This territory is the birthplace of the Chabad guru, rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of the first mayor of Tel-Aviv and ofKlezmer music. Also a good home to Trotsky, for a while.
It was meant to be a second Palestine, but Stalin ruined their plans.
And the only gentile I know that got this far with his research on this topic was murdered.

ABSTRACT

SHARE

PREAMBLE

  1. Zelensky is controlled by Chabad.
  2. Putin is controlled by Chabad.
  3. Chabad doesn’t argue itself.
  4. Chabad doesn’t find a peace resolution in Ukraine.

_______________________________________
Conclusion: The resolution is war.

Which would explain why Russia doesn’t seem to hurry or throw its best resources into this pit.

Groomers admit Russia is throwing 50 years-old junk in Ukraine, then struggle to spin it

If Chabad wins either way, who loses either way?

The local population, the dead ones especially. The ones in the separatist regions and the South most specifically, as they’re the only Ukrainians shelled by Ukrainian Army rather than by the “invaders”.
But the ripples are global and can be manipulated in more ways than we can imagine.

“Be cursed, Zelensky!” shout the Mariupol people you won’t see on JTV

Doesn’t that victimized local population include lots of Chabad / Jews?

Not quite, they’re mostly gone by now, but promise to return, as this Kharkov Chabad rabbi announced on April 22, 2022:

Who are the Jews of Ukraine, according to Chabad.org :


“Today, Ukraine boasts a thriving Jewish infrastructure that includes synagogues, mikvahs, a matzah bakery, Jewish schools and yeshivahs, and social services organizations. The first permanent post-Perestroika Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries to Ukraine arrived in 1990 to what was still the Soviet Union, and began leading the synagogues in Kharkov and Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk until 2014) that had just been returned to the Jewish community by the authorities. Their work built on Chabad’s deep roots in the region, including decades of underground Jewish activism throughout the Soviet era.

Chabad maintains Jewish orphanages in Zhitomir—the children were evacuated farther west this week—Odessa, and Dnipro. It is far from only relief work that they are engaged in. As the quality of life in Ukraine has risen, so has the quality of Jewish life. Chabad maintains a Jewish university in Odessa and has built the largest Jewish center in the world in Dnipro. Kosher restaurants dot the country as well, signaling a level of material and spiritual comfort few could have predicted just a few decades ago.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Musuem, prior to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, “Ukraine was home to the largest Jewish population in Europe… While scholars are still researching the scale of the Holocaust in Ukraine, they estimate at least one and a half million Jews were killed there.” The Nazis, with the help of local collaborators, gathered Ukraine’s Jews in local ghettos, but, for the most part, instead of deporting them to camps, shot them in forests and fields close to home. Such killing fields dot the entire Ukraine, with places such as Babi Yar outside of Kiev—where some 40,000 Jews were murdered—among the most well-known.

Many surviving Jews returned home after the war, and traces of the former Pale of Settlement were readily visible as late as the 1980s and early 90s. Back then, small, historically Jewish towns in western Ukraine still had synagogues and significant numbers of native Yiddish speakers, their concentration diminishing the farther east one went. When Chabad of Zhitomir was established in the early 1990s by Rabbi Shlomo and Esther Wilhelm, one of their responsibilities was to reach out to the dozens of smaller Jewish towns where throngs of older Jews still lived.” – Chabad.org

What I pictured so far suggests an ethnically targeted depopulation agenda and a revenge agenda that don’t argue, just may overlap with other agendas. A reverse pogrom.

Goyim depopulation operation going well in Ukraine


Depop policies are not entirely new to them, Ukraine has hardly survived through Holodomor once, under the helms of Jews…

“Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.”

JEWISH TELEPGRAPHIC AGENCY, JUNE 15, 2009

“Zelensky told reporters that he had asked Netanyahu to recognize as a genocide the 1932 Holodomor famine caused by Soviet policies, but Netanyahu did not.”

JEWISH TELEPGRAPHIC AGENCY, AUG 20, 2019


But why just those specific areas, what do they have in common?

Well, it seems the disputed territory map largely overlaps with a former area of high Jewish interest:


Rare documents and press reports tell a rare story.

A CRAZY HIDDEN STORY OF ROTHSCHILD-WARBURG PROTO-COMMUNISM

THE LIFE STORY OF SHMUEL YELISHEVITCH
Related orally in Yiddish by Shmuel Yelishevitch in 1992, at the age of 92.
This written record was translated simultaneously from Yiddish and written in Hebrew.[Translated by Chaim Freedman, 1998/9]

I was born in a Jewish house, father, mother and seven children. I was the youngest of the six sons and the daughter who was the firstborn. We lived in an old house on an estate called Azarevitch. The estate had a Russian landowner and we worked his land. When we built a larger house, my grandfather and grandmother continued to live in the old house. Grandfather was a religious Jew and attended the synagogue every day which was one kilometer from the house. One day, a severe winter day, on the way home from the synagogue he fell and broke his foot. Due to his inability to work he wanted to move to his son Gotlieb who lived close to the synagogue. Grandmother was afraid to sleep alone in the house at night. She paid me two kopecks per night so that I should stay with her. I was then aged six and grandmother told me each evening about the history of the family which is engraved in my memory.

The Colonies

The estate was founded in 1800 before which it was desolate. Rothschild, who was friendly with Queen Katerina was aware of the difficult life of the Jews in Polotsk and in Vitebsk and it was forbidden for them to live in the villages unless they were craftsmen. In the same period army service in Russia was by those who were abducted whose service was for twenty five years.

Rothschild approached the Queen Katerina and suggested to her to grant the Jews an area of land and he would finance the settlement of Jews there. The idea found favor with the queen, she visited the Ukraine, passed through the steppes and discovered that it was desolate and uncultivated. She suggested to Rothschild to accompany her and visit the area and it was decided to establish Jewish colonies in that area. She promulgated an order to divide the area such that each family would receive a plot of land and that those families who settled there would not be enlisted in the army.

That is how they established seventeen settlements of one to two hundred families each. The largest colony was called Bakher3. Others were called Latent4, Engels, Myadler, Peness, Di Vilner, Kabilni, Gravskoy, these were on one side.On the other side there were, amongst them, Horkes, Nazrivka ( in Yiddish Azeritch where I was born), Priud, Kavalevsk, Haloshkas, Pervi (2) numer, Dritten (3) numer, Numer (4) Ferten numer, Hopalover. In between an area of sixty kilometers there were also Russian villages.
Every family received forty kilometers of land, a two-family house and next to it for each family, a dunam of land to grow household needs. Two thousand dunams was left in reserve for family expansion.
SOURCE

Felix Warburg Expresses Satisfaction with Jewish Settlements in Crimea

JTA, May 19, 1927

The inspection tour of the new Jewish colonies made by Felix M. Warburg and his party came to a close today with a visit to the Julius Rosenwahl Colony.

Of the 136 new Jewish colonies, 27 were visited by, Mr Warburg, who was accompanied by James II. Becker, Dr. Bernard Kahn and Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, head of the Agro-joint in Russia. In addresses to the settlers, Mr. Warburg expressed his pleasure at the rate of development and at the energy and efficiency of the colonists and the management of the Agro-joint, the agency of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee responsible for the colonization work.

What a fantastic year for mr. Felix!

And these two had more brothers, one of them, called Max, was dealing i the same money and people trafficking business “niche”:

“Together with his brother Felix M. Warburg, who was a successful banker in the U.S., Max M. Warburg organized financial aid for Jews in Eastern Europe. As the war led to increasing antisemitism, Warburg started to ask officials to protect Jews against discrimination. During the war Warburg came to be one of the leading figures to advise German politicians, diplomats, and the military in financial matters. In October 1918 he was appointed a financial advisor to the chancellor (Reichskanzler) Prinz Max von Baden. In 1919, Warburg served the German delegates during the negotiations on the Versailles peace treaty as an economic specialist. Warburg preferred to keep a low profile. When Walther *Rathenau asked him in early 1922 to join the cabinet (Reichsregierung) as minister of finance he refused, saying that two Jewish ministers would be too much for Germany. After the assassination of Rathenau the murderers planned also to kill Warburg. In 1924 he was appointed a member of the board (Generalrat) of the Reichsbank. The Warburg Bank was still one of the most important banking companies in Germany. From the late 1920s on Warburg intensified his interest in Zionism.

From World War I on, his brothers Felix M. and Paul M. Warburg opened the doors to the leading financial circles in North America for their brother. This was – again – especially helpful, when Germany urgently needed fresh capital during the world economic crisis between 1930 and 1932. After the Nazis came to power in Germany, the Warburg Bank came under increasing pressure. Max M. Warburg focused on helping Jewish emigrants to get their money out of Germany via the Palaestina-Treuhand GmbH. After the Warburg Bank was closed by the National Socialists, Warburg himself immigrated in 1938 to New York, where he died.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

M.M. Warburg, Aus meinen Erinnerungen (1952, edited by Eric M. Warburg); E. Rosenbaum et al., Das Bankhaus M.M. Warburg & Co. 1798 bis 1938 (1976); R. Chernow, The Warburgs (1993).


Sources: Encyclopaedia Judaica

If this is how they treated their home-country, Germany, how much can you hope from them for America and the Federal Reserve?
Or Ukraine…

WARBURG WHO?
WARBURG FEDERAL RESERVE

Previously on SILVIEW.media: “THE QUESTION IS ONLY WHETHER WORLD GOVERNMENT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY CONSENT OR BY CONQUEST” – WARBURG / ROTHSCHILD PROGENITURE IN 1950 US SENATE HEARINGS

AND MR. FED REPORTED TO…

On December 15, 1931, Chairman McFadden informed the House of a dispatch in the Public Ledger of Philadelphia, October 24, 1931, “GERMAN REVEALS HOOVER’S SECRET. The American President was in intimate negotiations with the German government regarding a year’s debt holiday as early as December, 1930.” McFadden continued,

“Behind the Hoover announcement there were many months of hurried and furtive preparations both in Germany and in Wall Street offices of German bankers. Germany, like a sponge, had to be saturated with American money. Mr. Hoover himself had to be elected, because this scheme began before he became President. If the German international bankers of Wall Street — that is Kuhn Loeb CompanyJ. & W. SeligmanPaul WarburgJ. Henry Schroder — and their satellites had not had this job waiting to be done, Herbert Hoover would never have been elected President of the United States.

The election of Mr. Hoover to the Presidency was through the influence of the Warburg Brothers, directors of the great bank of Kuhn Loeb Company, who carried the cost of his election. In exchange for this collaboration Mr. Hoover promised to impose the moratorium of German debts. Hoover sought to exempt Kreuger’s loan to Germany of $125 million from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The nature of Kreuger’s swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, in the White House.”

Eustace Mullins – Secrets of the Federal Reserve London Connection

From Wikipedia:
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an American multinational investment bank founded in 1867 by Abraham Kuhn and his brother-in-law Solomon Loeb.[1] Under the leadership of Jacob H. Schiff, Loeb’s son-in-law, it grew to be one of the most influential investment banks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, financing America’s expanding railways and growth companies, including Western Union and Westinghouse, and thereby becoming the principal rival of J.P. Morgan & Co.

In the years following Schiff’s death in 1920, the firm was led by Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg, men who had already solidified their roles as Schiff’s able successors. However, the firm’s fortunes began to fade following World War II, when it failed to keep pace with a rapidly changing investment banking industry, in which Kuhn, Loeb’s old-world, genteel ways, did not seem to fit; the days of the gentleman-banker had passed.

The firm lost its independence from the Bulge Bracket in 1977 when it merged with Lehman Brothers, creating Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. The combined firm was itself acquired in 1984 by American Express, forming Shearson Lehman/American Express and with that, the Kuhn, Loeb name was retired.

History

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an investment bank located in New York City. It was founded in 1867, by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Kuhn and Loeb had created a successful merchandising business in CincinnatiOhio, when they decided to move east, to New York, to take advantage of the country’s burgeoning economic expansion. Company records indicate that by the time Kuhn and Loeb established their partnership, they were able to capitalize it at $500,000 (equivalent of about $9.7 million in 2021). On January 1, 1875, Jacob Schiff (1847–1920), Solomon Loeb’s son-in-law, joined the firm. He eventually became its leader and grew the firm into the second most prestigious investment bank in the United States behind J. Pierpont Morgan’s J.P. Morgan & Co.
….

It also acted as the leading investment house for John D. Rockefeller, through the guidance of his investment adviser, Frederick T. Gates. Rockefeller invested in many syndicates with the bank, including major stakes in the prominent railroad companies, as well as contributing to its consolidation of the Chicago meatpackers, which resulted in the formation of a leading trust. Overseas ventures that Rockefeller also got involved with included the bank’s loans to the Chinese and Imperial Japanese governments.

The firm also joined a partnership with Rockefeller in 1911 to gain control of the Equitable Trust Company, which was later to merge and become the Chase Bank.[2]

Famous partners of the firm included Otto KahnPaul WarburgFelix WarburgMortimer SchiffBenjamin Buttenwieser, Abraham Wolff, Lewis Strauss, and Sigmund Warburg, founder of S.G. Warburg.

In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W SeligmanSpeyer & Co.Goldman, Sachs & Co.Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms. Prior to the Second World War, a particularly close relationship existed between the partners of Kuhn, Loeb and M. M. Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, through Paul and Felix, who were Kuhn, Loeb partners. Later on, following World War II, their cousin Sigmund Warburg would briefly continue this relationship as a partner and Executive Director of the firm…

Although the Kuhn, Loeb name is probably gone forever, the firm’s legacy is not. Former Kuhn, Loeb employees remain in senior positions throughout Wall Street, and until recently, at Lehman Brothers. Vestiges of the firm survived in the form of Lehman Brothers’ extensive fixed income capabilities, including many of their bond indices, such as the Government/Credit index. This index, originally created in 1973 by Kuhn, Loeb, as the Government/Corporate index, was among the first generation of bond index data to measure the fixed income market. It is still the preeminent benchmark in its class.

Longest Serving Partners: Jacob H. Schiff (45 years), Felix M. Warburg (40 years)

Clients of the Firm

And the Warburgs report to…

Then came Purim. Firstly we baked Homentashen, filled with poppy seed, with raisins, with plums. We went to Shule `to kill’ Haman. The children used their `Gregers'(# noisemakers) when they heard his `holy’name. In the morning we sent `Sholekh Mones’. On two trays were arranged all sorts of good things, covered with a white cloth. The children took firstly to Grandfather and Grandmother. Father and mother had sent `Sholokh Mones’. Grandmother took off the trays what the children had brought and put all sorts of her good things. And Grandfather gave a few koppecks. We felt so rich, like Rothschild. We went home happy.

THE MEMOIRS OF ROKHEL LUBAN
Rokhel Luban was born in 1898 in the Jewish agricultural colony called Trudoliubovka (also known to the Jews as Engels) in the government of Yekaterinoslav in the southeastern Ukraine.

Ukraine stats

  • The latest population estimate for Ukraine is 42,800,000.
  • As of 1 January 2016, the core Jewish population of Ukrainians was estimated to be 56,000 (0.13% of the wider population) and the enlarged Jewish population was estimated at 140,000.
  • An estimated 200,000 Ukrainians qualify for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
  • The largest Jewish population centres in Ukraine are Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Odessa.

The paragraph below is from Introduction to the Study of the Jewish Agricultural Colonies in the Ukraine by Chaim Freedman, written in 2005. Since then, under the lead of Sylvia Walowitz, Jewish Gen has added a large digital database Courland-Kherson Jewish Relocation 1837-1840 (lists searchable in Latvia and Ukraine databases on Jewish Gen http://www.jewishgen.org).

“In the late 18th century large areas of territories in south-east Ukraine came under the control of the Russian Tsarist regime. At that time this area was known as Novorussia (New Russia) and was divided roughly into three Guberniyas (provinces): Kherson, Yekaterinoslav and Tavritch (the latter included the Crimean peninsula and part of the adjacent mainland). The Russian government was anxious to develop this region by settlement from the rest of the Russian Empire. At the same time the government sought a way to relieve itself of the so-called “Jewish Question”, particularly in what are now Lithuania, Latvia and Belarus. With the accession of Tsar Alexander the First, legislation was passed to define and partially relieve the situation of the Jews. One objective of this legislation was to encourage Jews to leave the crowded and economically poor centers in the north and establish new settlements in Novorussia. Those Jews who qualified to be included in this enterprise were promised financial support to set up agricultural colonies, with the added incentive of exemption from military service (the period of exemption changed at various times throughout the 19th century).”

Russian Jewish agricultural colonies became models for communal agricultural efforts worldwide. Karl Marx cited the kolonii as examples of workers taking control and lifting themselves up through hard work. Zionists in the early 20th century used Russian kolonii as models for Kibbutzim in Israel, particularly in the Second Aliyah after 1904. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik government carried out collectivization efforts during 1920–1938, see Komzet and OZET. Many kolonii became kolkhozes during this period.

Wikipedia

A more detailed but very brushed history of the colonies is available in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

See also

List of Jewish Agricultural Colonies

Map of the Jewish settlements in Crimea for December 17, 1926
SOURCE

Ekaterinoslav (Dnyepopetrovsk) Gubernia

  • Alexandrovsk (Zaporozhe)
  • Andreyevka
  • Bakkers (Zatishe)
  • Bogodarovka (Novodarovka, Kovilevsk)
  • Donetsk (Yuzovka, Stalino)
  • Gaichul (Hichur, Novoukrainka)
  • Gorykaya (Nazarevitch)
  • Gottland
  • Grafskoy (Prolotarsky)
  • Grunau
  • Gulaipole
  • Karla Leibnekta
  • Khlebodarovka (Suntsove)
  • Krasnoselka (Driternumer)
  • Ludvigstahl
  • Marienfeld (Marinopol)
  • Marionovka
  • Mariupol
  • Mezheritch (Ferternumer)
  • Nadeshnaya (Der Vilner)
  • Nechayevka ( Gorki, Peness)
  • Melitopol
  • Mikhailovka
  • NovoZlatopol (Pervernumer)
  • Orekhov
  • Priyutnaya (Takni)
  • Reichenfeld (Shirokoye)
  • Roskoshnoye (Galushkes)
  • Rovnopol (Lates)
  • Rozovka
  • Sladkovodnaya (Kobilnye)
  • Tokmak
  • Trudoliubovka (Engels)
  • Tsarakonstantinovka (Kubishevo, Kamenka)
  • Vasilkovka
  • Velikomikhaylovka
  • Veselaya (Hoopolova)
  • Zaparozhe (Aleksandrovsk)
  • Zatishye (Bakhers)
  • Zelenopole (Myadler)
  • Dribovka

Kherson Gubernia

  • Berislaw
  • Bolshoi Nagartav
  • Bolshoi Sedeimenukha
  • Bobovri Kut
  • Dibrovka
  • Dobraya
  • Efingar
  • Inguletz
  • Israelovka
  • Izluchistoye
  • Lvovo
  • Malaya Nagaratav
  • Malaya Sedeimenukha
  • Novo Berislav
  • Novo Poldol’skiy
  • Novopoltavka
  • Novo Vitebsk
  • Lvovo
  • Romanovka
  • Volnaya

Tavrida Gubernia

  • Berdyansk

Jewish Colonies

Now let’s do a little Jewish Ukraine Travel:

Mykolaiv

Mykolaiv has had a Jewish population since its founding, and Jewish laborers were involved in its construction. Aside from construction work, many merchants came to the city in order to build businesses selling to the Navy and its sailors. However, Jews were banned from Mykolaiv from 1829-1859, during the reign of the arch-conservative Emperor Nicholas I.

Mykolaiv’s most famous son is Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), probably the most important religious figure in 20th century Judaism. His family moved to Yekaterinoslav (Dnipro) in 1907 when his father became the city’s Rabbi. As an adult, he studied in Berlin before the Nazis took power, then went to Paris, where he stayed until the Nazis followed him there as well. The Rebbe escaped to New York on the very eve of the Nazi conquest of Paris. In 1950, he succeeded his father in law to become the seventh leader of Chabad-Lubavitch.

The Rebbe was most influential through his innovations in the field of Kiruv, or outreach. Chabad Houses are found all over the world, and their members are a frequent site handing out shabbat candles and helping men wrap tefilin. Their website is a fantastic resource for Jewish learning as well. Chabad emissaries were sent to Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to rebuild Jewish life and most synagogues in the country are Chabad-affiliated. His enormous personal magnetism allowed him to build relationships both across the spectrum of Jewish observance and into the non-Jewish world.

DSC03878.jpg

Another famous Jew, though one with a more spotted reputation, who passed through Mykolaiv was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky moved to Mykolaiv as a young adult and began his career as a revolutionary organizing other workers here in 1896. He would later go on to lead the Bolshevik Red Army during the Civil War and was a favored candidate to succeed Lenin, but lost the power struggle to Joseph Stalin. He would then go into exile in Mexico before Stalin had him assassinated.

 

KHERSON

Located at the mouth of the Dnipro River, the most important trade and transport artery in Ukraine, Kherson was originally envisioned as the heart of the Russian Empire’s expansion on the Black Sea Coast. So much so that it is the final resting place of Grigory Potemkin, the Prince who oversaw the conquest and colonization of the region. However, the Dnipro estuary proved to be too shallow to be as useful of a port, so the city became eclipsed by neighboring Mykolaiv and Odessa.

The Map of Jewish Agricultural Colonies of Kherson Guberniya
Ed. note: The colony Vol’naya is not specified on a map because of its isolated position. This colony was located north west of Odessa.
SOURCE

Jews settled in Kherson as soon as the city was founded, and soon made up a large percentage of the city’s merchants. Lumber and grain export were the largest businesses. Outside of the city itself, Kherson region hosted several Jewish agricultural colonies.

The main synagogue of the city, located at Teatralna Street 27, was originally constructed in 1895, but was burned down during the Nazi occupation. After renovating the building, the Soviet authorities turned it into a dormitory for workers at the Petrovsky factory, then later a ward for treating alcoholics. It was handed back to the Jewish community after Ukrainian independence in 1991. It is now renovated and fully operational, with a school and several community organizations.

DSC04003.jpg

Kherson oblast is the second least densely populated in Ukraine, and is home to many sites for nature tourism. These include Oleshky Sands, the largest desert in Europe, Askania Nova Nature Preserve, Dzharylhak National Nature Park, and the Dead Sea-like salt pools surrounding Lake Syvash.

