Trump to get the alliance to up its game. At the same time, the Trump administration needs to articulate alliance priorities and the steps needed to adequately address them.

Specifically, the alliance should collectively take three steps to field an agreed set of defense outputs:

– Develop integrated defense plans within the NATO military committee for dealing with the Russian threat in northeast Europe, and instability and terrorist threats emanating from the Middle East and North Africa, thereby creating a strategy and a division of labor. This will entail a combined planning effort of the major NATO powers and the members living nearest or most directly affected by these threats.

– Agree to specific outputs—forces, weapons systems, operational capabilities, logistics support, and command and control—that each NATO member must develop and maintain at high readiness. This should take into account the capabilities that are needed now but also look to exploit emerging technologies to solve military problems more effectively as these technologies mature.

– Engage in realistic large-scale annual exercises—analogous the Exercise REFORGER of the Cold War—that will serve as a deterrent for would be aggressors, demonstrate resolve and compliance with NATO commitments and identify shortfalls for remediation.

In addition, the United States should candidly inform the European NATO members that the larger share of these agreed upon capabilities must come from them…They must also understand that the American public expects wealthy countries to defend themselves principally on their own, with the United States playing a supporting role on an as-needed basis.

We must deliver the hard message that the future of the U.S. commitment under Article 5 is contingent on European performance.

This would form the basis of a new global division of labor where America’s European allies assume the primary role for the security of Europe; the United States, Japan, South Korea and Australia would assume the primary role for security in the Western Pacific; and collectively, America and its global and regional allies would share roles in providing for security in the Middle East. Thus, working together, America and its allies would be meeting critical security demands in three critical regions.

A small tripwire force is inadequate to the task [of stopping Russia]

Among the capabilities that European NATO members would need to develop would include the following:

– An integrated air defense and surface-to-surface strike capability that would create an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) belt covering the territory of NATO members and extending into adjacent areas of Russia.

– A counter-A2/AD capability that would defeat Russia battle networks and weapons systems, and Moscow’s ability to threaten NATO forward-deployed forces and reinforcements.

– A special operations forces capability sufficient to counter Russia’s sub-conventional operations involving the so-called “little green men.”

– A ground maneuver force that would combine the kind of light infantry that Hezbollah used against Israel’s offensive forces with heavy armor and artillery units that would consolidate territorial control.

As part of the new NATO security construct, the United States should offer to take the following steps:

– Maintain a small, highly capable ground maneuver force in Europe that would partner with a larger European force.

– Maintain a POMCUS capability in Europe, proximate to the locales where it would likely be needed, that would enable a surge of U.S. capability on a rapid basis if needed. Other major NATO powers, such as France, Germany and the UK should also provide POMCUS-style capability.

– Sell to European allies and partners, or license the right to produce, the high-end weapons systems needed to create the required European A2/AD, counter A2/AD, and maneuver force capabilities. Interoperability is vital and should be programmed into the strategy and plans.

– Agree to back up European arsenals of precision-guided munitions with U.S. stockpiles and production capabilities.

– Provide European NATO members with access to U.S. high-fidelity training capabilities and technologies.

– Provide the C4ISR capabilities that would enable integrated NATO operations in the event of conflict.

– Undertake a new look at what would be needed at every step in the escalation ladder—including tactical and intermediate-range nuclear forces—to ensure that Russia would not gain an advantage though escalating to high levels of
conflict. This would be a first step to address any deficiencies in our deterrent.

…the United States should work through NATO to help enable European members better to address challenges [from the Middle East and North Africa].

– Assist European NATO members in creating stabilization forces capable of brokering political compacts in fragile states, training local security forces, and building key state institutions.

– Work with European NATO members to develop a political-military plan for the stabilization of Libya and play a supporting role to the main European effort, which will likely require deployment of stabilization forces and establishment of a beachhead to deal with the source of refugees embarking across the Mediterranean Sea.

– Develop a counter-terrorism intelligence fusion and operations center that is part of the NATO command structure, thus coordinating the police, internal security and military responses to terrorism.

– Develop an agreed strategy and political-military plan to defeat the remnants of the Islamic State which is a threat to the member states.

To implement this doctrine, the United States should play an active supporting role and develop a three- to five-year timeline and program to create the needed European capabilities.

