Archive for the ‘GLOBAL CIVIL WAR’ Category

HOW TO OVERHAUL NATO

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.

Advertisements

CHINA WORKING TO UNDERMINE TAIWAN

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.

OLIVER CROMWELL, BOGDAN CHMIELNITSKIJ OCH KARL X GUSTAV

July 9, 2018

Nedan görs ett försök att presentera något av relationerna mellan Sverige, England och Ukraina på 1650-talet, då Sverige erövrade Skåne, Blekinge och Halland.

I oktober 1654 hade den engelske statschefen (ännu ej lordprotektor) Oliver Cromwell beordrat att en jordglob skulle sättas upp i Whitehall. Den tillverkades av Alexander Rowley, som tog 50 engelska pund för sitt arbete. Statsrådet (Council of State) fann det nödvändigt att införskaffa nya kartor, nya jordglober och även The New Atlas.

Den engelske amiralen Sir Walter Raleigh hade i sin bok History of the World rekommenderat ett engelskt imperium redan under drottning Elisabet I. I början hade protektorn riktat sina ögon mot Västindien i något som kom att kallas Western Design. Men Europa kom snart också att stå i centrum.

I början av sitt styre hade Cromwells motståndare försökt isolera England men i september 1656 fanns det inte mindre än 32 diplomatiska sändebud i London.

De diplomatiska förhållandena mellan England och Sverige var goda under Oliver Cromwells styre i London. Det gick så långt att en av protektoratets främsta poeter, Andrew Marvell, skrev hyllningsdikter till drottning Kristina.

Poeten Marvell (1621 – 1678) var född i Yorkshire och mycket berest. Han var poeten Miltons medhjälpare 1657 – 1660 i politiska ärenden. Milton var tidvis Cromwells utrikespolitiske sekreterare. Från 1659 till sin död representerade Marvell Hull i parlamentet. Under 1663 till 1665 var han på politiskt uppdrag i Danmark, Sverige och Ryssland. Ehuru puritan var han en älskare av konst och hade ett fint samt rikt natursinne.

En hyllningsdikt på latin till drottning Kristina finns bevarad:

“In eandem Reginae Sueciae transmissam
Bellipotens Virgo, septem Regina Trianum.
Christina, Arctoi lucida stella Poli;
Cernis quas meriu dura sub Casside Rugas;
Sicque Senex Armis impiger Ora fero;
Invia Factorum dum per Vestigia nitor,
Exequor & Populi fortia Jussa Manu.
At tibi submittit frontem reverentior Umbra,
Nec sunt hi Vultus Regibus usque truces.”

Av en ren händelse råkar det finnas en hyllning till Oliver Cromwell på samma sida av den upplaga av Marvells dikter jag använt (Se The Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, ed. by H.M. Margoliouth, Third Edition, Volume I Poems, (1971).

“In Effigiem Oliveri Cromwell
Haec est quae Inimicos Umbra fugavit,
At sub qua Cives Otia lenta terunt.”

En särskild ambassadör till Sverige, Bulstrode Whitlocke, utnämndes av lordprotektorn i september (Kristina hade abdikerat den 16 juni 1654). Då hade i april i Uppsala en politisk allians och avtal om fri handel slutits mellan England och Sverige. Ett porträtt av den engelske statschefen sändes då till drottning Kristina med anledning av överenskommelsen i Uppsala (var det nu är bevarat, om det finns i behåll, är för mig okänt). Ett brev i versform från Marvell till pastor Nathanael Ingelo (1621? – 1683), som medföljde Whitlocke, finns i arkiven.

I modern tid har de engelsk-svenska förbindelserna under drottning Kristina föga uppmärksammats. Orsaken kan vara den nuvarande kulturpolitiken, som inte främjar ämnet historia vare sig i skolorna eller vid universiteten. Enligt den tidigare doktrinen har inte mycket hänt i historien före 1932.

Om förbindelserna mellan Cromwell och Karl X Gustav finns inte mycket skrivet i modernare tid om man undantar en artikel av mig själv, publicerad i England på 1980-talet. Den behandlar tankarna på en protestantisk international som fanns vid mitten av 1600-talet.

Den engelske lordprotektorn beundrade Karl X Gustav och han betecknade England och Sverige som de två pelare på vilka europeisk protestantism vilade. Av internationalen blev intet och i London nöjde man sig med gratulationer då och då. Karl X Gustav gratulerades till födseln av sonen Karl (den blivande Karl XI). Det brevet var skrivet av poeten Milton i vilket den svenske kungen jämfördes med Filip av Makedonien, Alexanders den stores far. Filip fick beskedet om Alexanders födelse när han just hade besegrat illyrierna. Det gav anledning till en hänvisning till Karls seger över polackerna, som innebar att ”ett horn skurits av från vilddjurets huvud” (en referens till Bibeln).

Våren 1658 debatterades på nytt den protestantiska internationalen men utan resultat. Protektorn avled i augusti 1658. När i september 1657 England sände en medlare till Köpenhamn mellan Sverige och Danmark stod det rätt klart att vad protektorn eftersträvade var en maktbalans i Östersjöområdet.

Vid sin död hade Cromwell haft stora planer på det utrikespolitiska området. Han ville skapa ett ämbetsverk för det protestantiska Europa i England, med en rådgivande församling för protestantisk religon och statssekreterare för Skandinavien, Schweiz, kalvinister, Tyskland men också för Turkiet, England och Västindien (The Western Design).

Hur kommer då den ukrainske hetmanen Bogdan Chmielnitskij in i bilden? Tyvärr kom dennes arkiv att förstöras i samband med den ukrainska revolution, som inleddes 1648 för att kasta av det dåvarande polska oket som vilade på Ukraina. Det sägs att Oliver Cromwell sände ett uppmuntrande brev till den zaporogiske hetmanen där han fick titlar som ”förstöraren av påvliga misstag” och ”påvarnas gissel”. Något sådant brev har aldrig påträffats i engelska arkiv. En polsk källa ( W. Kochowski, Krakow, 19683, Annalum Poloniae ab obitu Vladislai IV. Climacter primus ) talar om att polackerna uppbringat brevet, men att det inte var säkert att det var äkta. Det går också att hänvisa till professor Elie Borshaks ”Early Relations between England and Ukraine”, Slavonic Review, Vol. X.

För övrigt kan nämnas att någon biografi över den engelske lordprotektorn Oliver Cromwell inte har publicerats i Sverige efter andra världskriget och svenska relationer med protektoratet har inte heller stått högt på listan över forskningsområden vid svenska universitet sedan den nya synen på historieämnet infördes.

POLITICAL WARFARE TAIWANESE STYLE

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.

BARBARIANS ARE BACK

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.

FRIHETSKAMP MOT SOVJETOCKUPATION I ÖSTTYSKLAND

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.

THE CIMBRI TREK WAS A WARNING TO ROME AROUND 100 BC

June 17, 2018

Introduction

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

2018

ISBN 978-91-983996-1-5

Content

Introduction
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

Foreword

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 varldsinbordeskriget.wordpress.com 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

Introduction

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

Vol.2

2018

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

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

The Organizations

Foreword

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

Introduction

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.

DEN ANTIKOMMUNISTISKA INFORM-GRUPPEN I LUND OCH SVENSK MILITÄR UNDERRÄTTELSETJÄNST 1963 – 1967

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

Källor

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.