 CHABAD IN KHERSON

MELITOPOL

Melitopol is a moderately sized city in the south of Zaporizhia Oblast that has some of the oldest archaeological finds in Ukraine. The Kamyana Mohyla site, in the outlying village of Myrne, was a religious site from the Neolitic era up through the Medieval period. Before the Russian conquest, the city was a fortified town of the Nogai Turks called Kyzyl-Yar. As the Russian Empire took over the lands of the Crimean Khanate, it became a small village occupied by Cossack families.

In 1842, Melitopol was given its status as a city along with its name, which is Greek for Honey City. Melitopol is still famous for producing honey, as well as cherries. By the late 19th century, it was roughly 40% Jewish. While nearly all of Melitopol’s Jews were killed in the Holocaust and the city is now predominantly ethnic Ukrainian and Russian, they are proud of their diverse roots and are a participant in the Council of Europe’s Intercultural City Program.

Melitopol Synagogue is located on Interkulturna Street, in between Chernyshevs’koho and Mykhaila Hrushevskoho. There is also a memorial to Holocaust victims and the Righteous Among Nations. The statue is, in part dedicated to Vera and her Alla Zemtseva, who rescued Zhanna Tsyparska from the fascists.

THE CROWN JEWEL – ODESSA

Although a settlement existed on the site in ancient times, the history of the modern city began in the 14th century when the Tatar fortress of Khadzhibey was established there; it later passed to Lithuania-Poland and in 1480 to Turkey. The fortress was stormed by the Russians in 1789 and the territory ceded to Russia in 1792. A new fortress was built in 1792–93, and in 1794 a naval base and commercial quay were added. In 1795 the new port was named Odesa for the ancient Greek colony of Odessos, the site of which was believed to be in the vicinity.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Tatars are a Turkic nomadic population related to Khazars, and the two could’ve been easily mistaken one for another by ancient historians.

This stream of immigration carried Jews in large numbers into the city. Eventually this would give Odessa one of the largest concentrations of urban Jews to be found anywhere in the world. During the period from 1815 to 1861, the Jewish population rose from under four thousand to well over seventeen thousand individuals. In 1854, seven thousand Jews were citizens of Odessa, while six thousand other Jewish residents were officially considered to belong to other Russian towns. An English traveler observed: “The Jews form the largest portion of the foreign population. … A few are very rich and engage in the banking business; many make large purchases of imported goods from the foreign merchants and sell them retail in their own shops.

Not only did Odessa offer Jews unprecedented economic opportunities and freedom to pursue their own cultural interests, but its liberal atmosphere allowed them some participation in political affairs—a rare prerogative in tsarist Russia. In the 1850s, eleven Jews served in city offices. Both Vorontsov and his successor Stroganov insisted that Jews participate fully in all aspects of the city’s life. This steady influx linked the urban population through familial and other networks with the Jewish settlements in the hinterland. This laid the basis for still more massive immigration after 1861. ” 

Patricia Herlihy, “Odessa: A History 1794-1914”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts 

ODESSA ACCORDING TO Cultural Guide to European Jewry – JGuideEurope

SOURCE

Established in 1794, Odessa was captured by Admiral de Ribas from the Turks for Empress Catherine II of Russia. The city developed rapidly during the nineteenth century, largely due to the arrival of colonists from “New Russia”. It soon became a melting pot of Russians, French, Armenians, Poles, Greeks, Moldavians, and Jews. Forbidden to reside in Saint Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev, Jews poured into the southern Russian cities of Odessa and Nikolayev, eventually constituting a third of their population before the Second World War. Even today, Odessa still bears their mark.

A Jewish city

An Odessan was asked one day,
-How many people live in Odessa?
-One million.
-And how many of them are Jews?
-I just told you. One million.

You see, in people’s minds, “Odessan” and “Jews” are often confused.

Jewish Odessa began at the Greek Square (“Gretsk, that’s what they call the street where the Jews do business”, Sholem Aleichem wrote), Alexandrovski Prospect, the old marketplace, and the streets named Evreiskya, Bazamaya, and Malaya-Arnautskaya. It continued on the other side of Preobrajenska Street, down Tiraspolskaya to Staroportofrankovskaya streets, and beyond that to the neighborhood by the train station. It covered the entire Moldavanka suburb, where the famous Privoz market is found, and ended at the Slobodka district, where the deportation convoys waited during the German-Romanian occupation. The Jewish quarter encompassed a tremendous area, in other words, stretching from downtown all the way to the western and northern suburbs. Before the war, 350000 Jews lived here. They number no more than 50000 today.

Odessa, between yesterday and today

Today, only 3% of Odessa’s population is Jewish, approximately 30000 people. However, the city is still seen as one of Europe’s Jewish capitals. When, in 1916, Isaac Babel, wrote about a “city built by Jews”, he didn’t only refer to the number of Jews, but also to the general atmosphere, tolerant toward minorities.

Recently, archaeologists unveiled Jewish tombs dating from 1770, thus proving that a Jewish community existed there before Odessa’s creation. Indeed, in the 18th century, Jews were salt dealers in this province, that was then known under the name Hadjibey. According to the records, before its conquest by Iossif Derbos, about 10 Jews lived in this region. A hundred year later, there were 138000. The first Jewish inhabitants of Odessa came from the Russian Empire’s shtetls, and from the well-known city of Brody in Galicia. A lots of Jews bore the name of the shtetl they originated from.

The first Jewish inhabitants of Odessa were attracted by the privileges offered by the Russian Empire to the volunteers willing to settle in South Russia. For the Jewish community, it meant escaping the oppression they suffered from in the rest of the Empire. In Odessa, Jews were almost equal to other citizens. Therefore, 100 years after its creation, one third of Odessa’s population was Jewish, and became known as “the star of exile”, as Babel described the zionist movement in the city. Let’s add that leaving the shtetl for Odessa meant -in general- an increased quality of life. For some, the possibility of emigrating to Palestine, from a dream, became a reality. The frequent pogroms also fostered the rise of zionism in Odessa. Still, in 1941, half of the population was Jewish.

Life in the different quarters of the city

To the difference of many cities in the Russian Empire, Odessa didn’t have a Jewish quarter. Although some locations such as Moldavanka, Yevreyskaya, Bazarnaya, and Malaya Arnautskaya were at the center of the everyday community life. Being from small communities, the Jewish population tended to reproduce in Odessa the structural system they knew in the shtetl. Everyday life evolved around the synagogue, the mikveh, the school, the kosher butchery and charitable organizations. The first community newspaper was published in 1795.

The community elite was personified by Brodsky’s Jews, seen as the most educated, wealthy and liberals. In general, the European aspiration of the Brodsky Jews, the fact that Odessa was geographically far away from the centers of Judaism, the diversity if nationalities and social classes composing the city : all those elements explain why Odessa’s community was unique.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Odessa became the biggest market for exchanges and buisinesses in South Russia. Jews managed 90% of the seed export business ; owned 50% of the factories ; produced the white stones that served to the city’s construction ; the Korelsky family managed the biggest tobacco factory of the Empire etc…On the other side, one third of the city’s Jews lived in poverty.

The “Gate to Zion”

Historian Steven Zipperstein notes that the history of Odessa’s Jewish community is closer to the one of San Francisco than the one of Kiev. In this port city, the Jews lived without the constraints and limitations of the Russian Empire. They were not isolated and were an active part of the city’s life. The language barrier didn’t apply as well. However, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the tolerant and multicultural Odessa was nicknamed “Gate to Zion”. Indeed, it became one of the centers of the zionist movement, and the city where thousands of Jews left to Palestine.

The center of the zionist activity was the “Palestine Committee”. This organization helped the relocation of farm workers and craftsmen in Palestine. The committee was initiated in the 1880s by Lev Pinsker, Ahad Haam, Bialik, Klauzner, or Ben Ami were also part of the board. The members also raised funds to buy lands in Palestine. The land were the Hebraic University of Jerusalem was built was purchased by the committee. This is why Lev Pinsker was displaced there in 1934.

One of the most active members of this committee, Meir Dizengoff, was the first mayor of Tel Aviv. This is merely a coincidence. In some respect, Tel Aviv was built in Odessa. Lilienblum, one the yishuv first journalist, wrote that in Odessa, Jews arrived to the shores of the black sea, built a city and developed a port. If they were able to to that in Odessa, they would achieve their goal on the shores of the Mediterranean as well.

Another center of the zionist activity was the Brodsky synagogue. Around 70 houses were built through fund raising executed by the synagogue. Those buildings were the first of the future city of Nes Ziona.

To properly prepare the future emigrants, an Hebrew-only school was opened in 1903. In the same time, the publishing house Moria published school books in Hebrew and sends them to Tel Aviv.

From 1919 to 1927, the boat Ruslan shipped a numerous part of the Odessa intelligentsia to Palestine. Among them, lots were about to become the leaders of the future Israel.

The State Archives of Odessa Region (SAOF) is one of the largest archives in Southern Ukraine. Document holdings include more than 13,100 fonds (record groups) consisting of more than 2,009,604 files. These documents date back to the end of the eighteenth century until the present and reflect the history of the City of Odessa, Odessa Region and Southern Ukraine (formerly Novorussia). A large number of these documents are concerned with Jewish history.

The State Archives of Odessa Region was founded in 1920 as the Odessa Historical Archives. Its main function was the collection of archival documents in the territory of Odessa and Odessa Guberniya (Province), control under departmental archives, responsibility for the safety of valuable materials and the researching and publication of documents. Many famous scientists, public leaders and officials took part in the establishment of the state archival system in Odessa Region.

SAOR began with 22 fonds and collections from various organizations, agencies, religious institutions that concluded their activities after the revolution.

The main fonds of the pre-revolutionary period were:

• Administration of Novorussia and Bessarabia Governor-General
• Odessa City Chief
• Odessa City Council
• Guardianship Committee for Foreign Settlers in Southern Russia
• Odessa Police Office
• Commercial Court
• Banks
• Odessa Port Offices and Customs
• Novorussijsky University, colleges and schools
• Building organizations
• Cultural Societies

Jewish materials were represented as separate parts of those finds (Jewish sections) or in common management records.

From the mid 1920s until 1940, the Odessa Archive received 33 fonds from Jewish institutions, including:

• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society for the Spreading of
   Learning Among the Jews in Russia
Private Banks of Ashkenazi and Barbash
• Odessa City Rabbi
• Talmud Torah
• College for Artisans of Society “Trud” (Labor”), KOMZET, ORTVERBAND
• Odessa Pedagogical Jewish College

These fonds were of great interest to researchers. During this time, there was open support and acceptance of various ethnic groups. In 1931, the Jewish section in the Odessa Archives was established; the Search Room opened in 1927 and scientists received extensive access to documents. The first Odessa historians working with Jewish records were:

• S. Borovoj (“Jewish Colonies in Novorussia, 1830-1840”)
• L. Strizhak (“Economic state of the Jews in the Steppe Ukraine”)
• A. Buzhevich (Jewish Commissions, 1882”)
• D. Rishman (“History of Jews in Novorussia”)
• A. Reminik (“Jewish Theatre”

The academician, M. Slabchenko, prepared the materials of Zhaporozje Sich Kosh for publication and located Jewish records among them; but the research and qualified description of them was made by the a young scientist, Saul Borovoj. In 1940, S., Borovoj defended a doctoral dissertation on the subject of “Studying the History of Jews in Ukraine, XVI-XVIII centuries.”

With the beginning of World War II and German-Romanian occupation of Odessa in 1941, a major portion of the documents were evacuated to Stalingrad and later to the town of Uralsk in the West Kazakhstan Region. In Odessa, the City Chief Alexianu ordered the liquidation of “all Soviet garbage” and to convert the archives into a horse stable. The Director of the Archives, G. Serbsky, did not obey and valuable documents were salvaged. Replacements and evacuations led to irrecoverable waste; more than one million files (50% were lost during the war. Jewish fonds also suffered very much. For example, documents destroyed included great portions of materials of:

• Odessa City Rabbi (320-819 files)
• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society of the Spread of
   Learning Amount the Jews in Russia (462-495 files)
• Odessa House of Jewish
• Culture (82-84 files, and others

In April 1944, SAOR renewed its work in Odessa. After the war, there were not significant incoming Jewish materials other than some private fonds. Since 1990, SAOR has begun the process of declassifying about 900 fonds of German-Romanian Occupying Administrative and other Institutions. These files contain information about the creation of 139 concentration camps and ghettos in”Transnistra,” names of the imprisoned Jews and the policy of genocide.

In 1992, SAOR included records of the former Archives of Odessa Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR (more than 6,000 fonds), including Jewish fonds such as:

• Odessa Region and City Committees of Poalei-Zion
• Odessa Region Committee of Jewish Communist Union of Youth
• Editorial Office of the newspaper “Kommunistische Stimme” and others.

From 1945 until the early 1990s, scientists did not conduct special research on Jewish history. In spite of the fact that Jewish fonds were not secret, there was not any information about them in the Guide to Odessa Archives published in 1961.

Interest in this subject developed from the beginning of the 1990s. During the last 13 years, fifteen foreign researchers, representing scientific center in Germany, Israel, USA, Canada and Japan as well as Ukrainian historians and others have made great contributions to Jewish history using extensive archival sources.

The historical focus on national minorities in Novorussia is one of the main directions of activity in the Odessa Archives in recent years. Materials on Jewish history were presented at some exhibits at the Odessa Historical and Literary Museums. In 2000, the complete register of fonds and collections, including Jewish ones, for pre-revolution period was published, Also, some databases were created including:

• Name Indexes of the Odessa Jews on Materials of the First All-Russian
   Census in 1897 (not complete)
• Odessa Board for Small Businesses, 1894-1918

The name and thematic catalogs of Jews were also brought up to date. SAOR participates in the international program “Documents on History and Culture of Jews in Archives of Ukraine” (Ukraine-Russia-USA).

One of the recent projects of the Odessa Archives is an archeographical edition of Jews of Odessa and Southern Ukraine: History in Documents (End of XVIII-Beginning of XX Century). The book was prepared with support from the Odessa department of the “Joint” and was published in 2003. The book includes:

1Survey of 72 basic fonds of the Odessa Archives for pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods which contain documents on Jewish history (33 fonds of Jewish institutions, 24 fonds of administrative, court, statistics, customs and other institutions that were related to the subject and 15 private fonds). Description of every fond provides information about inclusive dates and quantity of files, varieties and contents of documents in general.
2Documental Digest. 250 documents on pre-revolutionary history of Jews are represented on 12 thematical lines including:
• Legislation on Jews, State policy and the Jewish subject in the
   Russian Empire
• Settlement in Novorussia, Jewish colonies, migration and emigration
• Trade, industry, banks
• Educational movements; science
• Religious and moral life
• Charity
• Medical institutions and societies
• Publishing business
• Jewish pogroms
• Army service
• Participation in revolution movements
• Criminal world

Document examples
• Regulation for Jews (April 13, 1835)
• Directions of Higher Authorities about the foundation of the Commission
   for Education of Jews (1842)
• Abolition of kahals (1844)
• Settlement of Jews on State lands (1847)
• Prohibition of special Jewish clothes (1851)
• Visits to police office on day off (1852)
• Election order for Jews (1857)
• Registration Rules for Jews – foreign subjects (1880)
• Materials of the Commission on the Jewish Problem (1881)
• Directions regarding admission of Jews to universities (1913)
• Circular of the Ministry of Jewish Affairs regarding election to Jewish
   public boards (1818)
• Information about resettling Jews from Podolia to Kherson Guberniyas
   and the number of Jewish colonies (1835-1839)
• Project of some merchants from Kremenchug, Pavlograd and Uman
   to establish a model Jewish colony of Michailsdorf in Bessarabia (1840)
• Report of the Governor-General M.S. Vorontsov regarding reformation
   of the Jews in Russia (1844)
• Appointment of the Mennonite Quenzer to the post of Chief in the
   colony of Gromokleva (1857)
• Conflict and fighting between the Jews and Gypsies in Rezina
   (Bessarabia)
• Activities of the Odessa Society for Relief to Jews, Peasants and
   Artisans in Syria and Palestine (1888)
• Jewish Colonization Society (1892)
• Emigration from Odessa to Argentina (1895)
• Inclusion of Jews to the Odessa merchants and petty bourgeois
• Foundation of A. Rafalovich’s firm (1850)
• Society for Bilateral Aid to Jewish counterman (manager) (1862)
• Registration of owners of manufacturing enterprises in Odessa (1898)
• Information about activities of the M. Ashkenazi firm (1898)
• S. Barbash’s bank (1915)
• Materials about the Foundation of the Jewish College for Boys in
   Odessa (1826)
• Odessa Jewish Society “Beseda” (Converse”) (1863)
• Society for Bilaterial Aid to the Jewish teachers in Novorussia (1866)
• Activities of the Talmud Tora in Odessa (1877)
• Statistical information about Jewish students in the Novorussijsky
   University (1881)
• Establishing of S. Gurovich and R. Khari scholarships at Odessa Commercial College (1888, 1892)
• Activities of the Society “Trud” (1895-1901)
• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society of the Spread of Learning
   among Jews in Russia (1897)
• Cheders in Ekaterinoslav and Tavrich Provinces (1903)
• Building of the Second Talmud Torah in Odessa (1904)
• Activities of Societies of “Ivrija” (1907)
• Lovers of Jewish Language (1907)
• Club “The Jewish Public Meeting” (1908)
• Odessa Jewish Public Nachman Byalik Library “Seifer” (1919)
• The College “Yeshivot” (1915-1916)
• Documents about the number of synagogues and houses of prayer
   in Odessa (1840)
• Commendation to the Rabbi of the colonies of Novo-Vitebsk, Novo-
   Podolsk and Novo-Kovno – Rabbi Benjamin Knyazhik with gold medal
   for good service (1862)
• Registration of 63 synagogues and houses of prayer in Odessa with
   dates of foundation and addresses (1890-1894)
• Materials about parishioners of the Brodsky Synagogue (1892-1894)
• Statute of the Odessa Society for Jews Converted to the (Russian)
   Orthodox Faith (1894
• Birth entry of David Oustrach (1908)
• Information about the Jewish Hospital in Odessa (1832,1854)
• Establishing of the Iosif Valtuch Orthopedic Institute (1888)
• Klara Weinberg’s Medical Center for Vaccination against smallpox
   (1893)
• Documents about prohibition of the merchant Aksenfeld to open a
   printing house in Odessa (1852)
• Program of the first magazine for Jews in Russian “Rassvet” (*1860)
• Information about edition of “Hamelitz (1867)
• “Kadima” (1906)
• “Unser Leben” (1912)
• “Jewish Anecdotes” (1916
• Materials from the editorial collection of Sergey Stern
• Materials about the establishment of:

     • Odessa Jewish Charity Society (1866)
     • Kogan’s House (1873)
     • Jewish Hospice (1880)

• Benefections of A. Brodsky, R. Khari, OKhais, M. Morgulis, M.
   Rabinovich, Rafalovich, Katzen, Luisa Ashkenazi and others for
   Jewish orphans (1866-1898)
• Activities of the Societies of “Druzhelyubije” [“Friendship”] (1898)
• Central Jewish Registration Bureau
• Reports and notes of the extraordinary Odessa Governor-General,
   gubernial authorities and Odessa City Chief about pogroms in Odessa
   and Novorussia in 1881, 1886, 1905
• Evidence from witnesses including Rosa Drutman’s statement about
   the murder of the Veitzman family in 1905.
• Information about the liberation of Jewish students from military
   service (1844)
• Drafting of Jewish peasants who were avoiding military service (1847)
• Materials about legal proceedings charging E. Kenis with abetting Jews
   in avoiding military service (1885-1888).
• Materials from the police court case of David Bronstein (Lev Trotsky)
   arrested for revolutionary activities in Nikolayev (1898)
• Reports of police officers about participation of Jews in revolutionary
   developments, court materials accusing M. Bogomolny with having
   illegal Bund and Poalei-Zion literature (1904)
• Activities of the Jewish Self-Defense guard in Moldavanka
   [Odessa] (1906)
• Relationship of cadets (political party) to the “Jewish Problem” (1908)
• Reports of Police and Customs authorities about the Jews engaged in
   contraband, forgery, prostitution (international), discreditable
   practices with securities, etc.
3Genealogical Chapter, Fond 359: Odessa Board for Small Business, Jewish Section, 1894-1918 (alphabetical name index of 4,505 heads of Jewish families that had a status of Odessa Meshchanin (petty bourgeois) with address locations.
Page 179 from the above book
with an alphabetical name index
of 4,505 heads of Jewish families.
Information includes name,
address, date of birth,
age and list number.


[Enlarge image]

Genealogical research is a way to examine the facts through the history of families and to determine the place of an individual in society and his influence on the world. This is an important research focus in order to understand the historical period, its affect on individual families and our place in history.

For example, family history research for the Odessa petty bourgeois Krakhmalnikovs revealed an engrossing story of the development of confectionary production that began in 1892 as a factory and trade firm “The Krakhmalnikov Brothers” and continues to operate now as the Joint Stock Company “Odessa.” By the way, descendants of this family now live in the USA after emigrating from Odessa in 1906. Some family members continue in this occupational field including Bruce Kreig, a grandson of Abram Krakhmalnikov. While he is a professor of Archeology at Chicago University, at the same time he is a famous international expert in food and cooking. After searching the documentary materials in the Odessa Archives, he wrote “We are very happy to know that we are a part of the history of Odessa.”