Zalmay Khalilzad was the Director of Policy Planning in the Department of Defense and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations

Comment: The proposals make good geopolitical sense. On the western end of Mackinder’s World Island Europe must be mainly responsible for its own defense. This should be within NATO. No seperate European defense force is needed. The United States, Japan, South Korea and Australia should take the lead in defending the western Pacific. To protect against the Iranian challenge in the Middle East America would have a leading role. In classical geopolitical terms there are one challenge coming from the interior of Eurasia (Russia). The other challenge comes from the Eurasian marginal lands (for example China and Iran). Spykman had recommended against European integration warned against and warned against any sort of rimland unity. Western and southern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast and East Asia were the rimlands of most concern to the United States. It is time to go back the classical geopolitical solutions of Mackinder and Spykman. The lack of grand strategy of the United States during the period from 2008 to 2016 has brought the West close to catastrophy.



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.


June 20, 2018

A leading geopolitician, Jakub J. Grygiel, recently (May 2018) published ”Return of the Barbarians” (Cambridge University Press) dealing with non-state actors from Ancient Rome to the present. During the European Great Migration Era small, sometimes large, highly mobile, and stateless groups challenged the Roman empire from across the Rhine and the Danube. Some originated in continental Germania others migrated from Scandinavia (the East Germanic tribes of which the Goths were the most important). Others were for instance Vandals, Gepids, Heruls, Rugi and many others.

Grygiel shows how these groups have presented peculiar, long term problems which could not be solved by finite wars or diplomacy. Then as today the barbarian challenges have to be understood. They are at present as in ancient times a challenge to Western civilization.

Another leading geopolitician, Robert D. Kaplan, has described Grygiel’s book as a bold, original thesis. Grygiel has certainly done an excellent work by merging geopolitics, political science and classical studies. The reader will see the world differently and more profoundly. It is also a perfect guide to the current era.

Varldsinbordeskriget has published a number of contributions on the ancient Germanic tribes and will so do in the future.

The tribes from the north originally tended to be weaker than the forces of the Empire that it faced..They had lived a pastoral life and were in ancient Europe migrating in large numbers having a decentralized organizational structure. Often they had to arm themselves with the battlefield spoils of the defeated Romans. In the Roman Empire they brought devastation, decreasing tax revenues, trade disruption and stretching Roman forces to the limit. It should however be noted that they brought much of value to the Empire when being allowed to settle within its borders. The Nordic barbarian tribes also joined the Roman Army in large numbers strengthening the legions. Within the legions, however, they could also be a disruptive force.

Jakub Grygiel is presently on the planning staff of the US State Department.


June 17, 2018


The migration of the Cimbri from Jutland (the Cimbrian Peninsula) was a foreboding of the period of Great Migration in Europe. There is some controversy over the original home (German: Stammsitz) of the Cimbri but most Scandinavian researchers believe the Cimbrian people came from the province of Himmerland in northern Jutland (Denmark).

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote in his work Germania on the Cimbri (Tacitus, Germania, London 1930):

“37. This same “sleeve” or peninsula of Germany is the home of the Cimbri (note: remnants in the northern end of Jutland of the great tribe whose westwards movements c 120 onwards with the Teutones and the Ambrones caused dire trouble to the Romans in 113 – 101 BC. The Romans did not the know they were Germanic. Their lands were found by Tiberius´ fleet in 5 AD when they sought friendship with Rome. Tacitus does not mention their former powerful allies the Teutones of Jutland). who dwell nearest the ocean – a small state today, but rich in memories. Broad traces of their ancient fame is still extant – spacious encampments (note:These forts (Ringwaelle) were later found to be Celtic not Cimbrian) on each bank (of the Rhine), by the circuit of which you can even today measure the multitudes and manual strength of the tribes and the evidences of that mighty “trek”.

Our city (Rome, note) was in its six hundred and fortieth year when the Cimbrian armies were first heard of…”.

The main proof of the fact that the Cimbri originated in ancient Denmark is the well known language rule that the Nordic “h” in Latin becomes “c” and that this “c” is pronounced “k”. Greek historians named the people “kimbroi” or “kimmerioi”. Around AD 700 Denmark was divided into counties (“herred” or “syssel”). According to Danish researchers the name of the county Himbersyssel is a change from “kimbrer” over “chimber” to “Himber”.

On the migration trek southward the Cimbri were joined by the Teutones and the Ambrones. These peoples will not be treated here in more detail but there is also controversy over their origin but it is believed that the Teutones originated in the Danish county of Thy (Thiuth, Thyuth, Thyth) and the Latin word Teutones comes from the name of the county which is on the Danish North Sea coast on Jutland northwest of Himbersyssel.

The Ambrones also fought with the Cimbri and are believed to originate from the island of Amrum off the southwestern coast of Jutland on the Danish-German border. Also the island of Fehmarn in the Baltic Sea between Denmark and Germany (the island is in present day Germany) is mentioned as possible original home. In Old Danish the island´s name was “Ymbrae” and a people called “ymbrer” was said to have lived there.