The Public Archive of Odessa region Survey of funds and documents
HISTORY OF THE JEWS OF ODESSA And SOUTH OF THE UKRAINE
 “the Jews of Odessa and south of the Ukraine: history in the documents “
(The first volume – end OF THE XVIII – THE XX centuries)
SOURCE

 ADMINISTRATIVE ESTABLISHMENTS
Control of the Novorossisk and Bessarabian governor general
Office of the Odessa mayor
Trustee committee about the foreign settlers of the southern edge of Russia
Odessa urban on the compulsory military service presence

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE URBAN And CLASS SELF-GUIDANCE
Odessa urban thought, the Odessa urban setting
Odessa petty-bourgeois setting

POLICE, JUDICIAL, PROSECUTOR And NOTARIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
Odessa municipal magistracy
Office of the Odessa police chief
Elder notary of the Odessa circuit court
Odessa merchant’s court
 
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS And THE JARS
Banker house Of Ashkenazi in Odessa

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS CULT
Odessa municipal ravvinat

Cultural-educational SOCIETIES
Committee of the Odessa department of the society of the propagation of education among the Jews

THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Funds for the higher educational institutions of g.Odessy, general education secondary schools, schools and schools and oranov of their control
Odessa Jewish School “Of Talmud- Thor”
Odessa 6- Class School Of efrussi

FUNDS FOR THE SOVIET PERIOD
Funds for the establishments of the period of the temporary German- Rumanian occupation

ADMINISTRATIVE ESTABLISHMENTS

Control of the Novorossisk and Bessarabian governor general
f. 1, 1797-1874, 29624 matters


General- governor archive both by the volume and on the significance, is placed in the category of the separately valuable funds GAOO. Since 1803 Odessa was the administrative center of Novorossisk edge and the residence of governor general, who accomplished control of the enormous territory of the Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, Tavricheskeye provinces and Bessarabian region. In the archive of governor is concentrated the information on the history of Jews in the south of the Ukraine v on the different aspects.

Legislative acts are widely represented, the resolutions of imperious organs – emperor edicts about the rules of the settling of Jews in by Novorossisk edge, positions about Jews 1835, 1844, position about the box collection of 1839, rules about the production by the Jews of crafts only in the small cities, the settlements and the places (op.2ya8 (1847), d.eeeya). Was preserved the matter for particular office concerning the report of the governor general of the graph Of m.S.Vorontsova to emperor “relative to the assumed measures to the conversion of Jewish people in Russia” (1843, f.y, op.yshche, d.y28).

There are opinions and decisions of the chiefs of provinces, information about their fulfillment on the following questions: on the settling of Jews on the particular, landowner’s and fiscal earth (1847-1859 yr, op.2ya9, d.”‘; 1849, op.y92, d.e0; 1854, op.y9e, dd.88-89); on the moving out of Jews to 50 versts from the border of Austria and Prussia (1852, op.2yshch, d.ey); on the limitation of Jews in the trade – opinion of the chiefs of provinces about the equation in the rights of Jews with the Christians (1857, op.y9shch, d.shchya9); on the department of Jews into the special blocks (1856, op.20e, d.ya”); on the prohibition by them entrance into Moldavia (1861, op.y”e, d.2ya); on the order of the selections of Jews to the urban and public posts (1857, op.y9shch, d.”0″); on the subordination of Jews to general control and the destruction of kagalov (1844, op.yshchya, d.e”; 1845, op.y92, d.90); on the establishment of commissions for the formation of Jews (op.y92 (1842), of d.e9); on permission to buy to Jews the earth in the Crimea; on the assignment to the Jew- farmers of the 50- summer privilege of release from the rekrutskoy duty, about the isolation of loans to the acquisition of economy, about the establishment in the Ekaterinoslav province of the colonies of “Israeli Christians”, about the candle and box collections (pub. 248 (1858), dd.2yaye, 2415; op.2ya8 (1843), d.y0shch), the device of hospitals and almshouses (op.2ya8 (1843), of d.y09; op.y9e (1854), d.yy8; op.2ya8 (1854), d.2′”0; op.y”(1868), d.y2y). Was preserved the information about a quantity of kagalov, synagogues and Jewish schools in the edge (op.2yya (1834, d.e), about the collection of donations to the construction of synagogues and of houses of prayer (1842, op.2ya8, d.9’), about the establishment in Odessa of Jewish school (op.y90 (1826 g.) d.ya”) and handicraft classes in by Novorossisk edge (op.y9e (1853), d.98).

A number of documents they reflect the process of Jewish colonization. These are materials about land surveying of the earth for the device of colonies, application of the Jews of Podolskiy, Grodnenskoy and Vitebskoy of provinces about the migration into the Kherson province (1837, op.yya8, d.y; 1838, d.shch; 1840, d.ee, 2728); the information about the desire of merchants to found model Jewish colony in Bessarabia (1840, op.2yshch, d.y’). There are permissions of authorities to the delivery of passports for the entrance from abroad or of migration from other provinces of Russia, information about the state of Jewish colonies (1841, op.2ya8, d.2″Рё; 1843, op.2ya8, d.y08, 115), about the Jew- farmers (1859, op.y’, d.y0shch), about the measures for an improvement in control of the Jewish settlings (1843, op.2ya8, d.yy0), about the “disorders” in the colonies (1841, op.2ya8, d.89). Materials on the colonization are concentrated in the fund also on the separate inventory – “about the Jewish colonies of Novorossisk provinces” (inventory 2, 1837-1847, 101 matters). This of order and the reports of the central and local administrative bodies of control about the outlet of the earth in the Kherson and Ekaterinoslav provinces for the settling of Jews and device for them of agricultural colonies, the assignment of fiscal means for the building of the houses of colonists, the determination of the staff of officials and supervisors for control of the newly formed settlings. There are petitions of Jews of Podolskiy, Kurlyandskeye, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Grodnensk, Kovenskeye and Minsk provinces about the migration into Novorossiyu, and also applications of some colonists about the permission by it to return in the previous place of residence, about the delivery of passports and tickets for the departure to the earnings.

In the documents is contained valuable information about the development of Jewish colonies beaver Kut, greater and small Nagartav, Seydemenukha, Ingulets, Yefengar, Kamenka, tortuous (Khortitskiy district), Izrailevka (Bobrinetskiy district), new Berislav, L’vov, Romanovskoye, Novopoltavka (Kherson district) – statistical evidence, reports and the review of the officials of the department of the state asset and other officials about the development of agriculture and handicraft matter, wine ransom, about a quantity of inhabitants and the status of the health of population, the device of training and medical institutions, in particular, in Nagartave, the passage of some colonists from judaic to orthodox faith, applications of Jews about their reckoning in farmers, about their release from the rekrutskoy duty.

Office of the Odessa mayor
f. 2, 1802-1837, 1848-1854, 1856-1917, 20890 matters


The materials of fund are systematized on 16 inventories, comprised in accordance with the structure of the office: tables capable, secret, economic, construction, certified, societies and meetings, 1 All-Russian population census. Inside each inventory the matters are systematized in the chronological order with some retreats. Materials on the history of Jews do not compose united collection, but they bear the separate nature and they are included in all structural parts.

Capable table (inventories 1, 1a, 1b, 4 – ch.2, 1796-1919 yr.)

Orders of mayor about the order of compilation of public sentences, about the order of conducting, to checking and zasvidetel’stvovanii of the Jewish metric books, about the establishment of handicraft classes with the fiscal Jewish schools, about the introduction of examination for the teachers of Jews, about the Odessa Jewish hospital.

Lists about a quantity of Jews in Odessa, kagalov, synagogues and houses of prayer, information about discovery and activity of synagogues and of houses of prayer, selections of their officials. Information about the Odessa rabbis, in such cases to shvabakhere, doctor of philosophy To krepse.
Information about the commercial houses, the enterprises, the drugstores and the therapeutic establishments – Abraham rafalovich, the steamer offices Kossodo, Rappoport et al., particular hospitals Of gurovich, Polukhera, Meringa and the assertion of the regulations of the orthopedic institute of Joseph val’tukh in Odessa.

Orders relative to Jewish rites and customs – about the prohibition since 1851 to the Jews of the carrying of special Jewish clothing, about the prohibition to appear into the urban police during subbotniye and authorized days, to arrange wedding festivals on the streets of Odessa, to woman- jewesses to shave heads, to accomplish some religious rites not by rabbis.

Matters about the assignment of the right of trade in Russia to Jews -inostrannopoddannym only to the merchants of the 1st guild, about the enumeration of Jews into the agricultural title, about the permission to Jews to open printing houses, in particular, to merchant aksenfel’d. Permissions to the publication of newspapers and periodicals, in such cases. “dawn”, “gamelits”. Information about the collisions between the Jews and the Christians on the religious soil, about the activity of London missionaries for the rotation of Jews into Christianity.

Permissions about the erection of Jews into the honorable citizenship – I.Gorovitsa, M.Gurovicha, etc.

_ matter about permission found different society – mutual assistance Jewish salesman, “conversation, mutual assistance Jew, mutual assistance jewess, Jewish blagotvoritelСЃogo charity association, society for propagation education between Jew, society for propagation craft between Jewish woman, mutual assistance Jew, assistance farmer and craftsman in Syria and Palestine, society for assistance inverted in Christianity Jew, society care about poor and homeless Jewish child, society mutual aid merchant agent and different merchant- Jew, society sanitary colony for treatment and training weak health study indigent Jewish population Odessa, society assistance require toiler- Jew Odessa, society for benefit former pupil commercial school Fa1ga, society care about poor Jewish population on settlement -Romanovke, society assistance by the student of the commercial school Of gokhmana, society of working aid to the requiring themselves Jews of Odessa, society “friendliness” and other.

Materials about the charitable activities – about the donation A.Brodskim of house and 50 thousand rubles for the Jewish orphans and the device of barracks for 30 patients, about the establishment in the Jewish orphan house of allowance to im.Ashkinazi and of other nominal allowances, and also of allowance Of rafalovicha in the Jewish orphan house, the device of house for the aged Jews, the establishment by the Jews of almshouse, the donation Of l.Ashkinazi 76500 rub to the construction of operating building in the Odessa Jewish hospital.

Orders concerning the educational institutions, in particular, school “eshibot”, the commercial school of the name Of gurovicha, school “labor”, the musical classes Of plinera, “Talmud- tori”, the dancing classes Of khaimovicha and Krymershmoysa, musical is course Rafalovicha, bandmaster it is course Kauffmann, drawing is course Reynbol’da, to the professional school of the practical painting Of tovelevicha.
Materials about the establishment into 1875 with the mayor of the post of scientific Jew and reports of scientific Jews (Genikesa and of others.)

Secret table (inventory 2, 1820-1912; op.ye, 1874-1910 yr.)

On inventory 2: the matter for search and establishment of supervision after the persons, suspected of the criminal and political crimes, on the delivery of evidence about the loyalty. Lists of political prisoners, materials on the dispatch to the settling into Siberia and other province. Circular about the prohibition of voluntary offerings among the Jews by the name “collection to the Israeli earth”. Documents and the protocols of commission for Jewish problem. Matters about the transfer from Warsaw to Odessa of the monthly Jewish journal “gaboker-Or”, about the assertion of the program of weekly political- public and literary Jewish newspaper in the Russian language “love” edited by Yakov Prilukera.

On inventory 13: the matter of office about the Jewish pogroms in Odessa in 1905 (dd.e-shch).

Economic table (inventory 3, 1830-1916)

Permissions to the discovery of industrial and commercial enterprises, information about the state of factories and plants, commercial houses, application in questions of owner’s activity. Deal about the construction of Odessa Jewish hospital of 1860; on the sums of box and candle collections and the content of Jewish schools 1864 about the discovery of the enterprises: Gamsheyem by Wolf, By b.Rozenbergom – vodka distilleries, by Siegal, by Schechter, by Vaynberg – factories of water and lemonade, Rafalovichem – the plant of starch and of solodovareniya, Gurovichem – the factory of finishing it is pin and the preparation of vinegar, By perel’muterom – cosmetic institution, by Frenkel – the factory of the preparation of fraction, dynamic meter Gusevs, By roytblat, b. by goose, by Barban – cotton factories, Shorshteynom – sheet metal factory, Brodskim – sugar refinery, by Bronstein – the medovarennogo plant, etc; on the assertion of plan for the construction of Jewish cold synagogue.

Sudnyy table (inventory 4, 1828-1914 yr.)

Materials about sale of the immovable properties for the debts, selection of complaints and claims, spiritual wills and guardianships, penalty of duties, expulsion of an alien abroad on the charge in the criminal and political crimes, performance of judicial sentences, into t.ch.:ob abduction by foreign Jews abroad of the russkopoddannykh women for the completion in Konstantinopole of public houses (d.”, 2483); on the delivery to the Jews of metric evidence; “about the investigation of denunciation about the formed gang of Jews, which issues the false of passport to the departure abroad. 1882 g.”,” on the complaint of the parishioners of Odessa main synagogue of improper actions of the warden of the synagogue Of a.Kupervassera on the post “; the alphabets of prisoners; rule for the activity in Russia of joint-stock Jewish colonization company and information about its work 7670); “about the meetings of Zionist- Jews”.

Construction committee (inventory 5, 1812-1901 yr.)

Information about the construction of public buildings, the outlet of the urban earth to private individuals, the activity of urban architects, in particular, about the service in the post of the architect of the 5th part of Odessa not the class artist of Joseph kolovich (drafter Of brodskoy synagogue).

Certified table (inventory 6, 1808-1912 yr.)

Passport, tickets to the entrance into Russia or the departure beyond its limits for the years 1808-1898 (they were preserved not completely). Matters to the individual citizens on the reckoning in Odessa petty bourgeois merchants, on the drive to the oath and the delivery of evidence to those, who accepted Russian citizenship, to the delivery of foreign passports, in particular, to avstriyskopoddannomu rabbi gersh To dannemarku in the passage into S- Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev. Lists about the foreigners, who arrived from abroad.

Table of societies and meetings (inventory 7, 1906-1914 yr.)

There are permissions to the establishment, the regulations and the information about the activity of societies and meetings of g.Odessy. Are introduced the society of the mutual aid of those been of handicraft society “labor”, the society of assistance to Jew- farmers and craftsmen in Syria and Palestine, Odessa territorialistskoye emigratory society, the union of Jewish charity associations and establishments “central Jewish registration bureau”, the department of Vilenskiy of the charitable Jewish society Of “gmilus-Khesed”, the society of the amateurs of Jewish language, Jewish public meeting in Odessa, the Jewish society Of “ivriya”, and also different professional societies with the traditionally high percentage of the participation of Jewish population – particular agents, brokers, photographers, industrialists, etc.

First All-Russian population census of 1897 (inventory 8, 9, 10)

The sheets of census with 3 thousand addresses were preserved, in them were registered the surname, name and patronymic of inhabitant, his age and the place of generation, citizenship, class, formation, religion, social position, profession, sources of income. (in 1897 the number of Odessa residents, who showed by native language Jewish, was 124511 man. – 2-4 on the number national group after Russians).

Trustee committee about the foreign settlers of the southern edge of Russia
f. 6, 1800-1873, 14815 matters


In the fund for 9 inventories, in the inventories в„–в„– 1a, 3 and 4 there are divisions on the Jewish table, in the rest the materials according to the Jews are not isolated as separate complexes.

In the fund were put off the materials on the colonization of Novorossisk edge, in such cases about the appearance and development of Jewish colonies in the Ekaterinoslav and Kherson provinces. These are reports and the list of the supervisors of Jewish colonies, circumferential orders and shul’tsev about the population, the welfare of colonies (statistical evidence since 1811), the penalty of taxes, the delivery of loans, the elections of officers, the development of agriculture, horticulture, trade; the application of the Jews of the western provinces of the Russian Empire about the migration into the newly formed colonies, about their reckoning in colonists and other classes, about the Jewish schools, about the fight with the vagabondage of Jew- colonists. Interest they can represent materials about the realization of government plan with respect to the involvement of Jews in productive zemledel’chestvo on the model of the well organized German farmer economies, the reciprocal effect of Jewish and mennonitskikh colonies – for example, about the building by mennonitami of houses for the arrived Jews in the colony To nechayevke, about the designation of wardens from mennonitov into the Jewish settlings, in particular, David Hertz into the colony to L’vov, about the migration of mennonitov in a constant place of residence into the Jewish colonies for the purpose of the development of there particular production, about the creation of the mixed settlings (Yudenplan in Khortitse), about the isolation by mariupol’skimi mennonitami of wheat for the sowing to Jew- colonists, about the orders by the Jews of agricultural instruments and seeds in molochanskikh mennonitov, etc.


Odessa urban on the compulsory military service presence
f. 315, 1884-1920, 1022 matters


Materials according to the Jews are not isolated as separate complex.

Lists of reservists and their metric vypisi (beginning from 1884 of generation), the private affairs of draftees, correspondence on the postponements of military service.

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE URBAN And CLASS SELF-GUIDANCE

Odessa urban thought, the Odessa urban setting
ff. 4, 16, 1796-1920, 67818 matters


The Duma and setting knew by economic, financial, construction and businesses. Jewish department:

f. 4, inventory 107 (1824-1872, 1034 matters)
f. 4, inventory 108 (1884-1895, 120 matters)
f. 16, inventory 109 (1896-1903, 76 matters)
f. 16, inventory 110 (1904-1912, 183 matters)
f. 16, inventory 124, part of 2, p. 399-423 (1870-1920 yr.)


Annual reports of Jewish department. Information about the start of the arrived in Odessa Jews in petty-bourgeois and merchant class, the transfer from the class into the class, the restoration in the class and the exception from the same. Family and personal lists of Odessa Jew- petty bourgeois, merchants and craftsmen. Lists of Jews musical spark gaps and shops.

Metric books and the lists of the borne and dead Jews (men), not registered in Odessa municipal ravvinate, in particular, by that belonging not to what konfessii. Correspondence on the certification of metric evidence about the generation, marriage, death and to the correction of errors in metric records. The decisions of setting about the establishment of the events of the generation of those, who do not be registered according to the metric books, and the alphabetical lists of such citizens. Correspondence on the delivery of passports, it is specific to the residence, evidence and other documents.

Tax lists of Odessa petty-bourgeois Jewish class. Correspondence and lists on the rekrutskim collections, on the apportionment of candle and box collections.

Lists of Jewish schools and materials about their content, in particular, the report of the member of the setting N.A. Of gantsa about the delivery in 1919 to the Jewish community of subsidy in the amount of 3806000 rub to the content of 28 elementary schools. Lists of Jews, which entered educational institutions.

Information about building and discovery of synagogues and houses of prayer. Lists of synagogues and houses of prayer and their terms. Information about the officials of Jewish society – rabbis To fil’shteyne, Stopchike, Polinkovskom, To shvabakhere, the wardens of synagogues Abraham -Xasime, To kupervassere, scientific Jew Solomon To guroviche, etc.

Materials about the donations, the content disabled, charitable actions, allocation of assets to the content of Jewish hospital, Jewish cemeteries, shelters. Lists of philanthropists and their spiritual wills (A.M.Brodskogo, etc.).

Besides the inventories on the Jewish department, funds for 4 and 16 contain additional those 144 comprised on the years of inventory – on the general office management, the construction and charitable departments, the public education and the bookkeeping, in which also there is an information on the history of Jewish community against the background of townspeople life. The significant interest present the yearly lists of merchants, who declared capital, to list about the collection of taxes, materials about the discovery of commodity-industry enterprises, the outlet of the sections of the urban earth under the individual building, the participation of citizens in the urban self-guidance. The comparative analysis of documents can give idea about the formation, the increase and the motion of the private capital, formation and development of Jewish commercial houses, economic state of both the Jewish community as a whole and its individual representatives. In the fund for setting was preserved “the periodical of the honorable citizens of Odessa. 1854-1897 “, into which were carried 304 surnames of distinguished and most authoritative in the Odessa society citizens, in such cases of 96 Jews and karaites with the members of their families.

Odessa petty-bourgeois setting
f.eshch9, 1828-1919, 200 matters


Jewish department (1894-1918, 44 matters) is represented by the family lists of the Odessa petty bourgeois- Jews (list it contains the names of all members of family with the indication of their age or date of generation, relation to the military service, the addresses of stay at the moment of the composition of document over the signature of the head of family).

POLICE, JUDICIAL, PROSECUTOR And NOTARIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Odessa municipal magistracy
f. 17, 1795-1839, 162 matters


Magistracy knew by the administrative and judicial matters of Odessa petty bourgeoisie and merchants. In its office management were put off the most important and chronologically earliest materials of economic nature – the information about the delivery of commercial and estimated evidence, about the assertion of merchant women, zaprodazhnykh, borrowed letters, introductions into the estate, about the selection of commercial transactions, bankruptcies, complaints. There are also lists, lists and correspondence about a quantity of merchants and petty bourgeois, their properties and capital, organization it is shop particular applications about the reckoning into the Odessa merchants and the petty bourgeoisie, in particular, for the years 1808-1809. – M.Sh.Medyanika, Levi and Aron pibergod, Solomon and Abel Gershkovichey, Leyby of Krakow, tsesarskopoddannogo T.G.Kumana, etc. (op.e), Leyby Of balabana, Abraham bondoni, Gilelya Of manusovicha, Mordko Of moshkovicha, Mendel Doyberga, Yakuba Lando, Getselya Of fridentalya, Moshi Mangubi, etc. (op.shch), the information about the individual citizens, in such cases Jews, added into the Odessa petty bourgeoisie in 1811-1812.

Documents about the erection of Jews in the post or the suspension from it are of interest also. In the fund there is an “alphabet about the Jews” in 1811 (op.e, d.yayashch)

Office of the Odessa police chief
f. 314, 1824-1917, 437 matters


Fund contains reports, reports, correspondence of the officials of the police about search and detention of the persons, suspected and accused in the criminal and political crimes; the lists of citizens, which consist under the supervision of the police, the political prisoners of Odessa prison, exiled to the hard labor works, the members of underground organizations, participants in the revolutionary movement, Jewish pogroms in Odessa. There is information about the participation of Jews in the revolutionary movement. The political matters can serve as an example: on the participation in the preparation of attempt on governor in 1902 of the members of the party of the terrorists, in number of whom of 30 pupils of school “labor”; on the creation in 1907 by young Jews headed by leftist Mochmanom – by the workers of the plant of gene – guard by the name “young will” in contrast the “union of Russian people” and their participation in the “expropriation” of private property; on the witnesses on business Of beylisa; on the establishment By i.A.Trivusom, Ya.Landesmanom, S.Rabinovichem and By i.B.Smirom of “Odessa Zionist club KADIMA”; on the activity of “Jewish territorialisticheskoy organization” and its theorist Israel To zangvile; on supervision after the sect of subbotniks and “zhidovstvuyushchikh” and others.

Fund is rich in the materials, which tell about the role of Jews in the criminal peace. From the criminal cases present interest materials about the activity in Odessa of the criminal groups of fal’shivomonetnogo and gambling business, sutenerstva, smuggling, and also of information about the well-known criminals – international pocket pilferer To moyshe To miroshnike-Irline (Bear- American), the international souteneurs Isaac Goldstein and the silverer, the cardsharper Zinof golender in the nickname “Pushkin” et al.


Elder notary of the Odessa circuit court
f. 35, 1869-1920, 32404 matters


Funds contain the notarial reports about the buying and selling, the donation, the will of the immovable property and land sections, given to the estates, agreements about the transactions, concluded by the notaries of g.Odessy, the Odessa, Anan’evskogo and Tiraspol’ districts of Kherson province. There is, for example, information about the enterprises Of frola Of shpolyanskogo.

Odessa merchant’s court
f. 18, 1808-1920, 5072 matters


Materials on the selection of commercial transactions, the delivery of estimated evidence, the collection of the commercial duties, matter for guardianship, commercial insolvency, registration of commercial institutions in the territory of Odessa mayorship. There are books of the registration of commercial establishments (1836-1843), of list about the property and capital of merchants (1826-1843), investigation and judicial matters for bankruptcies, promissory note actions, containing valuable information about activity and state of Jewish commercial houses.

FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS And THE JARS

Banker house Of Ashkenazi in Odessa
f. 246, 1893-1918, 5 matters


Materials on establishment and activity of the joint-stock company of southeastern steam navigation “star” of the banker house Of ashkenazi. Balances and reports on the operation of steamship “eastern star” (1906-1916). Statements about the income, which is subject to taxation by the state income tax (1917-1918).

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS CULT

Odessa municipal ravvinat
f. 39, 1846, 1854, 1875-1920, 499 matters


The metric books about the generation, the marriage, divorce and death of the Jews Odessa and alphabets to them – base source for the genealogical studies (documents of ravvinata for the years 1835-1874 they perished in the years of 2-1 world war).

The funds for another konfessiy – Kherson spiritual consistory (f. 37), Evangelical- Lutheran and reform arrivals (ff. 630, 894) – contain information about the passage of Jews from judaic religion to Christian, about the marriages of israelites with the representatives of other religions, about the registration of Jews, who belong not to what faith.

Cultural-educational SOCIETIES

Committee of the Odessa department of the society of the propagation of education among the Jews
f. 442, 1880-1881, 36 matters


Regulations of the Odessa department of society, correspondence on organizational questions also about its activity. Protocols of the general meetings of the members of society; the application of students about the rendering by them of material aid, the determination to the pedagogical work; correspondence with the Petersburg committee, particular Jewish and other educational institutions for questions of the organization of enlightenment work among the Jews, delivery of means to the content of educational institutions, job placement of teachers, method of donations. Lists of instructors, members of society; the information about the Jewish schools of g.Odessy, the libraries of department and their reports. Brief survey of the activity of Odessa department, estimate of libraries and museum. Information about the members of the society

THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Funds for the higher educational institutions of g.Odessy, general education secondary schools, schools and schools and oranov of their control
(about 40 funds)


Tyuey ppozvolyayut to investigate such questions as shaping of intellectual layer in the Jewish medium, level of the education of Jews, their contribution to the cultural and scientific life of city. Thus, in the materials Of rishel’evskogo face (f. 44, 1817-1865, 3262 matters) are considerable valuable information about trained in this Odessa’s first higher educational institution Jews.

Created on the base of face in 1865. Novorossisk university (f. 45, 1865-1920, 44688 matters), only in the south of the Ukraine, played large role in the making of a Jewish intelligentsia Of novorossii. In kon.KhyKh- of nach.KhKh of substances the Jews composed significant layer among the students of Odessa. The private affairs of students – remarkable historical source, which makes possible for researcher to personify epoch. The matter contains, as a rule, application about the method into the educational institution and the release at its end, copy of metric evidence about the generation, the secondary school graduation certificate, information about the behavior and progress, photograph of student. In kon.Kh.IKh – nach.KhKh of substances in by Novorossisk university were trained many representatives of well-known Jewish families.

In the fund for Odessa highest female it is course (f.eeya, 1906-1920, 11321 matters) numerous information about the jewess- girl students.

Odessa Jewish School “Of Talmud- Thor”
f. 441, 1891-1906, 13 matters


Correspondence with the Odessa urban setting on organizational and economic questions. Circulars and the order of the inspector of people schools for training- organizational and financial-economic questions. Information about the composition of the trustee council of school, the rules of the internal regulation (d.y0); application about the delivery of benefits being required. List of students.

Odessa 6- Class School Of efrussi
f. 125, 1898-1901, 714 matters


Minutes of the meeting of pedagogical council. General and examination lists about the successes, the behavior, the diligence and the abilities of students. Circular orders of the trustee of Odessa training region about the designation of teachers and their rewarding, about the grant-aided students. Lists of those entering, students and external students. Class, table and object periodicals. Curricula (op.y, d.ya’).

the Receipt- cashbox books of payment for the instruction and the income- expense books. Photographic cards of external students (op.y, d.’y; op.2, d.eya), information and the certification of external students (op.2, d.28). The private affairs of students (op.e, 607 matters).

FUNDS FOR THE SOVIET PERIOD

In the funds for administativnykh control elements 1930- X yr. (councils, their executive committees and the subordinate structures of all levels) – the information about the nationalization of property in well-off citizens, the dekulakization. The materials of the inspectorates of public education (ff. 150, 134, 1919-1930, 2201 matters) tell about the activity of Jewish sections, schools, libraries, the creation in Odessa of the unique museum of Jewish culture.

The documents of the independent funds for Jewish public organizations, educational institutions and political parties reflect many aspects of the state national policy of post-revolutionary period with respect to the poorest part of the Jewish population – creation of Jewish national regions, collective farms and agricultural comradeships, the organization of the system of the national educational institutions, cultural societies for the Jews, the activity of international organizations for rendering aid to the victims of pogroms in the period of Civil War in the Ukraine and starving, migration into Birobidzhan, departure of Jews into Palestine, activity of youth associations.

Funds for the establishments of the period of the temporary German- Rumanian occupation
887 funds, 1941-1944.


The materials of the organs of authority and control, created with German- Rumanian authorities in the temporarily occupied territory of Odessa and Odessa region give idea about the catastrophe of Jewish people in period 2- of world war. The documents of boards, pretur, prefectures, working communities, enterprises and establishments contain information about the creation of the network of concentration camps and ghetto in the newly formed governorship Of transnistrii and concentration in them of Jewish population, about rendering aid concluded Rumanian Jewish communities. There are numerous lists of those, who were being located in the ghetto. By the colleagues of archive is created the alphabetical nominal card index of victims and indicator about the presence of lists on 139 ghetto Of transnistrii (Mogilev, Bershad’, Berezovka, Kameneq- Podolskiy, Obodovka, Domanevka, etc.). Since 1990 archive gave out sv.yshch of thousand of information to citizens about the confirmation of their stay in the ghetto within the framework of the implementation of international programs on the compensation for the substituted to them damage. The demands of these citizens also can be examined as the significant historical source, since the detailed descriptions of tragic events, morale of the prisoners of ghetto, fates of concrete people are contained in many.

Sources for the Jewish Agricultural Colonies, adjacent towns and villages, located at various times in Southern Ukraine, Bessarabia, Podolia and the Crimea, are relatively hard to find. This site gathers data about the individual settlements, the points of origin of these settlers and recounts their stories.

…AND THEN USSR PUT THE AGRO-JOINT OUT. IS THIS WHAT zELENSKY AND PUTIN ARE WORKING TO REPAIR?

Is this what most Jews are promising to come back for, and some have even stayed to fight for?

On page 404 we find a mention for:
“Warburg, Edward M. (1908–1992). AJJDC Chairman, 1941–1943, 1946–1965.”

Yeah, I know Russian Bolshevik / communist oligarchy was initially Jewish for the most part, I’ve already discussed it in earlier reports. But that changed over time, as the party became a humongous soviet monster, there simply weren’t enough Jews to provide for all regional leaderships and gentiles eventually established their own “nobility”, even though Jews maintained many top positions. A new hungry generation of commies is like a new wave of locusts. I saw the same process happening in my home-country, Romania.

And from here everything just falls in line like a Russian-made Tetris game.

Whatever “Ukriane” is…


This is either too big of a coincidence or not a coincidence.
We don’t do coincidence theories around here.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

I wouldn’t normally waste your precious life with a full Albert Bourla interview, but his latest delivery at Davos 2022 is spectacularly shameless and delusional.

Here are a couple of short take-outs:

“Our vaccines prevent illness & transmission, Efficacy so high not much room for improvement “
SHARE

Same clown spilling the beans in another circus arena not long ago:

BILLIONS FREE PFIZER JABS SIT IN WAREHOUSES, compliance our greatest concern
SHARE

This falls in line with what the Moderna CEO, Stephane Bancel, has just revealed on the same stage a few days earlier:

SHARE

All those sitting jabs are billions lives we saved. Something to be proud of.
The cherry top is how much we got to them, their amusement while taking on anti-vaxxers is so badly acted it gave Arnold Schwarzenegger the cringe.

Watch the full thing (33min):

Good job convincing people you’re not utter lunatics, boys!
Borat called: “great success!”

Meanwhile, Bourla seems to have problems breathing in our atmosphere with his new genetically engineered gills.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Schooling is not education. This is.

meet the warburgs

Paul M. Warburg

  • Vice Governor [Vice Chair], Board of Governors, 1916–1918
  • Member, Board of Governors, 1914–1916
  • Born: August 10, 1868
  • Died: January 24, 1932

Paul M. Warburg was sworn in as a member of the first Federal Reserve Board on August 10, 1914. He was appointed vice chairman (called “vice governor” before 1935) on August 10, 1916. He resigned from the Board on August 9, 1918.

Warburg was born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1868. He graduated from high school in Hamburg in 1886 and began working for an exporting firm there. He then moved on to positions at shipping and banking companies in London and Paris. He returned to Hamburg in 1895 and became a partner in the banking firm M.M. Warburg and Company, founded by his great-grandfather. 

Warburg was a partner in the family firm until 1907. However, in 1902, he moved to New York City and joined his father-in-law’s company as a partner overseeing international loans to several governments. In 1911, he became a naturalized US citizen.

Warburg was considered one of the top authorities on central banking both in Europe and the United States and was active in the monetary reform movement taking place in the United States in the early 1900s. He gave speeches, published several articles advocating the establishment of a US central bank, and was an unofficial advisor to the National Monetary Commission, which was established following the Panic of 1907 to study banking system reform. In 1910, Warburg was one of six men, including Sen. Nelson Aldrich, to participate in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, that resulted in a plan for a National Reserve Association. Although the “Aldrich plan” was rejected by Congress, it laid the foundation for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which created the Federal Reserve System. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Warburg to the new entity’s first Board in 1914.  

Although Warburg left the Federal Reserve Board in 1918, he continued to serve the Federal Reserve as a member of the Federal Advisory Council (1921–26). He resumed his activities in business and philanthropic circles as well. For example, he founded and was the first chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Acceptance Council in 1919. In 1921, he organized the International Acceptance Bank to promote US government financing of reconstruction in Europe following the war.

Warburg was also a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1921–32), a trustee of the Institute of Economics (1922–27), and a trustee of the Brookings Institution after it merged with the Institute of Economics in 1927. He also helped establish the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation in 1930. He served at various times as a director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, and Western Union Telegraph Company. Warburg was also a director of the Julliard School of Music and a trustee of Tuskegee College.

Warburg continued to take an active interest in the nation’s monetary affairs and banking system. In March 1929, he warned that the wild stock speculation resulting from stock price increases and improper bank lending practices would have disastrous results if left unchecked. On October 29 of that year, the stock market crashed.

Throughout his career, Warburg was a prolific writer. Most notable among his published works was a two-volume set on the Federal Reserve System published in 1930. The Yale University Library (Manuscripts and Archives) is the repository for Warburg’s papers dating from 1904 to 1932. The collection includes 169 volumes on banking and finance.

Warburg died at his home in New York in 1932. At the time of his death, he was chairman of the Manhattan Company and a director of the Bank of Manhattan Trust Company, Farmers Loan and Trust Company of New York, and First National Bank of Boston.

Written by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 


THE MOST WARBURG THING TO DO

The Meeting at Jekyll Island

by Gary Richardson and Jessie Romero, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

November 20, 1910–November 30, 1910

A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the foundations for the Federal Reserve System.

The old clubhouse, Jekyll Island, Georgia.

The old clubhouse, Jekyll Island, Georgia. (Courtesy of Tyler E. Bagwell)


In November 1910, six men – Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg – met at the Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of Georgia, to write a plan to reform the nation’s banking system. The meeting and its purpose were closely guarded secrets, and participants did not admit that the meeting occurred until the 1930s. But the plan written on Jekyll Island laid a foundation for what would eventually be the Federal Reserve System.

The Need for Reform

At the time, the men who met on Jekyll Island believed the banking system suffered from serious problems. The Jekyll Island participants’ views on this issue are well known, since before and after their conclave several spoke publicly and others published extensively on the topic. Collectively, they encapsulated their concerns in the plan they wrote on Jekyll Island and in the reports of the National Monetary Commission.

Like many Americans, these men were concerned with financial panics, which had disrupted economic activity in the United States periodically during the nineteenth century. Nationwide panics occurred on average every fifteen years. These panics forced financial institutions to suspend operations, triggering long and deep recessions. American banks held large required reserves of cash, but these reserves were scattered throughout the nation, held in the vaults of thousands of banks or as deposits in financial institutions in designated reserve and central reserve cities. During crises, they became frozen in place, preventing them from being used to alleviate the situation. During booms, banks’ excess reserves tended to flow toward big cities, especially New York, where bankers invested them in call loans, which were loans repayable on demand to brokers. The brokers in turn loaned the funds to investors speculating in equity markets, whose stock purchases served as collateral for the transactions. This American system made bank reserves immobile and equity markets volatile, a recipe for financial instability.

In Europe, in contrast, bankers invested much of their portfolio in short-term loans to merchants and manufacturers. This commercial paper directly financed commerce and industry while providing banks with assets that they could quickly convert to cash during a crisis. These loans remained liquid for several reasons. First, borrowers paid financial institutions – typically banks with which they had long-standing relationships – to guarantee repayment in case the borrowers could not meet their financial obligations. Second, the loans funded merchandise in the process of production and sale and that merchandise served as collateral should borrowers default. The Jekyll Island participants also worried about the inelastic supply of currency in the United States. The value of the dollar was linked to gold, and the quantity of currency available was linked to the supply of a special series of federal government bonds. The supply of currency neither expanded nor contracted with seasonal changes in demands for cash, such as the fall harvest or the holiday shopping season, causing interest rates to vary substantially from one month to the next. The inelastic supply of currency and limited supplies of gold also contributed to long and painful deflations.

Furthermore, Jekyll Island participants believed that an array of antiquated arrangements impeded America’s financial and economic progress. For example, American banks could not operate overseas. Thus, American merchants had to finance imports and exports through financial houses in Europe, principally London. American banks also struggled to collectively clear checks outside the boundaries of a single city. This increased costs of inter-city and interstate commerce and required risky and expensive remittances of cash over long distances.

In an article published in the New York Times in 1907, Paul Warburg, a successful, German-born financier who was a partner at the investment bank Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. and widely regarded as an expert on the banking systems in the United States and Europe, wrote that the United States’ financial system was “at about the same point that had been reached by Europe at the time of the Medicis, and by Asia, in all likelihood, at the time of Hammurabi” (Warburg 1907). 

Just months after Warburg wrote those words, the country was struck by the Panic of 1907. The panic galvanized the US Congress, particularly Republican senator Nelson Aldrich, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. In 1908, Aldrich sponsored a bill with Republican representative Edward Vreeland that, among other things, created the National Monetary Commission to study reforms to the financial system. Aldrich quickly hired several advisers to the commission, including Henry Davison, a partner at J.P. Morgan, and A. Piatt Andrew, an economics professor at Harvard University. Over the next two years, they studied banking and financial systems extensively and visited Europe to meet with bankers and central bankers.

The Duck Hunt

By the fall of 1910, Aldrich was persuaded of the necessity of a central bank for the United States. With Congress ready to begin meeting in just a few weeks, Aldrich — most likely at Davison’s suggestion — decided to convene a small group to help him synthesize all he had learned and write down a proposal to establish a central bank.

The group included Aldrich; his private secretary Arthur Shelton; Davison; Andrew (who by 1910 had been appointed assistant Treasury secretary); Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank and a former Treasury official; and Warburg.

A member of the exclusive Jekyll Island Club, most likely J.P. Morgan, arranged for the group to use the club’s facilities. Founded in 1886, the club’s membership boasted elites such as Morgan, Marshall Field, and William Kissam Vanderbilt I, whose mansion-sized “cottages” dotted the island. Munsey’s Magazine described it in 1904 as “the richest, the most exclusive, the most inaccessible” club in the world.

Brunswick, Georgia, train station. Jekyll Island meeting attendees arrived here.
Train station in Brunswick, Georgia, near Jekyll Island. (Courtesy Tyler E. Bagwell)

Aldrich and Davison chose the attendees for their expertise, but Aldrich knew their ties to Wall Street could arouse suspicion about their motives and threaten the bill’s political passage. So he went to great lengths to keep the meeting secret, adopting the ruse of a duck hunting trip and instructing the men to come one at a time to a train terminal in New Jersey, where they could board his private train car. Once aboard, the men used only first names – Nelson, Harry, Frank, Paul, Piatt, and Arthur – to prevent the staff from learning their identities. For decades after, the group referred to themselves as the “First Name Club.”

An additional member of the First Name Club was Benjamin Strong, vice president of the Bankers Trust Company and the future founding chief executive officer (then called governor, now called president) of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But it is unlikely Strong attended the meeting on Jekyll Island. In his autobiography, Vanderlip recalls him attending, but no other account indicates Strong’s presence. Most scholars and journalists who have written about the issue, including Bertie Charles (B.C.) Forbes — the founder of Forbes magazine and the journalist who first revealed the meetings in an article in 1916 — have concluded Strong did not attend (Forbes 1916). Strong had worked closely with the Jekyll Island attendees in other venues, however, and his ideas were certainly present at the meeting even if he was not there in person. After the meeting, as the First Name Club revised the plan and prepared it for publication, Strong was frequently consulted and according to Forbes, “joined the ‘First-Name Club’ as ‘Ben’” (Forbes 1922).

The Plan Takes Shape

Aldrich and his colleagues quickly realized that while they agreed on some broad principles — establishing an elastic currency supplied by a bank that held the reserves of all banks — they disagreed on details. Figuring out those details was a “desperately trying undertaking,” in Warburg’s words. Completely secluded, the men woke up early and worked late into the night for more than a week. “We had disappeared from the world onto a deserted island,” Vanderlip recalled in his autobiography. “We put in the most intense period of work that I have ever had.”

By the end of their time on Jekyll Island, Aldrich and his colleagues had developed a plan for a Reserve Association of America, a single central bank with fifteen branches across the country. Each branch would be governed by boards of directors elected by the member banks in each district, with larger banks getting more votes. The branches would be responsible for holding the reserves of their member banks; issuing currency; discounting commercial paper; transferring balances between branches; and check clearing and collection. The national body would set discount rates for the system as a whole and buy and sell securities.

Shortly after returning home, Aldrich became ill and was unable to write the group’s final report. So Vanderlip and Strong traveled to Washington to get the plan ready for Congress. Aldrich presented it to the National Monetary Commission in January 1911 without telling the commission members how the plan had been developed. A final report, along with legislative text, went to Congress a year later with a few minor changes, including naming the new institution the National Reserve Association.

In a letter accompanying the report, the Commission said it had created an institution “scientific in its method, and democratic in its control.” But many people, especially Democrats, objected to the version of democracy it presented, which could have allowed the largest banks to exert outsized influence on the central bank’s leadership. With a presidential election coming up, the Democrats made repudiating the Aldrich plan a part of their platform. When Woodrow Wilson won the presidency and the Democrats took control of both houses, Aldrich’s National Reserve Association appeared to be shelved.

Leaders of the Democratic Party, however, also were interested in reform, including President Wilson and the chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Banking and Currency, Carter Glass and Robert Owen, respectively. Glass and Owen both introduced proposals to form a central banking system based on draft legislation supported by Wilson. Glass, Owen, and their staffs directly consulted with Warburg, whose technical expertise was respected by Democratic and Republican politicians alike. Wilson’s chief political adviser, Col. E. M. House, met and corresponded with Warburg to discuss banking reform in general and the Glass and Owen plans in particular. So did William McAdoo and Henry Morgenthau, senior political and policy advisers to Wilson who served in his administration. Morgenthau assured Warburg “that he sent his copy of the [January 10, 1913] memorandum to President Wilson” (Warburg 1930, p. 90). Together, these ideas formed the basis of the final Federal Reserve Act, which Congress passed and the president signed in December 1913. The technical details of the final bill closely resembled those of the Aldrich Plan. The major differences were the political and decision-making structures, which was a compromise acceptable to both the progressive and populist wings of the Democratic Party.

Postscript

B.C. Forbes somehow learned about the Jekyll Island trip and wrote about it in 1916 in an article published in Leslie’s Weekly (October 19, 1916 p. 423), which was recapitulated a few months later in an article in the magazine Current Opinion. In 1917, Forbes again described the meeting in Men Who Are Making America, a collection of short biographies of prominent entrepreneurs, including Davison, Vanderlip, and Warburg. Not many people noticed the revelation, and those who did dismissed it as “a mere yarn,” according to Aldrich’s biographer.

The participants themselves denied the meeting had occurred for twenty years, until the publication of Aldrich’s biography in 1930. The impetus for coming clean was probably the publication in 1927 of Carter Glass’s memoir, An Adventure in Constructive Finance. In it, Glass, by now a senator, claimed credit for the key ideas in the Federal Reserve Act, which prompted the Jekyll Island participants to reveal their roles in creating the Federal Reserve.

Warburg was especially critical of Glass’s description of events. In 1930, he published a two-volume book describing the origins of the Fed, including a line-by-line comparison of the Aldrich bill and the Glass-Owen bill to prove their similarity. In the introduction, he wrote, “I had gone to California for a three months’ rest when the appearance of a series of articles written by Senator Glass…impelled me to lay down in black and white my recollections of certain events in the history of banking reform.” Warburg’s book does not mention Jekyll Island specifically, although he states that

“In November, 1910, I was invited to join a small group of men who, at Senator Aldrich’s request, were to take part in a several days’ conference with him, to discuss the form that the new banking bill should take. … when the conference closed … the rough draft of what later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon … The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact that there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public. … Though eighteen years have gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy. I understand, however, a history of Senator Aldrich’s life … will contain an authorized account to of this episode” (Warburg 1930, pp. 58-60).