What Caused the Migration ?

Some sources claim that the reason for the migration was a flooding of the original home in Himmerland (Himmersyssel). Other causes may have been the cold and chill as a result of the change in climate that occured during the beginning of the Iron Age in Northern Europe. (note: see for instance Jens Braaten, Kimbrerne – historie, teorier og myter om Himmerlands kimbrere (The Cimbri – history, theories and myths on the Cimbri of Himmerland), Aars, Denmark 1989, Allan A. Lund, Nordens barbarer (The Barbarians of the North), 1979, Jul. Wulf, Kimbrertoget (The Cimbrian Trek), 1909, and Bengt Melin´s essay “Die Heimat der Kimbern” in the Uppsala University Yearbook, 1960:5. A recent theory was that the lack of arable land caused the Cimbri to look for new land to the south. Other theories (note: for further reading on these see above) claim that a cattle disease spread in the area.

Danish scientists have estimated that 30,000 to 35,000 Cimbri migrated, among them
10,000 should have been warriors. During the march south the number grew by addition from other tribes so that the number of warriors when the Cimbri entered Gaul could well have been 60,000.

The Cimbri marched from fall to spring and used the summer to rest and gain strength. 5,000 ox drawn carts carrying 1,000 pounds of provision each was the probable size of the baggage-train.

Starting South in 120 BC

According to Plutarch the Cimbrian cavalrymen carried helmets adorned with the mouths of terrible beasts of prey and had many other strange objects. On the helmets were high feathers in the form of winged birds (see underneath). The women were accompanied by priestesses in white dresses. On a special waggon the Cimbrian bull (note:there is a large monument of the Cimbrian bull in the city centre of Aalborg, largest city of Himmerland and northern Jutland). Not far from the city of Aars in Himmerland are the remains of what is believed to be a Cimbrian fortress at Borremose A sacred object probably made of copper, was transported along during the trek.

Final Cimbri Defeat after Years of Battle Victories – The Battle of Vercellae 101 BC

Vercellae was not far from present day Milan in northern Italy. Plutarch has also in detail described this final victory of the Romans under Marius (note: ibid, pp. 529 – 537).
which led to his reelection as Roman consul in 100 BC for having averted the Germanic threat. And the Ambrones, the Cimbri and the Teutones vanish from history the
prisoners probably assimilated. According to Plutarch 120,000 Cimbri fell and 60,000 were taken prisoner. But of course these
numbers can well be exaggerated.

“…the Cimbri,…once more advanced against Marius, who kept quiet and carefully guarded his camp. And it is said that in preparation for this battle Marius introduced an innovation in the structure of the javelin. Up to this time, it seems, that part of the shaft which was let into the iron head was fastened there by two iron nails; but now, leaving one of these as it was, Marius removed the other, and put in its place a wooden pin that could easily be broken. His design was that the javelin, after striking the enemy´s shield, should not stand straight out, but that the wooden peg should break, thus allowing the shaft to bend in the iron head and trail along the ground, being held fast by the twist at the point of the weapon.

And now Boeorix the king of the Cimbri, with a small retinue, rode up towards the camp and challenged Marius to set a day and a place and come out and fight for the ownership of the country. Marius replied that the Romans never allowed their enemies to give them advice about fighting, but that he would nevertheless gratify the Cimbri in this matter. Accordingly, they decided that the day should be the third following, and the place the plain of Vercellae, which was suitable for the operations of the Roman cavalry, and would give the Cimbri room to deploy their numbers.

When, therefore, the appointed time had come the Romans drew up their forces for battle. Catulus had twenty thousand three hundred soldiers, while those of Marius amounted to thirty-two thousand, which were divided between both wings and had Catulus between them in the center…Marius hoped that the two lines would engage at their extremities chiefly and on the wings in order that his soldiers might have the whole credit for the victory and that Catulus might not participate in the struggle nor even engage the enemy (since the centre, as is usual in battle-fronts of great extent, would be folded back); and therefore arranged the forces in this manner…

As for the Cimbri, their foot-soldiers advanced slowly from their defences, with a depth equal to their front, for each side of their formation had an extent of thirty furlongs; and their horsemen, fifteen thousand strong, rode out in splendid style, with helmets made to resemble the maws of frightful wild beasts or the heads of strange animals, which, with their towering crests of feathers, made their wearers appear taller than they really were; they were also equipped with breastplates of iron, and carried gleaming white shields. For hurling, each man had two lances; and at close quarters they used large, heavy swords.