Disagreements over authorship of the Federal Reserve Act received widespread publicity in the late 1920s. Glass defended his claim for the lion’s share of the credit in speeches, in his book, and in submissions to prominent publications including the New York Evening Post and the New York Times. Critics responded in similar venues and academic journals. For example, Samuel Untermyer, former counsel to the House Committee on Banking and Currency, published a pamphlet titled “Who is Entitled to the Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass,” in which he asserted that Glass’s claims of primary authorship were “fiction,” “fable,” and a “work of imagination” (Untermyer 1927). In 1914, Edwin Seligman, a prominent professor at Columbia University, wrote that “in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man.” In 1927, Seligman and Glass debated this point in a series of letters published in the New York Times.

The Jekyll Island Club never bounced back from the Great Depression, when many of its members resigned, and it closed in 1942. Today, its former clubhouse and cottages are National Historic Landmarks. But the debates at and about the conference on Jekyll Island remain relevant today.


Bibliography

Forbes, B.C. Men Who Are Making America. New York: B.C. Forbes Publishing Co., Inc., 1917.

Forbes, B.C. “How the Federal Reserve Bank Was Evolved by Five Men on Jekyl Island.” Current Opinion vol. 61, no. 6 (December 1916): pp. 382-383.

Glass, Carter. An Adventure in Constructive Finance. New York: Doubleday, 1927.

Glass, Carter, “Mr. Warburg and the Bank: A Reply to Prof. Seligman on the Paternity of the Federal Reserve,” New York Times, February 15, 1927, p. 24.

Lamont, Thomas. Henry P. Davison: The Record of a Useful Life. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1933.

Lowenstein, Roger. America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve. New York: Penguin Press, 2015.

New York Times. “Untermyer Assails Glass on Bank Act: Calls His History of Federal Reserve Fiction and Its Author Credulous. Claims Glory for Owen. Wilson, McAdoo and Bryan also Entitled to Credit … ” June 20, 1927, p. 4.

Seligman, Edwin R. “Introduction: Essays on Banking Reform in the United States, by Paul M. Warburg.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science vol. 4, no. 4 (July 1914): pp. 3-6.

Seligman, Edwin R., “The Federal Reserve Act. Professor Seligman Takes Issue with a Statement by Senator Glass,” New York Times, February 1, 1927, p. 26.

Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in American Politics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. Reissued in 1971 by Kennikat Press.

Untermyer, Samuel. “Who Is Entitled to Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass.” Manuscript, June 19, 1927. Available at http://www.okhistory.org/historycenter/federalreserve/untermeyer.pdf

United States National Monetary Commission. Letter from Secretary of the National Monetary Commission, Transmitting, Pursuant to Law, the Report of the Commission. Washington: Government Printing Office, January 8, 1912. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/641, accessed on August 11, 2015.

Vanderlip, Frank, and Boyden Sparks. From Farm Boy to Financier. New York and London: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1935.

Warburg, Paul M., “The Defects and Needs of Our Banking System,” New York Times: Annual Financial Review, January 6, 1907, p. 14-15, 38-39.

Warburg, Paul M. The Federal Reserve System: Its Origins and Growth. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930.

Wicker, Elmus. The Great Debate on Banking Reform. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2005.

Written as of December 4, 2015. 

MORE OF THEIR HISTORY WRITTEN BY THEMSELVES

MEET FELIX THE COOLEST CAT

Recognition for the service and philanthropy of Felix M. Warburg, chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, was expressed by one of the new Jewish settlements in the Ukraine, at solemn exercises held yesterday.

Djankoy, a settlement adjacent to the colonies Novy Put and Novaya Zarya, near Krivoy Rog, was renamed Felix Warburg.

Mr. Warburg laid the cornerstone for the first intermediate school in the Jewish colonies, established at Novy Put.

A report of the events during Mr. Felix M. Warburg’s visit to the Jewish colonies in the Ukraine, was made public yesterday by the National Headquarters of the United Jewish Campaign on the basis of a cable received yesterday from Moscow by David A. Brown, national chairman.

Mr. Warburg and James H. Becker, accompanied by Dr. Bernard A. Kahn and Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, on their arrival in the colonies of the Cherson district, where the new Jewish “autonomous region” was recently established, were given a tremendous ovation by the Jewish settlers whose entrance upon a new permanent livelihood as productive workers on the soil was made possible by the aid of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, of which Mr. Warburg is the chairman.

The travellers came from Moscow first to the Cherson settlements, and thence to the colonies of the Krivoy-Rog district, where they were received with equal enthusiasm. The inhabitants of Novy Put and Novaya Zaria, both recently established settlements in this section, expressed the desire to have their colonies renamed in honor of Mr. Warburg. In Novy Put the visitors officiated at the laying of a cornerstone for a high school, one of the significant first landmarks in the effort for the establishment of a modern educational system for the children of the twentieth century Jewish pioneers on the Russian steppes.

The establishment of schools and other facilities for an adequate community life goes hand in hand with the agricultural and economic aid provided by the Joint Distribution Committee, which operates in Russia under the name of Agro-Joint, with the official sanction and cooperation of the Russian government. The agricultural colonization program was begun a little over two and a half years ago when the great spontaneous “back to the soll” movement took start among the Jews of Russia, as an escape from the dwindling trading occupations of the city and the crushing political proscriptions leveled against this class under the new economic organization of the country. Its purpose was to give organized direction and support for expansion to what has been hailed by authoritative social students as an epochal new development offering revolutionizing potentialities for the future economic structure of Jewish life in Eastern Europe. More than 10,000 families have already taken up farmsteads in the Ukraine, White Russia and Crimea, on vast virgin tracts comprising over 700,000 acres whose prewar value is estimated at over $12,000,000. In addition to the free gift of the land, the government furnishes free transportation and free lumber for building, and tax and military service exemption for the first three years.

The aid provided by American subsidies through the Agro-Joint includes loans to settlers to enable them to make the transition from the cities to the interior and to build them homes, purchase of farm implements, seed and live-stock, well drilling and road building, organization of farm cooperatives, and the maintenance of agricultural experiment stations and a staff of field experts to supervise instruction of the colonists in their new vocation. The work of the Agro-Joint is under the direction of Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, a noted American agricultural scientist, who carried out the agricultural relief program of the American Relief Administration during the great famine in the Volga region in 1921-22. Dr. Rosen is accompanying Mr. Warburg and his party on their tour of the colonies.

With 100 new settlements already established, thousands of more families, according to Dr. Rosen have registered their desire to take up land and are anxiously waiting to be enabled to go-Further development of the work depends, however, on the amount of money which the Agro-Joint will have at its disposal. The J. D. C.’s appropriation for Russia calls for $2,000,000 for this year, of which $1,500,000 is for agricultural purposes.

Whether this sum will actually be forthcoming depends on the payment of pledges made to the $25,000,000 United Jewish Campaign, all other resources of the J. D. C. being now exhausted. With the spring season now at its height, when the ground must be prepared for sowing, it is particularly vital that the funds for carrying on the work should be assured, and the campaign leaders have been compelled to issue an emergency call urging local leaders throughout the country to borrow on funds pledged to the state and city drives, to make the minimum amounts urgently needed not only for Russia but for all of Eastern Europe available for the transmission to Europe at the earliest possible moment. – JTA, 1927

Felix M. Warburg, chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, on the conclusion of his visit to the new Jewish colonies in Russia, sent a cable to David A. Brown, national chairman of the United Jewish Campaign, and James N. Rosenberg, vice-chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, describing his impressions of his inspection.

Mr. Warburg expressed himself as profoundly impressed with the permanent foundations of a new Jewish agricultural class being laid through the work of the Agro-Joint.

“Later I hope to persuade American Jewry to invest further in this practical and humanitarian work,” Mr. Warburg said in his message. His visit covered more than forty colonies in the three districts of the Ukraine, White Russia, and the Crimea, in which the Agro Joint is working. There are 135 colonies in all, in which more than 10,000 families of former impoverished traders and city dwellers have established themselves. All these colonies have been founded within the last three years.

A second cable was received at the same time from James H. Becker of Chicago, who is traveling with Mr. Warburg.

Mr. Warburg’s cable, as made public by Mr. Brown, reads:

“After delightful inspection our main three districts, am both satisfied proud of permanent foundation bringing these colonists only happiness only self-re-spected healthy life possible here, probably within near future. With unemployment more seriods, number anxious to become self-supporting independent farmers steadily increasing. First three years have gone according to schedule entirely satisfactory, and seeing them in their homes secure, contented, with hopes revived, working farms, starting repayments, is joy as well as vindication of Rosen’s plan. government encouraging, aiding our successful effort. Later I hope to persuade Jewry to invest further in this practical and humanitarian work. Meantime you and few who have given, worked, and seen for themselves realize that least American Jews can do is pay pledges without delay, for our obligations here must be met according to schedule. Nature’s seasons and desirable land wont wait.”

Mr. Becker’s cable read:

“Although have followed closely all oral, written reports, from our representatives who have seen colonization undertaking, I had no adequate picture of its magnitude of spirit. Have inspected work in all three districts. Visited and passed through more than forty out of hundred thirty-five our colonies. By October will have hundred eighty. Saw settlements in all stages of development, some formed this spring, to those completing third year. Have fine efficient business and technical organization, which receives inexperienced city dwellers, teaches them farming, helps them build houses, plant vineyards, prepared fields, sow crops, establish creameries, cooperative farm banks, etc., and remains in contact with them until they are independent farmers. This is great historic opportunity to acquire more land and continue turning declassed occupationless discouraged people into independent farmers. Although this sounds strong statement, nevertheless absolutely accurate. At present number persons we can help depends only upon money available. Can’t stress too much absolute necessity assuring funds enabling us carry out program and obligations already assumed. – JTA, 1927

SOURCE

PURCHASE, N. Y., Aug. 30, 1975 —The marriage of Mrs. Barbara Warburg of New York and Vineyard Haven, Mass., widow of Paul Felix Warburg, the financier and philanthropist, to Leonardo Mercall of East Hampton, L. 1,, and Athens, took place here today at the home of John L. Loeb, the investment banker, and Mrs. Loeb. State Supreme Court Justice John C. Marbach performed the ceremony in the presence of members of the couple’s immediate families.

The bride, the former Barbara Tapper of Chicago, was the widow of Baron D’Almeida when she was married to Mr. Warburg in London in 1949.

The bridegroom, who graduated in 1923 from Oxford University, prefers in this country not to use the title of Count, to which he is entitled. He was previously married to the former Lily Stathatos of Athens.

The couple will divide their time between New York and Europe. – New York Times

WARBURG – THE NEXT GENERATION

James Warburg before the Subcommittee on Revision of the United Nations Charter

Revision of the United Nations Charter: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations  (1950) 
United States Senate

SOURCE

REVISION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
81st Congress, 2d Session
on Resolutions relative to the United Nations charter, Atlantic Union, World Federation, etc.
Feb. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 20, 1950
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1950: 64429
PP. 494-508


Subcommittee on Revision of the United Nations Charter
Elbert D. Thomas, Utah, Chairman
Theodor Francis Green, Rhode Island
Alexander Wiley, Wisconsin
H. Alexander Smith, New Jersey
February 17, 1950Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WARBURG OF GREENWICH, CONN.

I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing.

The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

(our emphasis added)

Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world’s two superpowers—Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the conqueror will emerge well nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.

The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.

SUPPORT OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56

Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy. The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite toward the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair.


I am fully aware that the mere passage of this resolution will not solve the complex problems with which we are confronted. Our recognition of the inadequacy of the present United Nations structure, and our declared determination to strengthen that structure by Charter amendment, will not alone overcome the Russian obstacle. But it will, at long last, chart our own goal and enable us to steer a straight course toward a clearly seen objective. Moreover, it will unite us in purpose with the vast majority of the peoples of the non-Soviet world.

Until we have established this goal, we shall continue to befog and befuddle our own vision by clinging to the illusion that the present structure of the United Nations would work, if only the Russians would let it work. That has been our position to date.

Until we establish this goal, we shall continue to ask other peoples to unite with us only in the negative purpose of stopping Russia. Fear-inspired negative action makes poor cement for unity.

Once we shall have declared a positive purpose—once we shall have cemented the united will of the free peoples in a common aspiration— we shall be in a far stronger position to deal with the obstacles presented to the realization of that purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I prefer Senate Resolution 56 to other resolutions now before you for two major reasons:

UNIVERSAL FEDERATION REQUIRED

First: Senate Resolution 56 goes to the root of the evil in the present state of international anarchy. It recognizes that there is no cure for this evil short of making the United Nations into a universal organization capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to the degree necessary to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as an instrument of foreign policy. It states the objective in unequivocal terms.

Second: Senate Resolution 56 does not commit the United States to any specific next steps to be taken toward the attainment of that objective. In the present-state of world affairs, it would seem to me unwise to commit ourselves to any fixed plan of action, without first exploring all the possibilities. In contrast to Senate Resolution 56, other proposals before you seem to me either to set a goal short of what is needed to ensure peace, or to foreclose the ultimate attainment of a universal organization by an over-eager acceptance of half measures, on the theory that half a loaf is better than none.

Limitations of time prevent my going into detail, but I should like to state specifically the conviction that any exclusive partial federation, such as the Atlantic Union, would not only serve to harden the existing cleavages in a divided world, but would create new and dangerous cleavages within our half of the divided world.

I should like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I do not minimize the many and complicated problems which will remain to be solved, once Senate Resolution 56 is enacted. Mr. Hickerson of the Department of State listed them most carefully. In due course we shall have to define more closely what we mean by world government and by what steps we propose to get there. I have given considerable study to these problems. I believe them to be soluble—but not by the adoption of any hastily conceived formulas, and, above all, not without exploring patiently and carefully what is in the minds of other peoples, who, while friendly to us, do not share our historical background nor our particular political or economic prejudices and predilections.

If we seek peace under law by common consent, we cannot expect to impose our imprint upon the world. We must be prepared to accept some sort of a composite pattern, in which we may preserve for ourselves the things we cherish, but in which others may be equally free to do the same. We may or may not be able to find a common pattern with the present rulers of Russia. We most certainly can, and must, find a common pattern not only with the peoples of western Europe but with the peoples of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Perhaps a shorthand device for stating the point would be to say that we must find a common pattern with Nehru, before we can even think of trying to find a common pattern with Stalin.

AFFIRMATIVE POLICY REQUIRED

The virtue of Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 is precisely that it does not commit us to the narrow pattern which the State Department dreads. It is a broad declaration of purpose and nothing more.

Secretary Acheson said the other day that the only agreements which can usefully be made with the Kremlin are those which rest upon established fact. I think this is true, and not only with respect to Russia. But, as to Russia, the trouble has been that we have been letting the Kremlin create the existing facts.

One of your colleagues made a speech the other day, which seemed to me to leap straight for the jugular vein in our present foreign policy. Senator McMahon proposed that we create some facts of our own.

One of these facts, which your colleague specifically proposed to create, would, in my judgment, be far more powerful than our recent decisions to develop and manufacture hydrogen bombs. Senator McMahon proposed that we present the Kremlin with the fact of our determination to dedicate our strength to a world-wide, cooperative crusade, waged through the United Nations, against hunger, poverty, disease, and ignorance. This is the sort of bold affirmative action in the economic field which could, if pursued, create the climate for the attainment of our political objective—namely, the establishment of a world community living at peace under law.

Without detracting from the imaginative courage of Senator McMahon’s proposal, I regret that, in his first presentation, he has attached it to a self-negating proviso. His plan, so right in itself, would become operative only if a disarmament agreement were first reached with the Kremlin under which the United States could save $10,000,000,000 a year out of its military budget. This is extremely unlikely.

Moreover, even if the Russians were to accept a modified Baruch plan, this would not suffice, because, at best, such a plan would outlaw only one type of weapon and one method of waging war. It would, in effect, establish world government in the limited field of atomic energy, but it would leave the use of all other types of weapons to the discretion of nation-states dwelling in a state of international anarchy.

At a conference in New York last week, I ventured to put forward an alternative, in which Senator McMahon’s world-wide Marshall plan would not be conditioned upon anything the Kremlin might or might not be willing to do. Under this alternative, we should not wait for Russia. The benefits of the McMahon plan would become immediately available to those countries which made known their will to accept supranational authority—not only in the field of atomic energy, but in the whole field of international relations—to the extent necessary in order to establish peace under law.

Obviously, the proposed alternative condition—agreement to outlaw all weapons and war itself—is one which we cannot impose until we ourselves have accepted it. But, once we have accepted it, by adopting the concurrent resolution now before you, we shall be in a position to proceed with Senator McMahon’s cooperative plan, hand in hand with the majority of the world’s peoples.

Thus we should present the Kremlin with two vital new facts not of its own making:

First. The united determination of the majority of the world’s peoples to establish a rule of law and thus eventually to free themselves from the burden of armaments and from the overhanging fear of annihilation; and

Second. The steady progress of the massed forces of humanity embattled in a common crusade against hunger, poverty, disease, and ignorance.

The first of these new facts would, for a time, be static. The avowed aim could not be realized without Russian cooperation. The second of these new facts would be dynamic. It would demonstrate how peoples devoting their energies and resources to cooperative effort outstrip those peoples whose governments subsist on force and pursue only the goal of widening the orbit of their own arbitrary power.

Taken together, these two facts would exert a mounting pressure toward cooperation upon the Kremlin. It is true that a regime, which maintains itself by force at home, cannot readily renounce force as an instrument of foreign policy. Yet even such a regime can, in the long run, be brought to accept new facts which alter the conception of its own self-interest and self-preservation.

The creation of one such new fact has been boldly proposed by a member of your committee. The creation of the other lies in your hands today.

In order not to trespass upon your time, Mr. Chairman, I have left a number of gaps in the presentation of the suggested modification of the McMahon proposal. To fill in these gaps, I ask leave to have included in the record of my testimony, the paper already referred to, which was delivered last week at a conference of the Postwar World Council in New York.

Senator THOMAS. Without objection, it will be included.

(The paper referred to is as follows:)

SENATOR MCMAHON’S PEACE BOMB-WORKABLE PLAN OR DESPERATE HOPE?

[The Current Affairs Press, New York 17, N. Y.](By James P. Warburg)

I. IS IT A PLAN OR JUST A HOPE?

The speech delivered in the United States Senate on February 2, 1950, by the Honorable Brien McMahon, may well go down in history as the turning point in postwar United States policy. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that its echoes will die away within a few weeks or months, if the flame of hope which it kindled is allowed to flicker and die out.

For the first time since the cold war began, one of the major architects of United States foreign policy stood up and denounced the sterility of the present negative approach to peace—denounced as hopelessly outworn the ancient motto: “He who wants peace had better prepare for war.” This was the beginning of hope.

But Senator McMahon did more than merely repudiate the idea that security can be attained through maintaining the greatest arsenal of destructive weapons. He put forward a constructive proposal for an affirmative approach to peace. Was this proposal a workable plan for peace? Or was it merely the expression of a desperate anxiety that a workable plan for peace should be developed?

Briefly stated, Senator McMahon proposed that, if the Soviet Union would accept effective international control of atomic energy, the United States should declare itself willing to cut its military expenditures from 15 to 5 billion dollars a year, and to contribute the $100,000,000,000 so saved to a world-wide economic recovery program, channeled through the United Nations. The Senator envisaged a cooperative program, to which other nations would likewise contribute—a program lasting perhaps 5 years and calling for a total contribution of $50,000,000,000 from the United States. The present European recovery program, the point 4 program, atomic energy development and, presumably, all other programs of economic rehabilitation and development would be combined in this single over-all plan. Under it, all nations, including the Soviet Union, would be eligible for assistance.

This proposal falls into two parts: the proposal itself, and the conditions upon which it was put forward. Let us consider each separately.

II. THE CONCRETE PROPOSAL

The plan itself recognizes and squarely meets several major defects in our present foreign-aid policies.

By implication, it recognizes the futility of all military aid as opposed to economic assistance. Explicitly, as to economic assistance itself, Senator McMahon’s proposal corrects three major errors in our present procedures:

1. We have so far been attempting to deal with isolated parts of the world economy without an over-all concept or plan. For example, we are trying desperately to “integrate” western Europe by one major effort, while making another wholly separate effort to raise the living standards of the so-called underdeveloped areas of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. We have so far -overlooked the fact that parts of western Europe are actually much more closely “integrated” with parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East than they are with each other.

Senator McMahons’ plan recognizes the need for a single, coordinated, worldwide effort, applied at whatever may be the points of maximum leverage on the world’s economy.

2. We embarked, in 1947, upon a wholly negative concept of extending economic and military aid wherever needed to contain Soviet-communism. We then tried to switch to a positive approach, when Secretary Marshall, in launching his well-known project, declared: “Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” Our attempt to make this switch was frustrated by Molotov’s famous walk-out, which doomed the Marshall plan to become primarily an instrument in the negative cold war. (It is beside the point of this discussion to speculate upon which would have happened, if Russia had accepted Secretary Marshall’s invitation.) In January, 1949, President Truman made a second start toward an affirmative policy, when he enunciated the point 4 principle. This declaration of principle remains as yet unimplemented and the legislation now before Congress would, if enacted, constitute only a very small first step in its execution.

Senator McMahon’s proposal carries the affirmative emphasis over into the whole of our foreign economic assistance effort. It restores the original Marshall plan concept.

3. We have been operating, in our foreign-aid programs, almost wholly outside the United Nations. The basic tenet of our policy has been to strengthen the United Nations; nevertheless, we have acted unilaterally in western Europe, in Greece and Turkey, and in China. President Truman’s point 4 program will apparently attempt to channel at least some of the proposed technical aid through the United Nations, but most, if not all, of the needed capital investments are expected to flow unilaterally from the United States to the participating countries, in accordance with bilateral bargains made outside of the United Nations. Senator McMahon’s proposal recognizes the need for channeling the whole program through the United Nations.

These are three major contributions to the making of an American policy that might lead to enduring peace. There is a fourth contribution implicit in the Senator’s proposal.

Because we have committed so large a part of our resources to military preparations and to European aid, we have arrived at the crisis in Asia feeling impoverished. Our budget is heavily out of balance. Taxes are already burdensome. Therefore, whatever we do in Asia must, we think, be done without spending any substantial funds from our Treasury. This led President Truman to speak of “our vast imponderable resources” and to think in terms of technical advice rather than financial assistance. Since then, however, it has become clear that technical advice without substantial help in carrying it into effect would be of no great usefulness, and so we have built a point 4 program on the hypothesis that private investors can be induced to provide the necessary capital. To a very great extent, I believe this hypothesis to be an illusion, especially in the initial stages of the program.

Senator McMahon’s proposal would make aid to the underdeveloped areas an integral part of an over-all program financed largely by Government contributions channeled through the United Nations. This would in no way preclude private investment. It would, on the contrary, create the only conditions in which private capital might be willing and able to make an important contribution.

We see, then, that the McMahon proposal might, if reduced to a practicable plan, cure precisely those defects from which our past efforts have suffered and from which the point 4 program will suffer, if we pursue our present course.

III. THE SELF-NEGATING PROVISO

Let us now consider the conditions upon which this extremely interesting proposal has been put forward.

The whole plan rests upon the assumption that the United States can save $10,000,000,000 a year (two-thirds of its present military budget). This assumption, in turn, rests upon Russian acceptance of a modified Baruch plan for the international control of atomic energy.

Various commentators have pointed out that this point of departure negates the whole proposal and makes it merely a clever propaganda maneuver. They have pointed out that, if Russia would not accept the Baruch plan when we had an atomic monopoly, she would certainly not accept it now; in other words, that the Baruch plan is out of date.

This criticism seems to me wide of the mark. It is true that the Baruch plan is out of date. But I can find no conclusive evidence in the Senator’s speech to suggest that he would object to modifying it, so long as it remained an enforceable plan fortified by the right of inspection. The real difficulty lies elsewhere.

The Acheson-Lilienthal report, from which the Baruch plan derived, was a revolutionary document. It said, in so many words, that there was no way to prevent the construction and probable use of atomic weapons, short of establishing a world authority capable of enacting, administering, and enforcing law. The Baruch plan was, in effect, a plan for the establishment of world government in the field of atomic energy.

Now the amazing thing was this: We, the United States, were willing to put forward this far-seeing proposal and to abide by it, but without recognizing the revolutionary nature of our own proposition. It never occurred to us that the principle, which we recognized as valid with respect to atomic weapons, was equally valid with regard to all weapons. We talked about government under law with respect to A-bombs, but went on talking about international anarchy with respect to TNT-bombs. This is something like a community which decides to outlaw murder by the use of firearms, enacts a law to that effect, and hires a policeman to enforce it, but leaves murder by knives, hatchets, and poison to the discretion of individuals. For what, pray, is any attempt to control so-called conventional armaments by treaty between sovereign nation states, other than leaving the use of such armaments to the discretion of the individual governments?

The trouble with the Baruch plan-even if brought up to date-is that it deals only with one type of weapon. It outlaws one method of waging war. What we need to do is to outlaw all weapons of aggression. What we need to do is to outlaw war itself.

The puzzling thing about Senator McMahon’s proposal is that he did not make this the condition-if there was to be a condition-for the adoption by the United States of an affirmative policy toward peace. It would be less puzzling if Senator McMahon had not himself sponsored a resolution, now before both Houses of Congress, which would make the development of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of American policy. In signing his name to this resolution, Senator McMahon recognized that there can be no peace without a world organization capable of enacting, administering, and enforcing world law, in such a way as to prevent aggression by any nation against another with any weapons of force-from hatchets to H-bombs.

Why not, then, combine two bravely taken positions of wise statesmanship into one? It seems to me that, were he to do this, Senator McMahon would have a theoretically impeccable plan.

It is true that the proposals thus modified would still not be a practicable plan, because the Russians would hardly accept world government with regard to all weapons any more readily than they would accept the enforcement of law with regard to one type of weapon. This brings me to the final observation I should like to make concerning the Senator’s proposal.

IV. THE PLAN MADE REALISTIC

If the policy suggested by Senator McMahon is a wise policy for the United States to pursue, why must it be made conditional upon any Russian action? The obvious answer is that we cannot afford to cut our military expenditures by $10,000,000,000 a year unless there is an effective agreement to disarm; and that, unless we can save the $10,000,000,000 out of our military budget, we cannot afford to spend them on economic reconstruction.

The first half of this answer must be accepted as correct. Disarmament by example will get us nowhere.

The second half of the answer seems to me open to question. Suppose we take for granted that no effective disarmament agreement is possible at the present time, and that we cannot, therefore, count on any substantial saving in our military budget. Is it so certain that we cannot afford to go ahead nevertheless with the constructive program put forward by Senator McMahon?

To begin with, we should not be talking about a ‘net increase of $10,000,000,000, a year in our expenditure. The money we are now spending in western Europe and in other parts of the world for purely economic aid—excluding military assistance—comes to at least $4,000,000,000 a year. If these existing programs were integrated, as proposed, in the new over-all plan, we should be adding only six billions to our annual expenditure. Thus, the 5-year program would cost us 30—not 50 billions. Furthermore, it seems reasonably certain that, with or without the over-all McMahon plan, we shall have to spend considerable sums in Asia and the Middle East during the next 5 years if we intend to hold our own in a continuing cold war. It is, therefore, fair to say that the adoption of the McMahon plan without any conditions whatever would probably not add more than four or five billion dollars a year to our expenditures.

Can we afford such an increase?

I should like to put the question to you In reverse: Can we afford not to undertake such a plan? The last war cost us over $1,000,000,000,000. It cost us very early as much per week as this program would cost us per year. No one knows what the next war would cost.

Clearly we can afford it, if the program can reasonably be expected to get us off the greased slide that leads to atomic war and on to the long and arduous road that leads to peace.

I, for one, believe that Senator McMahon has outlined a plan that can reasonably be expected to lessen the existing tensions, to strengthen the United Nations, to put the United States into an unassailable moral position and to improve the lot of mankind. I believe that the United States should embark upon such a plan without making its decision subject to whatever the Kremlin may or may not be willing to do at the present time.

Secretary of State Acheson has said that the only agreements that can be made with the Kremlin are agreements which rest upon existing facts. Let us, then, present, the Kremlin with a fact far more powerful than our decision to develop and manufacture ever more horrible weapons of destruction. Let us present the Kremlin With the fact that the United States is determined, in spite of its military burdens, to commit an act of faith-to dedicate its great strength to constructive cooperation with all the world’s peoples in a world-wide crusade against hunger, poverty disease, and ignorance. Let us present the Kremlin with the fact of a challenge not only to its military power but to its purposes, which are the ultimate roots of its power.

V. SHOULD WE LET RUSSIA PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW OVER-ALL PLAN?

The condition I would attach to Senator McMahon’s proposal is one that we shall not be able to impose until we, ourselves, have accepted it. That condition is that only those nations shall be eligible to participate in the plan whose peoples have made known their will to accept the rule of law—not merely in the field of atomic weapons but in the whole field of international relations—to the degree necessary in order to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as a method of settling disputes.

Once we declare our own willingness to transform the United Nations into an organization capable of enforcing peace under law, we shall find ourselves in company with the entire non-Soviet world. We shall then be in a position to proceed with our over-all cooperative plan hand in hand with the majority of the world’s peoples.

When the rulers of the Russian people decide that they, too, wish to participate on these terms, then, at long last, the arms race can come to an end, and all the world’s peoples can be released from the burden which lies so heavily upon them, and from the overhanging threat of annihilation which beclouds their lives with fear.

It would, I think, be foolish to think that this can happen in the immediate future as the result of any sort of negotiations. A regime which maintains itself at home by the use of force cannot readily renounce force as an instrument of foreign policy. In the long run, however, even such a regime can be brought to realize—by “demonstration of fact”—that those peoples, who devote their energies to peaceful cooperation, will outstrip the peoples whose governments pursue only the sterile aim of widening the orbit of their own arbitrary power. The alternatives with which we are faced today are not whether we should or should not “talk to the Russians.” The alternatives we face are whether or not to do—in spite of the Russians—what needs to be done and what. in our hearts, we know we should do.

Freed from its self-defeating proviso, Senator McMahon’s proposal can become a mighty weapon for peace.

Freed from its own myopic, penny-pinching fears, our Government can use this proposal to end the long nightmare in which we have been living.

QUESTIONS

Senator THOMAS. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Warburg, I am interested in your program here. I gather from your statement that you are not prepared to go as far as the so-called Hutchins plan, which is a proposed set-up for a world federation—you are not prepared to go that far?

Mr. WARBURG. No, sir.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I also gather that you are not in accord with the proposals of the Atlantic Union group which contemplates a preponderance of power at this time in order to give us a strong bargaining position with Russia?

Mr. WARBURG. No, sir; I am not in favor of that, as I stated in my testimony.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And you think the proposals we have had to move step by step are not adequate?

Mr. WARBURG. That is right.

WORLD “FEDERATION” OR “ORDER”?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Now there is one difficulty that has been raised in these hearings, in regard to a particular resolution, and that is to the use of the word “federation,” and that is on the theory that it prejudges the kind of world set-up to exist. In other words, it is sort of copying after our own state or Swiss state. Some think that it goes too far and some think that unless we can see the thing through and blueprint it as to what it means, we should not use it. I have been asked as to those things, and as to the substitution of the word “order” for the word “federation” so that you won’t have the implication of some kind of federated. states, if that might not be better in this resolution, if adopted.

Mr. WARBURG. I would hesitate to express an unconsidered opinion as to this, Senator. It seems to me that “federation” is as broad as “order,” and a little more specific in the sense that it is more limited if you like, because it means that you delegate power to a federal government, whereas “order” might be unitary government, and if I were afraid of having this too broad, I would prefer the word “federation” because it does imply a limited delegation of power.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You feel it presupposes that we might commit ourselves to something like the Swiss Federation, or our own federation, or any other existing federation at the approach. I am wondering whether you are prepared to go that far, where you say in your statement that you are not trying to outline the details, you mean you are not prepared to say yet what kind of over-all federal legislature should be set up to enact the kind of laws you contemplate?

Mr. WARBURG. No; because I don’t think we alone are capable of thinking that out. I think that is a cooperative matter that calls for cooperative effort.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I just wondered whether you wanted the United States to commit itself to that approach, and to the implication of the word “federation” at this time.

Mr. WARBURG. I think the essential thing we should undertake is that we declare our willingness to participate in some sort of world organization capable of enacting, administering, interpreting, and, enforcing world law, whether you call it a federation, a government, or world order, I don’t think that matters. I don’t share in Mr. Hickerson’s anxiety that this limits us to a narrow approach. I think this is a broad approach, and I like it for that reason; whereas some of the other proposals are not, and I think they would be a misstep at the present time.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would you be willing, irrespective of whether this is passed or not, to support the Thomas-Douglas proposal, or the so-called Ferguson Resolution, if you know what they are?

Mr. WARBURG. I don’t know the Ferguson Resolution.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The Ferguson Resolution is simply an approach through the United Nations, recognizing the United Nations, and presupposes that it has in it a possibility of expansion and proposes that that area of expansion should be explored under the United Nations as it is today, a trial-and-error approach, rather than contemplating a blueprint for the future.

Mr. WARBURG. I couldn’t support that because it doesn’t seem to go to the root of the matter, which is simply that the United Nations in its present form is a league of sovereign states, and the root of the evil is that it is not a league of sovereign people. Unless you cure that, I don’t think you can attack the root of the evil. I don’t think our present resolutions go far enough, I may be incorrect, but in my understanding, the resolution won’t go far enough to change the United Nations from a league of nations to a league of people.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It would not change the structure of the United Nations at all.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is all I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to bring out, if I could, Mr. Warburg’s position on these things, and the relation to other proposals. We are dealing with lots of proposals and we will have to meet in executive session when the hearings are over, and think through the positions taken by the different witnesses.

I feel grateful to you for your splendid presentation, Mr. Warburg. Your point of view is very valuable.

Mr. WARBURG. If I might sum it up, I think Senate Resolution 56 does the minimum required to undertake the job we have to undertake without going any further than is necessary, to accomplish that minimum, at the present time.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You don’t claim Senate Resolution 56 would meet any of the immediate present crises before us?

Mr. WARBRG. No, but I think it would get us on a course with a charted goal toward which we could steer, which would enable us to meet the crises, and without such a goal, I don’t see how we can, because we will go on zigzagging.

DISARMAMENT PROPOSAL

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would you care to comment on Senator Tydings’ suggestion that the President call a disarmament conference to deal with that as the immediate problem before us, before we get to Senator McMahon’s proposal?

Mr. WARBURG. With all due respect to Senator Tydings, I have never seen any hope in disarmament or limitation of armaments by agreement between sovereign nations or states, because all of the treaties between the sovereign nations or states are such that anyone can break them at their convenience, and the result is that you give a head start to the aggressor.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I ought to say, in behalf of Senator Tydings’ proposal that he wouldn’t think of going into it unless there were some practical plan for international inspection.

Mr. WARBURG. I would find it difficult to imagine any practical plan which did not involve some form of world government.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is one of the difficulties we have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, Senate Resolution 56 merely expresses the sense of the Congress. Do you think, Mr. Warburg, that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited power?

Where do you go from there?

Mr. WARBURG. I don’t think one needs to answer that question at the present time, sir. I can tell you where I think, or where I would try to go. As far as I can see today, the next thing I would do would be to explore with the other nations, and as I said in my statement, particularly with a nation like India, what the common ground is on which we could reasonably hope to build a pattern on which they could live and we could live, each keeping the things we cherish. If we could do that, find the common pattern or the common meeting ground for the non-Soviet world, and I believe it can be done, then one begins this trial-and-error business, finding out how the details would work out in terms of a constitution, and so forth.

Senator WILEY. I want to thank you for that explanation, because I agree fully with you that all the resolution does is to express the sense of the Congress the hope and wish that through man’s ingenuity and vision he can evolve something that may do this job.

Mr. WARBURG. I should say, if I might, sir, it is more than a wish. I think it is a determination. I think if the Congress enacts this concurrent resolution, it is requesting the President to declare this as an avowed aim of the American policy, and aims of American policy have a habit of being more than wishes.

Senator WILEY. I won’t quibble with you about the meaning of words. What I have in mind is that it is not a mandate because under the Constitution this is a question of foreign policy. It virtually says to the President, “Now, get busy and see if you can do something about this terrible situation that we are in.” The State Department says that they have been busy. They have been trying in every way, through the United Nations, through their ambassadors, to try to reach some workable arrangement with Joe Stalin. The only reason I am interjecting this angle is because, as you have heard today, two Congressmen have intimated that the passage of one of these resolutions would be unconstitutional. When those very suggestions get to the public, and they connect them with the daily news, a bad psychological condition is created. I think it is well to have it clear that all we are doing here is exploring these suggestions. If any resolution is passed, all it does is to suggest to the President who, under the Constitution, has responsibility for our foreign relations, that we want him to keep on exploring to see if we can do something to antidote the Russian influence.

EFFECT OF RESOLUTION ON PEOPLE OF THE WORLD

Now, I want to ask another question: Assume now that pursuant to this resolution the President is requested to head in a certain direction in foreign relations to take steps to support and strengthen the United Nations in such a way that there will be developed a world federation open to other nations.

Assume that we are successful in getting this resolution through. Suppose we get India and Pakistan and their 500,000,000 people to enter our organization. We could make a lot of other assumptions.

All right, how are we going to, by having this mechanism, change the ideological approach of these people? I am interested, vitally interested, because I think that is the crux of the thing-how are we going to win the battles of the mind?

Mr. WARBURG. What I attempted to suggest, and let me restate it because I think it is the nub of the problem. I don’t think that by our avowed intention to transform the United Nations into a world federation, that we change an existing crisis with Russia, and the whole Communist orbit.

Senator WILEY. That should be set out—

Mr. WARBURG. It may, hitch together, because that is only half of what I want to say.

I don’t think we can meet that crisis in any other way except by embarking on this road, and then doing some other things as well. I don’t think then, even if you attained world government, you would necessarily have a guaranty of peace-I don’t think you can have peace without world government, I think we need to proceed on two parallel lines, one political, and one economic. I think the political line is that we must declare our intention to do the one thing that can preserve the peace in the world, and oddly enough, the United States and the Soviet Union are the only two great powers that are on record as opposing the transformation of the United Nations, That is the only thing we agree with Uncle Joe on. Most of the other nations in the world are about ready to do something about it. That is the political approach.

But, parallel, to that, that is why I brought in Senator McMahon’s proposal, I think we can do a great deal to create the limits within which the world community can grow and become possible, and I think the Senator hit the nail on the head with his proposal, except as I say he hitched it to another proviso.

I think we should go ahead and do precisely what he says, and not wait for Russia. We should get together with the other nations, which are willing to share our purpose to create the rule of law in the world.

Senator WILEY. Have you ever heard of the statement that a treaty is but a scrap of paper?

Mr. WARBURG. Yes.

Senator WILEY. Have you seen any indication in the last 30 years that the nations have changed their approach on that?

Mr. WARBURG. If your question means, do I believe that we can make a treaty with the Russians, I will say precisely the opposite. I am saying we should proceed, irrespective of a treaty with the Russians.

Senator WILEY. I am talking about whether or not the question of the validity of a treaty is just as strong as the intent of the parties to maintain it and keep it.

Mr. WARBURG. That is correct.

Senator WILEY. And, when you talk about creating a world government, you mean, I presume, that not simply the mechanism, but that the parties to that will live and die with the instrument; that they are ready to live and ready to sacrifice and ready to carry it through. But we have seen how in the economic front, the doctrine of the British, that a contract is a valid thing between two parties, has fared, and you have seen in the nations of the earth, the old British doctrine go out the window and the idea is now, “Get as much as you can, and forget the contract.”

Mr. WARBURG. Senator, I think you have put your finger on the primary reason why this resolution is necessary. As long as you have a world organization which is in effect nothing more than a multilateral agreement between sovereign states, you have precisely the situation you describe. The minute you have government and law, and law enforcement, there is no longer a question of whether you are willing to stick to a contract, you have to, or the policeman will come and take you in to jail.

Senator WILEY. You are assuming law and law enforcement. That means that Uncle Sam would become the world policeman.

Mr. WARBURG. No, no. I am not assuming that we will run the world government. I am not assuming that this world federation is a device for extending our own power.

Senator WILEY. You are not assuming that all the other folks on the earth are going to run us, are you?

Mr. WARBURG. I am assuming that a government will be run as our own Government is run, by the development of a fair process of representation which has to take in all the factors that apply to that, not only population, but productivity and education and all those things.

Senator WILEY. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished for, but are you not really assuming that we have won the battle of ideas in the minds of men, so that-we all see alike? Until you do that, you will have your internal conflict.

Mr. WARBURG. I don’t think we have won the battle for the minds of men, I think we are in the process of losing it, sir.

Senator WILEY. I think we have lost it. I want to win it back, if there is a way to do it. If yours is the way to do it, you will have to demonstrate it, and you will have to demonstrate that if we join up with all the groups of the earth, that we won’t be taken for a ride. We have been so naive in our world dealings, as you know, with the Soviet Union particularly and with others, and my whole thought in questioning you is to see or make sure that the thing we want, in other words, people sitting down, nations sitting down together, keeping faith with one another, things that we want to be–that our wishes do not lead us up other blind alleys that we would regret.

Mr. WARBURG. I subscribe to that, but I do very strongly feel that what we are doing today is following a policy which is made largely in Moscow, a fear-dictated negative policy designed to stop the Russians from whatever they want to do. I think the only way we will ever stop the Russians is to. develop a positive policy of our own, and I think the two parts of a pattern go together. You can’t have law without government, and you can’t have peace without law, that is part A; and, part B, the fact that you have to conduct a really serious world-wide war on hunger, disease, ignorance, and poverty if you want to have the people of the world on our side. I don’t mean to be Santa Claus. I mean, there should be a cooperative endeavor, such as Senator McMahon was talking about, in which everybody chips in.

Senator WILEY. We have to have that recognition. If we have it, can we get all the other folks to have that recognition, and then keep faith?

Mr. WARBURG. I think the first problem we should meet is in ourselves. One of the things I think we have been doing too much, is that we have stopped ourselves from getting started in the right direction because we then say, conveniently, “Oh, well, the other fellow won’t do it anyway, so what’s the use.”

If we said, “This is something we have to do,” and did it, we would find an awful lot of other people coming along who, once something was started, might be persuaded to join us.

Senator WILEY. You understand, of course, that we have a great deal of disagreement here between great minds in relation to the appropriateness of the mechanism. You are in favor of this, others are in favor of the North Atlantic Union, so, great minds differ on the mechanism, but they all seem to think that their mechanism will do the job.

Now, the thing I am trying to bring out in my questions is, that no mechanism will do the job unless there is a willingness and intent on the part of the peoples to carry it through.

Mr. WARBURG. Including our own.

Senator WILEY. Yes, that is the thing, and there is always the danger that because men of high standing, like yourself, get up here and talk about a mechanism, that some people believe it is going to give us the thing right off the bat, ipso facto, so to speak—it is going to be self-operating. That is a very dangerous condition for us to get into. We must make sure that whatever we do, it does not go out to the public that at long last we have found the magic something that is going to bring peace on earth. Peace is a question of conflict within the minds of men, and between nations. Conflict in the minds of men has been generated through centuries of hate and competition between people for material wealth and political domination. That basic conflict is not eliminated by merely passing a resolution or creating a mechanism. It has to be something finer, a rebirth within the minds of men. Do you agree with that?

Mr. WARBURG. Yes, but nothing I ever said, or that I have ever written indicated that I think that by passing a resolution we will have the millennium, nor are we talking about a mechanism. I think we are talking about an aim to find a mechanism; something different. We are not saying this is the mechanism by which you do it, we are saying you have to find it. We have to find the mechanism which will enable us to substitute the rule of law for the rule of anarchy in the world.

Senator WILEY. You have no mechanism, you are searching for one. Others say they have the mechanism.

Mr. WARBURG. I think that is all this resolution commits us to, to search for a mechanism to create the rule of law.

Senator WILEY. Thank you.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Warburg.

Mr. WARBURG. Thank you, sir.