XXVI. At this time, however, they did not charge directly upon the Romans, but swerwed to the right and tried to draw them along gradually, until they got them between themselves and their infantry, which was drawn up on their left. The Roman commanders perceived the crafty design, but did not succeeed in holding their soldiers back; for one of them shouted that the enemy was taking to flight, and then all set out to pursue them. Meanwhile the infantry of the Barbarians came on to the attack like a vast sea in motion…

…an immense cloud of dust was raised, as was to be expected, and the two armies were hidden from one another by it, so that Marius, when he first led his forces to the attack, missed the enemy, passed by their lines of battle, and moved aimlessly up and down the plain for some time. Meanwhile, as chance would have it, the Barbarians engaged fiercely with Catulus, and he and his soldiers..bore the brunt of the struggle. The Romans were favored in the struggle…by the heat, and by the sun, which shone in the faces of the Cimbri. For the Barbarians were well able to endure cold, and had been brought up in shady and chilly regions…They were therefore undone by the heat; they sweated profusely, breathed with difficulty, and were forced to hold their shields before their faces. For the battle was fought after the summer solstice…Moreover, the dust, by hiding the enemy, helped to encourage the Romans. For they could not see from afar the great numbers of the foe, but each one of them fell at a run upon the man just over against him, and fought him hand to hand, without having been terrified by the sight of the rest of the host. And their bodies were so inured to toil and so thoroughly trained that not a Roman was observed to sweat or pant, in spite of the great heat and the run which they came to the encounter…

XXVII. The greatest number and the best fighters of the enemy were cut to pieces on the spot; for to prevent their ranks from being broken, those who fought in the front were bound fast to one another with long chains which were passed through their belts. The fugitives, however, were driven back to their entrenchments, where the Romans beheld a most tragic spectacle. The women in black garments, stood at the waggons and slew the fugitives – their husbands or brothers or fathers, then strangled their little children and cast them beneath the wheels of the waggons or the feet of the cattle, and then cut their own throats. It is said that one woman hung dangling from the tip of a waggon-pole, with her children tied to either ankle; while the men, for lack of trees, fastened themselves by the neck to the horns of the cattle, or to their legs, then plied the goad, and were dragged away. Nevertheless, in spite of such self-destruction, more than sixty thousand were taken prisoner; and those who fell were said to have been twice that number.”

The Roman Army

Marius was a “new man” (a first generation senator). He professionalized the Roman army. Also he exchanged the old 3-line organisation in favour of ten cohorts, each about 480 man strong.

They were uniformely armed with helmet, mail shirt, shield, sword and two javelins (one light and one heavy). The main tactical unit was the century and the centurions commanding them became the backbone of the Roman army. Every soldier was also expected to carry his own equipment which earned him the nickname “Marius´ mule”. The new army was toughened through marches and camp construction and Marius would not allow it to fight until properly trained. One of the reasons for the final victory over the Germanic peoples (in this first large confrontation) was probably the improved training introduced by Marius.

The Cimbrian Army

There is no detailed description in the Roman sources of the Cimbrian warriors and their army except for the information in Plutarchs battle descriptions. Thus it is only possible to use the more general description of Germanic warriors in Tacitus´ Germania (note: 10) Tacitus, Germania, London 1930, pp. 138 – 141):

“6. Even iron is not plentiful among them, as may be gathered from the style of their weapons. Few use swords or the longer kind of lance: they carry short spears, in their language “frameae”, with a narrow and small iron head, but so sharp and handy in use that they fight with the same weapon, as circumstances demand, both at close quarters and at a distance. Even the mounted man is content with a shield and framea: the infantry launch showers of missiles in addition, each man a volley, and hurl these to great distances, for they wear no outer clothing, or at most a light cloak.

There is no bravery or adornment among them: their shields only are picked out with choice colours. Few have breastplates: scarcely one or two at most have metal or hide helmets. The horses are conspicuous neither for beauty nor speed; but neither are they trained likeour horses to run in a variety of directions: they ride them forwards only or to the right, with but one turn from the straight, dressing the line so closely as they wheel that no one is left behind. On a broad view there is more strength in their infantry, and accordingly cavalry and infantry fight in one body, the swift-footed infantryman, whom they pick out of the whole body of warriors and place in front of the line, being well adapted and suitable for cavalry battles. The number of these men is fixed – one hundred from each canton: and among their own folk this, “the Hundred”, is the precise name they use: what was once a number only has become a title and a distinction. The battle-line itself is arranged in wedges: to retire, provided you press on again, they treat as a question of tactics, not of cowardice: they carry off their dead and wounded even in battles of doubtful issue. To have abandoned one´s shield is the height of disgrace; the man so shamed cannot be present at religious rites, nor attend a council.”