James Warburg Biographical/Historical Note

SOURCE: JFK Library

1896 Born August 18, Hamburg, Germany

1917 A.B., Harvard

1917-1918 Navy Flying Corps

1919 National Metropolitan Bank of Washington

1919-1921 First National Bank of Boston

1921-1929 Vice President, International Acceptance Bank

1929-1931 President, International Manhattan Company

1931-1932 President, International Acceptance Bank

1932-1935 Vice Chairman of the Board, Bank of Manhattan Company

1932-1934 Financial Advisor to President Roosevelt and London Economic Conference

1933 Financial Advisor, World Economic Conference, London

1934-1936 Work in opposition to certain New Deal Policies

1939-1941 Work against isolationism in American foreign policy

1941-1942 Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information

1942-1944 Deputy Director, Overseas Branch, Office of War Information

1944 Advisor and speech writer, Political Action Committee of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO-PAC)

1945-1969 Touring, speaking, and writing efforts on behalf of “a more creative foreign policy”

1969 Died June 3, Greenwich, Connecticut

And this is just history as written by its winners.
We will keep digging deeper to find out what they forgot to tell us and what they made up.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This organization is also tied to Ukraine and its biolabs.

LATEST: OH NOES! #BillGatesBioTerrorist is trending!

NTI Co-Chairman and CEO Ernest J. Moniz and Munich Security Conference (MSC) Chairman Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger convened 19 current and former global leaders and experts for a March 17, 2021 senior leaders tabletop exercise focused on reducing high-consequence biological threats with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This third annual tabletop exercise organized by NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team (NTI | bio) in conjunction with the MSC is part of the MSC’s “Beyond Westlessness: The Road to Munich 2021” campaign. This effort includes several virtual high-level events and initiatives aimed at advancing the security policy dialogue on priorities for a new transatlantic agenda and laying the groundwork for in-person debates in Munich later in the year. This year’s exercise was conducted on a virtual platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of COVID-19 provided a pressing backdrop for this exercise, as the ongoing pandemic has highlighted weaknesses in the international architecture for preventing, detecting, and responding to pandemic threats. This is an urgent concern because future pandemics could match or exceed COVID-19’s devastating impact in lost lives and shattered economies. Even more concerning is that there are critical gaps in biotechnology oversight that create opportunities for accidental or deliberate misuse with potentially catastrophic global consequences. This was illustrated in the exercise scenario: a localized bioweapons attack with a genetically engineered monkeypox virus begins in the fictional country of Brinia. Over 18 months, the scenario evolves into a globally catastrophic pandemic, leaving 40% of the world’s population infected and over a quarter billion people dead.

The fictional exercise scenario unfolded gradually through a series of short videos that participants reacted to during a facilitated discussion. Key themes emerged regarding the need to strengthen international pandemic risk assessment and early warning systems; to establish clear triggers for national-level anticipatory response and aggressive early action to slow disease transmission and save lives; to reduce biotechnology risks and enhance oversight of life sciences research; and to promote new and stronger international health security preparedness financing mechanisms.

A full report will be published later in 2021. More information about previous exercises can be found in final reports from 2019 and 2020.

Enter the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).

NTI was founded in 2001 by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner. It serves as the Secretariat for the “Nuclear Security Project”, in cooperation with the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Nunn (the “four horsemen of the nuclear apocalypse”) guide the project—an effort to encourage global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world

Wikipedia

The only connection between nuclear threats and monkey-pox?
Bill Gates and The Rockefeller Foundation, see below:

In early 2018, NTI received a $6 million grant from the Open Philanthropy Project. The grant will be used to “help strengthen its efforts to mitigate global biological threats that have increased as the world has become more interconnected.”

Why?

 In January 2018 NTI announced that it had received $250,000 in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That money will help advance NTI’s efforts in developing a “Global Health Security Index”. The index would analyze a country’s biological programs and policies.

Why?

#BillGatesBioTerrorist: “Ok, What if a bio-terrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports.?”

NTI has received international recognition for work to improve biosecurity, primarily through creating disease surveillance networks. Whether a biological threat is natural or intentional, disease surveillance is a key step in rapid detection and response. Because the response of a health system in one country could have a direct and immediate impact on a neighboring country, or even continent, NTI developed projects that foster cooperation among public health officials across political and geographic boundaries.

In 2003, NTI created the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance (MECIDS) with participation from Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. MECIDS continues to share official health data and conduct infectious disease prevention training.

NTI also created the Connecting Organizations for Disease Surveillance (CORDS), which in 2013 launched as an independent NGO that links international disease surveillance networks, supported by the World Health Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

This is just the top line of a large and spectacular Board of Directors:

Co-chaired by Moniz, Nunn and Ted Turner, NTI is governed by a Board of Directors with both current and emeritus members from the United States, Japan, India, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom. They include:

AND BOOM!
The famous Nunn-Lugar duo re-united for yet another mission.
You know them from their previous hit piece, the world famous Nunn–Lugar Act and Pentagon’s activities in the former USSR, including Ukraine’s biolabs.
See: US RAN GRUESOME BIOWEAPON RESEARCH IN OVER 25 COUNTRIES. WUHAN, TIP OF AN ICEBERG

Advisors to the Board of Directors include leading figures in science, business and international security. Advisors to the Board include:

NTI’s staff includes experts in international affairs, nonproliferation, security and military issues, public health, medicine and communications, who have operational experience in their areas of specialty

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz was named co-chair and chief executive officer by the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) in March 2017.  He began serving in June 2017.

An American nuclear physicist who was named as the 13th United States Secretary of Energy by President Barack Obama in May 2013. He is one of the founders of The Cyprus Institute and he was the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Clinton administration.

Before his appointment as Secretary of Energy, he served in a variety of advisory capacities, including at BP, General Electric and the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

WIKIPEDIA

In November 2020, Moniz was named a candidate for Secretary of Energy in the Biden Administration.] However, former Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm was chosen instead.[ Most likely because Moniz has been criticized by environmentalists for his ties to the oil and gas industries. During his career, Moniz has served on the advisory boards for BP, one of the largest oil and gas companies, and General Electric. Prior to his appointment as Secretary of Energy, Moniz served as a trustee of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center in Saudi Arabia, according to Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, he turned 200% woke-green.

Al Gore would be pleased to hear that “An Inconvenient Truth,” his documentary on global climate change, passed the MIT test. Ernest J. Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative, and Peter H. Stone, professor of climate dynamics at the MIT Center for Global Change Science, declared that Gore did “a fine job framing the problem.”

MIT

Ah, well…

 His parents were both immigrants from Portugal. Ernest Moniz father’s name is under review and mother unknown at this time. We will continue to update details on Ernest Moniz’s family.

Ted Turner is founder and co-chair of NTI, a global security organization working to reduce threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; chairman of the Turner Foundation, Inc., which supports efforts to grow and diversify the movement, conserve land to protect and restore wildlife and biodiversity, catalyze the transition to a clean energy future, and protect and restore water resources; chairman of the United Nations Foundation, which promotes a more peaceful, prosperous and just world; and chairman and co-founder of the Ted’s Montana Grill restaurant chain, which operates 47 locations nationwide.
Turner is also chairman of Turner Enterprises, Inc., a private company, which manages his business interests, land holdings and investments, including the oversight of two million acres in 11 states and in Argentina, and more than 50,000 bison head.

NIT

Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats

REPORT Nov 23, 2021

In March 2021, NTI partnered with the Munich Security Conference to conduct a tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats. The exercise examined gaps in national and international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architectures—exploring opportunities to improve prevention and response capabilities for high-consequence biological events. Participants included 19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.

This report, Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conferencewritten by Jaime M. Yassif, Ph.D., Kevin P. O’Prey, Ph.D., and Christopher R. Isaac, M.Sc., summarizes key findings from the exercise and offers actionable recommendations for the international community.

Exercise Summary

Developed in consultation with technical and policy experts, the fictional exercise scenario portrayed a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months. Ultimately, the exercise scenario revealed that the initial outbreak was caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight. By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.

Discussions throughout the tabletop exercise generated a range of valuable insights and key findings. Most significantly, exercise participants agreed that, notwithstanding improvements following the global response to COVID-19, the international system of pandemic prevention, detection, analysis, warning, and response is woefully inadequate to address current and anticipated future challenges. Gaps in the international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architecture are extensive and fundamental, undermining the ability of the international community to prevent and mount effective responses to future biological events—including those that could match the impacts of COVID-19 or cause damage that is significantly more severe.

Report Findings and Recommendations

Discussion among exercise participants led to the following key findings:

(The full findings are available on page 14 of the report.)

  • Weak global detection, assessment, and warning of pandemic risks. The international community needs a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.
  • Gaps in national-level preparedness. National governments should improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of “triggers” that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs—in other words, on a “no-regrets” basis.
  • Gaps in biological research governance. The international system for governing dual-use biological research is neither prepared to meet today’s security requirements, nor is it ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future. There are risk reduction needs throughout the bioscience research and development life cycle.
  • Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics. Many countries around the world lack financing to make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.

To address these findings, the report authors developed the following recommendations:

(The full recommendations are available on page 22 of the report.)

  1. Bolster international systems for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins
    • The WHO should establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system.
    • The United Nations (UN) system should establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin, which we refer to as a “Joint Assessment Mechanism.”
  2. Develop and institute national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response
    • National governments must adopt a “no-regrets” approach to pandemic response, taking anticipatory action—as opposed to reacting to mounting case counts and fatalities, which are lagging indicators.
    • To facilitate anticipatory action on a no-regrets basis, national governments should develop national-level plans that define and incorporate “triggers” for responding to high-consequence biological events.
  3. Establish an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances
    • The international community should establish an entity dedicated to reducing the risk of catastrophic events due to accidental misuse or deliberate abuse of bioscience and biotechnology.
    • To meaningfully reduce risk, the entity should support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle—from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.
  4. Develop a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world
    • National leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector should establish and resource a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness.
    • The design and operations of the fund should be catalytic—incentivizing national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.
  5. Establish a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience
    • The UN Secretary General should convene a high-level panel to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.

EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS

To learn more about NTI’s previous tabletop exercises at the Munich Security Conference, see our 2019 report, “A Spreading Plague,” and our 2020 report,  “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

In 2021, I showed that MICROSOFT CREATED BY IBM TO AVOID ANTI-TRUST LAWS. GATES LIKELY JUST A FRONTMAN.
Just as likely, he left a fading enterprise only to front this bigger and more promising business of ‘plandemics’ and great resets. He’s now the face of GAVI and vaccines, which fronts for, the World Bank, the real plandemic writers and directors, as I’ve shown as far as 2020: FINAL EVIDENCE COVID-19 IS A ‘SIMEX’ – PLANNED SIMULATION EXERCISE BY WHO AND WORLD BANK

It was my mistake to put WB and WHO on the same level in that headline, WHO does not exists as an entity with own will and personality, it’s just a drawer of sock-puppets.

As for the World Bank / IMF, they’re ran by our old (anything but) friends… scroll a bit the PDF below and take a look who authors this internal report I snitched from the WB website!

Simpletons cried it’s impossible to set up a global event like a pandemic because no one can align all these countries.
In fact, about 190 countries and governments owe money to WB / IMF and need to borrow more all the time because they run on debt like Twitter. 190 out of less than 200. There is less agreement over how many countries are there than there is about Covid. Because many countries are not recognized by all players, but Bill Gates is recognized as an Overlords spokesperson.
Running human farms on debt is actually how they ended up in a global economic collapse long before Covid, and this is one of the main reasons behind their desperate need for a Great Reset.


Autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering diseases after SARS-Cov-2 vaccination: A Case report of Pemphigus Vulgaris and a literature review

SOURCE

Abstract

Background: Cases of severe autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs) have recently been reported in association with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination.

Aims: To describe a report of oropharyngeal Pemphigus Vulgaris (OPV) triggered by the mRNABNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty®/ Pfizer/ BioNTech) and to analyze the clinical and immunological characteristics of the AIBDs cases reported following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Methods: The clinical and immunological features of our case of OPV were documented. A review of the literature was conducted and only cases of AIBDs arising after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were included.

Case report: A 60-year old female patients developed oropharyngeal and nasal bullous lesions seven days after the administration of a second dose of the mRNABNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty®/ Pfizer/BioNtech). According to the histology and direct immunofluorescence findings showing the presence of supra-basal blister and intercellular staining of IgG antibodies and the presence of a high level of anti-Dsg-3 antibodies (80 U/ml; normal < 7 U/ml) in the serum of the patients, a diagnosis of oropharyngeal Pemphigus Vulgaris was made.

Review: A total of 35 AIBDs cases triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were found (including our report). 26 (74.3%) were diagnosed as Bullous Pemphigoid, 2 (5.7%) as Linear IgA Bullous Dermatosis, 6 (17.1%) as Pemphigus Vulgaris and 1 (2.9%) as Pemphigus Foliaceus. The mean age of the sample was 72.8 years and there was a predominance of males over females (F:M=1:1.7). In 22 (62.9%) cases, the disease developed after Pfizer vaccine administration, 6 (17.1%) after Moderna, 3 (8.6%) after AstraZeneca, 3 (8.6%) after CoronaVac (one was not specified). All patients were treated with topical and/or systemic corticosteroids, with or without the addition of immunosuppressive drugs, with a good clinical response in every case.

Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of the potential, though rare, occurrence of AIBDs as a possible adverse event after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, notwithstanding, they should encourage their patients to obtain the vaccination in order to assist the public health systems to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.

IN CONCLUSION:

When you rob a planet, you need large laundromats for all that doe.

And you also need large numbers of very good Public Relations executives. Which are hard to come by in Disneyland.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

I know monkey-pox is the thing right now, not surprised since it’s on GAVI’s list of emerging viruses , next to Marburg and Nipah.
However, let me break this down for you…

The best part are the comments though, dive in!

Previously, by the same author

DAVID ROTHSCHILD TO IVANKA TRUMP: F… YOU. AND THEN HE GOES ON…

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

When replacement migration happens in white countries, who are they replacing?
I mean, it can’t be whites because White Replacement Theory is just a conspiracy theory, ADL and CNN told me so.

Abstract:

Discussion:

This is the groomer background noise right now:

This came up in 2001, the year that started many migration waves and tsunamis.

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations

Press Release
DEV/2234
POP/735


NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION

20000317


NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:

— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

— Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.

The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

SOURCE

LATER UPDATE: SO I PUT TOGETHER A FULL 1H VIDEO DOCUMENTARY TO COMPLEMENT THIS.

Replacement Migration & White Replacement – Liberals Expose The Science Between “Conspiracy!” Cries

And this should be the intro for Part Two of the above work:

Biden: “An unrelenting stream of immigration. Non-stop. That’s our strength”

PLEASE SHARE IT LIKE FIRE, CLICK HERE FOR RUMBLE!

Wait, this was just the intro to the report, here are the links to the full body of work (PDF):

Annex Tables

The ideological roots of white replacement – The Kalergi Plan narrated by Chris Langan ( 200+ IQ )

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

Thanks Goodness for independent journalists like Ben Swann!
And the SILVIEW.media archives preserving this, as YouTube erased our channels.

This fact should be the premise of any discussion about propaganda and disinformation in US, Canada, EU and every country where the government has this type of power.
Historically, all governments to establish a propaganda monopoly.

Unless they don’t work for themselves.

Three U.S. intel officials admit the W.H. practices disinformation ‘to mess with Putin’s head’ – NBC

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

CIA’s portrait of the Ukrainian nationalist movement doesn’t look any better either. In concordance with almost everything Western media published on them prior to 2022.
Basically, mass-mediots are now whitewashing Nazis and sociopaths like they are George Floyds. How many layers of irony can you count here?

I first got intrigued by “Target: Patton. The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton”, Robert K. Wilcox’s book on general Patton’s death, suspected by many to be an assassination.
Stepan Bandera is involved and mentioned there over 30 times.

“General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders, claims Wilcox
The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives.”

The Telegraph review of “Target: Patton”

Among those who tipped US intelligence of a plot to assassinate Patton was Bandera. He was pointing fingers at the Soviets, of course.
But given Patton’s fading political influence, weak to none, and his old age, combined with the high risks involved in such operation, I find Wilcox’s proposition simply dumb. I have a much more plausible one:
Bandera attempted again what he has been doing all his life: recruiting allies in his war against Russia. And let me add some insult to injury: Everything we know about them suggest that Bandera’s people would have no issues with killing Patton with their bare hands if they knew they can switch the blame on Russia. Patton was quasi-inoffensive to Russia alive. Only dead he could push US against Russians. And the documents below support this concept better than any other.

But I digress.
Knowing that MI6 has been supporting his organization since the 1930’s, same way they support the Azov Battalion today, I figured a while ago there’s no way in Heaven or Hell that American intelligence didn’t attempt to recruit Bandera too. And this book signaled me they’ve been in touch, indeed.


So I started digging and asking around and it didn’t take long until I obtained some CIA files on him released under FOIA for research on other topics.

But first…

INTRODUCTION: MEET STEPAN BANDERA, THE MAN AND THE AZOV BATTALION SPIRITUAL LEADER

Who Was Stepan Bandera?

BY DANIEL LAZARE, Jacobin Mag 09.24.2015

Lionized as a nationalist hero in Ukraine, Stepan Bandera was a Nazi sympathizer who left behind a horrific legacy.

Poles being taken away during the Ukrainian Insurgent Army’s 1943–45 campaign of mass killings.

When Western journalists traveled to Kiev in late 2013 to cover the Euromaidan protests, they encountered a historical figure few recognized. It was Stepan Bandera, whose youthful black-and-white image was seemingly everywhere — on barricades, over the entrance to Kiev’s city hall, and on the placards held by demonstrators calling for the overthrow of then-president Viktor Yanukovych.

Bandera was evidently a nationalist of some sort and highly controversial, but why? The Russians said he was a fascist and an antisemite, but Western media were quick to disregard that as Moscow propaganda. So they hedged.

The Washington Post wrote that Bandera had entered into a “tactical relationship with Nazi Germany” and that his followers “were accused of committing atrocities against Poles and Jews,” while the New York Times wrote that he had been “vilified by Moscow as a pro-Nazi traitor,” a charge seen as unfair “in the eyes of many historians and certainly to western Ukrainians.” Foreign Policy dismissed Bandera as “Moscow’s favorite bogeyman . . . a metonym for all bad Ukrainian things.”

Whoever Bandera was, all were in agreement that he couldn’t have been as nasty as Putin said he was. But thanks to Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe’s Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, it now seems clear: those terrible Russians were right.

Bandera was indeed as noxious as any personality thrown up by the hellish 1930s and ’40s. The son of a nationalist-minded Greek Catholic priest, Bandera was the sort of self-punishing fanatic who sticks pins under his fingernails to prepare himself for torture at the hands of his enemies. As a university student in Lviv, he is said to have moved on to burning himself with an oil lamp, slamming a door on his fingers, and whipping himself with a belt. “Admit, Stepan!” he would cry out. “No, I don’t admit!”

A priest who heard his confession described him as “an übermensch . . . who placed Ukraine above all,” while a follower said he was the sort of person who “could hypnotize a man. Everything that he said was interesting. You could not stop listening to him.”

Enlisting in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) at age twenty, he used his growing influence to steer an already-violent group in an even more extreme direction. In 1933, he organized an attack on the Soviet consul in Lviv, which only managed to kill an office secretary. A year later, he directed the assassination of the Polish minister of the interior. He ordered the execution of a pair of alleged informers and was responsible for other deaths as well as the OUN took to robbing banks, post offices, police stations, and private households in search of funds.

What sent Bandera off in such a violent direction? Rossoliński-Liebe’s massive new study takes us through the times and the politics that captured Bandera’s imagination. Galicia had been part of Austro-Hungary prior to the war. But whereas the Polish-controlled western half was incorporated into the newly established Republic of Poland in 1918, the Ukrainian-dominated eastern portion, where Bandera was born in 1909, was not absorbed until 1921, following the Polish–Soviet War and a brief period of independence.

It was a poor fit from the start. Bitter at being deprived of a state of their own, Ukrainian nationalists refused to recognize the takeover and, in 1922, responded with a campaign of arson attacks on some 2,200 Polish-owned farms. The government in Warsaw replied with repression and cultural warfare. It brought in Polish farmers, many of them war veterans, to settle the district and radically change the demographics of the countryside. It closed down Ukrainian schools and even tried to ban the term “Ukrainian,” insisting that students employ the somewhat more vague “Ruthenian” instead.

When the OUN launched another arson and sabotage campaign in summer 1930, Warsaw resorted to mass arrest. By late 1938, as many as 30,000 Ukrainians were languishing in Polish jails. Soon, Polish politicians were talking about the “extermination” of the Ukrainians while a German journalist who traveled through eastern Galicia in early 1939 reported that local Ukrainians were calling for “Uncle Führer” to step in and impose a solution of his own on the Poles.

Bandera, fourth from the left, in 1928.
Stepan Bandera, fourth from the left, in 1928.

The conflict in the Polish-Ukrainian borderlands exemplified the ugly ethnic wars that were erupting throughout eastern Europe as a new world war approached. Conceivably, Bandera might have responded to the growing disorder by moving to the political left. Previously, liberal Bolshevik cultural policies in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, had caused a surge in pro-Communist sentiment in the neighboring Polish province of Volhynia.

But a number of factors got in the way: his father’s position in the church, the fact that Galicia, unlike formerly Russian Volhynia, was an ex-Habsburg possession and hence oriented toward Austria and Germany, and, of course, Stalin’s disastrous collectivization policies, which, by the early ’30s, had completely destroyed the Soviet Ukraine as any sort of model worth emulating.

Consequently, Bandera responded by moving ever farther to the right. In high school, he read Mykola Mikhnovs’kyi, a militant nationalist who had died in 1924 and preached a united Ukraine stretching “from the Carpathian Mountains to the Caucasus,” one that would be free of “Russians, Poles, Magyars, Romanians, and Jews.” Entry into the OUN a few years later exposed him to the teachings of Dmytro Dontsov, the group’s “spiritual father,” another ultra-rightist who translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s La Dottrina Del Fascismo and taught that ethics should be subordinate to the national struggle.

Entry into the OUN also plunged him into a milieu marked by growing antisemitism. Anti-Jewish hatred had been deeply bound up with the concept of Ukrainian nationhood since at least the seventeenth century when thousands of Ukrainian peasants, maddened by the exactions of the Polish landlords and their Jewish estate managers, engaged in a vicious bloodletting under the leadership of a minor nobleman named Bohdan Khmelnytsky.