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 1, 2018

From the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, Robert Michels, and Vilfredo Pareto, the American theorist and philosopher James Burnham in the book “The Machiavellians” deduced that:

1. All politics is concerned with the struggle for power among individuals and groups;

2. genuine political analysis involves correlating facts and formulating hypotheses about the future without reference to what ought to happen;

3. there is a distinction between the “formal” and “real” meaning of political rhetoric, which can only be discovered by analyzing the rhetoric in the context of the actual world of time, space, and history;

4. “political man” is primarily a “non-logical” actor driven by “instinct, impulse and interest;”

5. rulers and political elites are primarily concerned with maintaining and expanding their power and privileges;

6. rulers and elites hold power by “force and fraud;”

7. all governments are sustained by “political formulas” or myths;

8. all societies are divided into a “ruling class” and the ruled; and

9. in all societies the “structure and composition” of the ruling class changes over time.

Source: Francis P. Sempa, “The First Cold Warrior”, web journal American Diplomacy, 2000


May 22, 2018

In the 1960s Mao formulated the theory of defeat of the West. The Chinese style of warfare was offered as a model for the world’s South to defeat the developed North. This was the first strategic model

Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of people’s war has been proved by the long practice of the Chinese revolution to be in accord with the objective laws of such wars and to be invincible. It has not only been valid for China, it is a great contribution to the revolutionary struggles of oppressed nations and peoples throughout the world. . . .

U.S. imperialism is stronger, but also more vulnerable,.. Its human, military, material and financial resources are not sufficient…

However highly developed modern weapons and technical equipment may be and however complicated the methods of modern warfare, in the final analysis the outcome of a war will be decided by the sustained fighting of the ground forces…The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess ss a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb. (Lin Piao, Long Live the Victory of the People’s War ! (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1965, pp. 42-58).

After taking power in 1949 the first attempt of the Chinese communists to defeat the West was made in the 1960s. The goal was to ‘encircle the cities’ and use revolutionary movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America against North America, Europe and Australia. The large populations in the South would overwhelm the sparsely populated North.

The forward strategy of President Richard M. Nixon and his advisors helped isolate the Soviet Union in a bold grand strategy move.

China after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 turned to state capitalism in the hope of defeating the West. This was the second model.

Beijing is also engaged in large-scale theft of American as well as European research and technology.

China poses the most significant threat of technology theft from an estimated $510 billion spent annually on U.S. research and development.

China has a government-directed, multi-faceted secret program whose primary task is technology acquisition, as well as a highly refined strategy to develop and exploit access to advantageous information through the global telecommunications infrastructure

There exists specific lists of technology for theft. Beijing uses clandestine agents, front companies, and joint research ventures in the theft program.

In the case of robotics and AI, two fields of study with the potential to fundamentally change the international economy as well as the future of war-fighting, China has released the Robotics Industry Development Plan and Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan with the goals of China assuming global leadership in the coming decades.

China is also using some of the 350,000 Chinese students in the United States for intelligence work.

Furthermore it has been pointed out recently in National Interest journal:

In partial response to the Section 301 investigation into Chinese infringements of intellectual property rights (IPRs), the White House Office of U.S. Trade Representative has recommended the application of an additional 25 percent tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese products. In the meantime, China has applied its own list of U.S. products subject to tariffs up to 25 percent.

The history of Chinese intellectual property has only progressed in fits and starts. In the twentieth century, between invasions from Japan, World War II, and internecine warfare, patents in China had virtually no real protections; consequently, while patent laws did exist during this period, “China had virtually no tradition of patent protection entering the modern era,”

When the Communists assumed power in 1949, they rejected the entire corpus of Kuomintang (i.e., the laws that existed before 1949) law and “began to develop a new legal system based largely on the Soviet model,” which, with respect to intellectual property, resonated with “the fledgling Chinese communists because in large measure ‘the values under[lying] the Soviet model reflected traditional Chinese attitudes toward intellectual property.’”

It was not until the 1980s—which is when China became a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization—that it began to strengthen its intellectual property framework and enact comprehensive laws that governed the protection of these rights.

The China scholar Frederick Abbott has claimed that the infringement of intellectual property will fuel economic development “until the country reaches the point where IPR protection becomes economically advantageous to a sufficiently strong set of domestically vested interests.” While the velocity through this development period may be different from country to country, there are no exceptions to passing through this phase during the nascent stage of a nation’s development.

Comment: China before 1949, when the communisst took over, had a history of close relations with the United States. Americans broadly supported the liberation of China in 1912. One American in particular, the geopolitical theorist Homer Lea, held a high rank in the pre.communist Chinese Army. If there is a change of elite in China the new elite will certainly be pro-American.