Ukraine was the scene of even more gruesome pogroms during the Russian Civil War. But antisemitic passions rose a further notch in 1926 when a Jewish anarchist named Sholom Schwartzbard assassinated the exiled Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura in Paris.

“I have killed a great assassin,” declared Schwartzbard, who had lost fourteen family members in the pogroms that swept through the Ukraine when Petliura headed up a short-lived anti-Bolshevik republic in 1919–1920, on surrendering to the police. But after hearing testimony from survivors about impaled babies, children cast into flames, and other anti-Jewish atrocities, a French jury acquitted him in just thirty-five minutes.

The verdict caused a sensation, not least on the Ukrainian right. Dontsov denounced Schwartzbard as “an agent of Russian imperialism,” declaring:

Jews are guilty, terribly guilty, because they helped consolidate Russian rule in Ukraine, but “the Jew is not guilty of everything.” Russian imperialism is guilty of everything. Only when Russia falls in Ukraine will we be able to settle the Jewish question in our country in a way that suits the interest of the Ukrainian people.

While the Bolsheviks were the main enemy, Jews were their forward striking force, so the most effective way of countering one was by thoroughly eliminating the other. In 1935, OUN members smashed windows in Jewish houses and then, a year later, burned around a hundred Jewish families out of their homes in the town of Kostopil in what is now western Ukraine. They marked the tenth anniversary of Petliura’s assassination by distributing leaflets with the message: “Attention, kill and beat the Jews for our Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura, the Jews should be removed from Ukraine, long live the Ukrainian state.”

By this point, Bandera was already in jail serving a life sentence following a pair of highly publicized murder trials in which he taunted the court by giving the fascist salute and crying out, Slava Ukraïni – “Glory to Ukraine.” But he was able to escape following the German takeover of western Poland beginning on September 1, 1939 and make his way to Lviv, the capital of eastern Galicia.

Stepan Bandera
Stepan Bandera

But the Soviet incursion on September 17 sent him fleeing in the opposite direction. Eventually, he and the rest of the OUN leadership settled in German-controlled Cracow, about two hundred miles to the west, where they set about preparing the organization for further battles still to come.

The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, which the OUN leadership seems to have gotten wind of months ahead of time, was the moment they had been waiting for. Not only did it promise to free the Ukraine from Soviet control, but it also held out the prospect of unifying all Ukrainians in a single state. The dream of a greater Ukraine would thus be realized.

A month earlier, Bandera and his chief lieutenants — Stepan Lenkavs’kyi, Stepan Shukhevych, and Iaroslav Stets’ko — had put the finishing touches on an internal party document entitled “The Struggle and Activities of the OUN in Wartime,” a to-do list for when the Wehrmacht crossed the Soviet border.

It called on members to take advantage of the “favorable situation” posed by a “war between Moscow and other states” to create a national revolution that would draw up all Ukraine in its vortex. It conceived of revolution as a great purification process in which “Muscovites, Poles, and Jews” would be “destroyed . . . in particular those who protect the [Soviet] regime.” Although the OUN regarded the Nazis as allies, the document stressed that OUN activists should commence the revolution as soon as possible so as present the Wehrmacht with a fait accompli:

We treat the coming German army as the army of allies. We try before their coming to put life in order, on our own as it should be. We inform them that the Ukrainian authority is already established, it is under the control of the OUN under the leadership of Stepan Bandera; all matters are regulated by the OUN and the local authorities are ready to establish friendly relations with the army, in order to fight together against Moscow.

The document continued that “it is permissible to liquidate undesirable Poles . . . NKVD people, informers, provocateurs . . . all important Ukrainians who, in the critical time, would try to make ‘their politics’ and thereby threaten the decisive mind-set of the Ukrainian nation,” adding that only one party would be permitted under the new order — the OUN.

Although Bandera and his followers would later try to paint the alliance with the Third Reich as no more than “tactical,” an attempt to pit one totalitarian state against another, it was in fact deep-rooted and ideological. Bandera envisioned the Ukraine as a classic one-party state with himself in the role of führer, or providnyk, and expected that a new Ukraine would take its place under the Nazi umbrella, much as Jozef Tiso’s new fascist regime had in Slovakia or Ante Pavelić’s in Croatia.

Certain high-ranking Nazis thought along similar lines, most notably Alfred Rosenberg, the newly appointed Reich minister for the occupied eastern territories. But Hitler was obviously of a different mind. He saw Slavs as “an inferior race,” incapable of organizing a state, and viewed Ukrainians in particular as “just as lazy, disorganized, and nihilistic-Asiatic as the Greater Russians.”

Instead of a partner, he saw them as an obstacle. Obsessed with the British naval blockade of World War I, which had caused as many as 750,000 deaths from starvation and disease, he was determined to block any similar effort by the Allies by expropriating eastern grain supplies on an unprecedented scale. Hence the importance of the Ukraine, the great granary on the Black Sea. “I need the Ukraine in order that no one is able to starve us again like in the last war,” he declared in August 1939. Grain seizures on such a scale would mean condemning vast numbers to starvation, twenty-five million or more in all.

Yet not only did the Nazis not care, but annihilation on such a scale accorded perfectly with their plans for a racial makeover of what they viewed as the eastern frontier. The result was the famous Generalplan Ost, the great Nazi blueprint that called for killing or expelling up to 80 percent of the Slavic population and its replacement by Volksdeutsche, settlers from old Germany, and Waffen-SS veterans.

Plainly, there was no room in such a scheme for a self-governing Ukraine. When Stets’ko announced the formation of a Ukrainian state “under the leadership of Stepan Bandera” in Lviv just eight days after the Nazi invasion, a couple of German officers warned him that the question of Ukrainian independence was up to Hitler alone. Nazi officials gave Bandera the same message a few days later at a meeting in Cracow.

Subsequently, they escorted both Bandera and Stets’ko to Berlin and placed them under house arrest. When Hitler decided on July 19, 1941 to partition the Ukraine by incorporating eastern Galicia into the “General Government,” as Nazi-ruled Poland was known, OUN members were stunned.

Instead of unifying the Ukraine, the Nazis were dismembering it. When graffiti appeared declaring, “Away with foreign authority! Long live Stepan Bandera,” the Nazis responded by shooting a number of OUN members and, by December 1941, placing some 1,500 under arrest.

Still, as Rossoliński-Liebe shows, Bandera and his followers continued to long for an Axis victory. As strained as relations with the Nazis might be, there could be no talk of neutrality in the epic struggle between Moscow and Berlin.

In a letter to Alfred Rosenberg in August 1941, Bandera offered to meet German objections by reconsidering the question of Ukrainian independence. On December 9, he sent him another letter pleading for reconciliation: “German and Ukrainian interests in Eastern Europe are identical. For both sides, it is a vital necessity to consolidate (normalize) Ukraine in the best and fastest way and to include it in the European spiritual, economic, and political system.”

Ukrainian nationalism, he went on, had taken shape “in a spirit similar to the National Socialist ideas” and was needed to “spiritually cure the Ukrainian youth” who had been poisoned by their upbringing under the Soviets. Although the Germans were in no mood to listen, their attitude changed once their fortunes began to shift. Desperate for manpower following their defeat at Stalingrad, they agreed to the formation of a Ukrainian division in the Waffen-SS, known the Galizien, which would eventually grow to 14,000 members.

Rather than disbanding the OUN, the Nazis had meanwhile revamped it as a German-run police force. The OUN had played a leading role in the anti-Jewish pogroms that broke out in Lviv and dozens of other Ukrainian cities on the heels of the German invasion, and now they served the Nazis by patrolling the ghettoes and assisting in deportations, raids, and shootings.

Two soldiers of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army with captured Soviet and German weapons.
Two soldiers of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army with captured Soviet and German weapons.

But beginning in early 1943, OUN members deserted the police en masse in order to form a militia of their own that would eventually call itself the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukraïns’ka Povstans’ka Armiia, or UPA). Taking advantage of the chaos behind German lines, their first major act was an ethnic cleansing campaign aimed at driving Poles out of eastern Galicia and Volhynia. “When it comes to the Polish question, this is not a military but a minority question,” a Polish underground source quoted a UPA leader as saying. “We will solve it as Hitler solved the Jewish question.”

Citing the Polish historian Grezegorz Motyka, Rossoliński-Liebe says that the UPA killed close to 100,000 Poles between 1943 and 1945 and that Orthodox priests blessed the axes, pitchforks, scythes, sickles, knives, and sticks that the peasants it mobilized used to finish them off.

Simultaneously, UPA attacks on Jews continued at such a ferocious level that Jews actually sought the protection of the Germans. “The Banderite bands and the local nationalists raided every night, decimating the Jews,” a survivor testified in 1948. “Jews sheltered in the camps where Germans were stationed, fearing an attack by Banderites. Some German soldiers were brought to protect the camps and thereby also the Jews.”

Rossoliński-Liebe carries the story of Bandera and his movement through the Nazi defeat when the Galizien division fought alongside the retreating Wehrmacht and then into the postwar period when those left behind in the Ukraine mounted a desperate rearguard resistance against the encroaching Soviets.

This war-after-the-war was a deadly serious affair in which OUN fighters killed not only informers, collaborators, and eastern Ukrainians transferred to Galicia and Volhynia to work as teachers or administrators, but their families as well. “Soon the Bolsheviks will conduct the grain levy,” they warned on one occasion. “Anyone among you who brings grain to the collection points will be killed like a dog, and your entire family butchered.”

Mutilated corpses appeared with signs proclaiming, “For collaboration with the NKVD.” According to a 1973 KGB report, more than 30,000 people fell victim to the OUN before the Soviets managed to wipe out resistance in 1950, including some 15,000 peasants and collective-farm workers and more than 8,000 soldiers, militia members, and security personnel.

Even given the barbarity of the times, the group’s actions stood out.

Stepan Bandera is an important book that combines biography and sociology as it lays out the story of an important radical nationalist and the organization he led. But what makes it so relevant, of course, is the OUN’s powerful resurgence since the 1991.

Although Western intelligence eagerly embraced Bandera and his supporters as the Cold War began to stir — “Ukrainian emigration in the territory of Germany, Austria, France, Italy, in the greatest majority is a healthy, uncompromising element in the fight against the Bolsheviks,” a US Army intelligence agent noted in 1947 — the movement’s long-term prospects did not seem to be very promising, especially after a Soviet agent managed to slip through Bandera’s security ring in Munich in 1959 and kill him with a blast from a cyanide spray gun.

With that, the Banderites seemed to be going the way of all other “captive nations,” far-right exiles who gathered from time to time to sing the old songs but who otherwise seemed to be relics from a bygone era.

What saved them, of course, was the Soviet collapse. OUN veterans hastened back at the first opportunity. Stets’ko had died in Munich in 1986, but his widow, Iaroslava, returned in his place, according to Rossoliński-Liebe, founding a far-right party called the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists and winning a spot in parliament. Iurii Shukhevych, the son of the exiled UPA leader Roman Shukhevych, established another ultra-right group calling itself the Ukrainian National Assembly. Even Bandera’s grandson, Stephen, made an appearance, touring Ukraine as he unveiled monuments, attended rallies, and praised his grandfather as the “symbol of the Ukrainian nation.”

A homegrown group of Banderites meanwhile formed the Social-National Party of Ukraine, later known as Svoboda. In a 2004 speech, their leader, the charismatic Oleh Tiahnybok, paid tribute to the fighters of the UPA:

The enemy came and took their Ukraine. But they were not afraid; likewise we must not be afraid. They hung their machine guns on their necks and went into the woods. They fought against the Russians, Germans, Jews, and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state! And therefore our task — for every one of you, the young, the old, the gray-headed and the youthful — is to defend our native land!

Except for the omission of the Poles, the speech was an indication of how little things had changed. The movement was as xenophobic, antisemitic, and obsessed with violence as ever, except that now, for the first time in half a century, thousands of people were listening to what it had to say.

Bandera on a Ukrainian stamp.
Stephan Bandera on a Ukrainian stamp.

One might think that the liberal West would want nothing to do with such elements, but the response was no less unscrupulous than it was during the opening years of the Cold War. Because the banderivtsi were anti-Russian, they had to be democratic. Because they were democratic, their ultra-right trappings had to be inconsequential.

The Bandera portraits that were increasingly prominent as the Euromaidan protests turned more and more violent, the wolfsangel that was formerly a symbol of the SS but was now taken up by the Azov Battalion and other militias, the old OUN war cry of “Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes” that was now ubiquitous among anti-Yanukovych protesters — all had to be ignored, discounted, or whitewashed.

Citing unnamed “academic commentators,” the Guardian announced in March 2014 that Svoboda “appears to have mellowed” and was now “eschewing xenophobia.” US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt said that Svoboda members “have demonstrated their democratic bona fides,” while the historian Anne Applebaum announced in the New Republic that nationalism was a good thing and that what Ukrainians needed was more of it: “They need more occasions when they can shout, ‘Slava Ukraini – Heroyam Slava’ – ‘Glory to Ukraine, Glory to its Heroes,’ which was, yes, the slogan of the controversial Ukrainian Revolutionary Army [sic] in the 1940s, but has been adopted to a new context.”

Many, like Alina Polyakova at the Atlantic Council, voiced similar defenses: “The Russian government and its proxies in eastern Ukraine have consistently branded Kyiv’s government a fascist junta and accused it of having Nazi sympathizers. Moscow’s propaganda is outrageous and wrong.” Given Ukraine’s deepening economic woes, she continued, “should Ukraine watchers be concerned about the potential growth of extreme right-wing parties?” Her answer: “Absolutely not.”

That was on June 9. A few weeks later, Polyakova executed a 180-degree turn. “Ukraine’s government,” she declared on July 24, “has a problem on its hands: A far-right group has tapped into growing frustration among Ukrainians over the declining economy and tepid support from the West.”

As a result, Right Sector was now a “dangerous” force, “a thorn in Kyiv’s side,” one of a number of right-wing groups “taking advantage of public frustration to ratchet up support for their misguided agenda.” The international community would have to step up economic aid and political support, she warned, if it didn’t want Ukraine to fall into the hands of the radical right.

What had happened? On July 11, a bloody shootout had erupted in the western town of Mukacheve between heavily armed members of the neo-Nazi Right Sector and supporters of a local politician named Mykhailo Lanio.

The details are murky, and it is unclear whether the Right Sector was attempting to put a stop to highly lucrative cigarette smuggling in the border province of Zakarpattia or was trying to muscle in on the trade. One thing, however, was obvious: given the disarray in its own military, the Ukrainian government had grown increasingly dependent on private Banderite militias like Right Sector to battle pro-Russian separatists in the east and, as a consequence, was increasingly at the mercy of rampaging ultra-rightists whom it was unable to control.

Thanks to the military support that had flown their way, groups like the Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade were bigger than ever, battle-hardened and heavily armed, and fed up with rich politicians who made peace with the Russians and continued to rake in profits while the economy sank to new depths. Yet there was little the government in Kiev could do in response.

Polyakova’s nervousness was justified. Given Ukraine’s desperate economic straits — economic output is expected to fall 10 percent this year after dropping 7.5 percent in 2014, inflation is running at 57 percent due to the collapse of the hryvnia, while external debt now stands at 158 percent of GDP — there was a distinct whiff of Weimar in the air.

A few weeks later, on August 31, hundreds of Right Sector supporters battled with police in Kiev as the Ukrainian parliament voted in favor of the Minsk II accords aimed at defusing the crisis in the east. Three people were killed when a Right Sector supporter lobbed a grenade in the middle of the fracas and more than a hundred injured as the country hurtled toward civil war.

Although Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko labeled the attack “a stab in the back,” this was the same leader who in May signed a law making it a crime to “publicly exhibit a disrespectful attitude” toward the OUN or UPA. Once again, centrists who began by placating the fascists have wound up at their mercy.

Stepan Bandera—The Most Hated Man Who Ever Lived

Uncommon Thought, June 15, 2021

Stepan Bandera Ukreaine stamp

[Photo: 100th-anniversary Ukrainian stamp honoring Stepan Bandera (1909-1959) wikipedia..]

Gaither Stewart

Editor’s Note

It is clear that there is a resurgence of movement towards nationalism, fascism, and dictatorial rule across the globe. I say resurgence because this is not the first time we have seen far-right populism rise and strike fear into the hearts of democracies. While the world has seen this before, it does not mean that it is the same each time. It is clear that it is combining with (or driven by) the monopoly capitalism of our time and the almost record level of income inequality. This makes a close look at figures like Stepan Bander, and the insightful historical discussion by Gaither Stewart particularly timely.

I also appreciate tying the history of Eastern Europe, Nazism, and Russian influence particularly important as I think that many Americans are still scratching their heads over events in Ukraine; events that reverberate even today.

The U.S.’ role in Ukraine under the Obama administration is an excellent example with the problems with U.S. foreign policy and intervention. We have followed a policy of doing what we think is in our own best interests – even if that means supporting dictators, or even fascist governments. It has been said that it is actually easier for the U.S. to pursue its interests with dictators rather than with democracies. Democracies are both cumbersome and messy – particularly if the people’s interests are captured and they apply pressure that may counter U.S. “influence”.

The case study of both Ukraine and Bandera are pertinent not only to the environment with Ukraine, but with Russia, P{oland, and the EU. We are at least as deep into this convoluted situation as any other nation involved.

Gaither Stewart
There was no sun, no shadows. The star Wormwood had fallen from the heavens and polluted the earth’s waters and after diminishing the shadows, had erased them. The falling of the stars had darkened the earth until all shadows vanished. And in the darkness the seventh seal of judgment loosed from the bottomless pit Abaddon the Destroyer together with the plague of Nazism that swooped down on earth to kill the third part of men and then to hover over the shadowless fields, writing its messages in the earth. (My adaptation of the revelations of the Seventh seal)

Adolf Hitler left a deadly legacy behind him. He must have thought that Abaddon himself had scripted his great historical role: to decimate mankind. As history continues to show us his suicide in the bunker in a Berlin overrun by Red Army soldiers was not the end of Nazism that he constructed in his own image: he was the Destroyer, risen from the fire of the bottomless depths to destroy mankind. An irony of history is that his Nazism—in power in Germany for only twelve years (1933-1945)—was to sweep over the earth, one might think as per the biblical Revelations. We have seen that continuity in postwar Germany and in the USA, in Operation Condor in Chile and Argentina which wiped out the best of the youth of both countries, and in Mexico under the “revolutionary” Fascist dictatorship. And today in Ukraine we witness in action Nazism in its crudest form. The diaspora of Nazism and Nazis and of the children they have spawned and continue to spawn recalls the falling star of Wormwood still spreading darkness over the Earth.

The spirit of Ukrainian Nazi, Stepan Bandera, assassinated in Munich in 1959, defines and infects the U.S.-constructed, assembled, and managed Nazi-inspired government in Kiev brought about by the Maidan coup and the overthrow of the legally elected government of Ukraine. The Nazi spirit of Stepan Bandera, a disgusting and hated man, thrives and spawns its own children.

Western journalists covering the Euromaidan riots and murders in Kiev in late February of 2014 encountered an historical image that few recognized. The black-and-white image of pasty-faced Stepan Bandera was plastered everywhere in the Ukraine capital— on barricades, over the entrance to Kiev’s city hall, and on placards held by demonstrators calling for the overthrow of the Russian-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych. So who in the hell is this Bandera, the journalists thought.

People like Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland defined Bandera as a Ukrainian nationalist. The U.S. State Department spokeswoman accepted only praise and support for a Nazi regime in Kiev … come hell or high water and fuck European Union objections or warnings not to disturb the Russian bear on the border. Russians said he was a Nazi and an anti-Semite but Western media obediently labeled such words as Moscow propaganda. As a result of U.S. involvement foreign journalists quickly hedged in their reports from the Kiev Maidan. The Washington Post reported that Bandera had had only a “tactical relationship’ with Nazi Germany and that his followers “were only accused of committing atrocities against Poles and Jews.” According to the New York Times Bandera had been slandered by Moscow as a pro-Nazi traitor. Foreign Policy dismissed Bandera as “Moscow’s favorite bogeyman and metonym for all bad Ukrainian things.” Whoever Bandera was, he couldn’t have been as nasty as Putin claimed.

Maidan, Kiev
Maidan, aka Independence Square in Kiev.

(Picture of Independence Square (Majdan Nezalezhnosti) in Kiev, often known simply as “Maidan”, where the U.S. coup gave birth to the Nazi-led Ukraine, of which Stefan Bandera was one of the most illustrious forefathers Maidan is a proto-Indo-European word probably of Persian origin and used in Turkish, Pakistani, Indian languages for a large space, meeting place, parade grounds. I encountered the word in Tehran where on a famous Meydan the Shah’s soldiers killed hundreds or thousands of protesters during the Iranian Islamic Revolution. Though not used in Russian, it somehow seeped into the Ukrainian language.)

Especially in Central Europe historical figures flash across the horizon and then quickly fade away into the gossamer past and oblivion. But this man Bandera? Who was he? The name of Stepan Bandera (b, 1909 in West Ukraine, d. Munich1959) is today the symbol of Ukrainian Nazism, the symbol of the ideology and practice of the big, new-old nation of Ukraine, vassal of the USA, and a former Republic of the Soviet Union. But in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv—better known as Kiev—once one of Russia’s major cities, the name Stepan Bandera lives again. To his memory are dedicated streets, squares and monuments in Nazi Ukraine, especially in his native West Ukraine. Today, Nazis of all nationalities pay homage to his memory. In 2010, the pro-West President Victor Yushchenko issued a decree naming Bandera “Hero of the Ukraine”. This decree was annulled that same year by his pro-Russian successor Victor Yanukovich. Then again, in 2015, a year after the Maidan coup and the overthrow of the democratic government, a great majority of the new Nazi-infested government run by the sons of Bandera and his Svoboda and the Right Sektor parties voted unanimously to proclaim Bandera a national hero. Men of the infamous Nachtigall (Nightingale) battalion that fought side by side with the Nazi Wehrmacht, exterminating Jews and Ukrainians alike; at the same time the people of the apparatus of Ukrainian Nazism were also termed national heroes … and they were in power. I will note here that in those days Ukraine invited members of the Association of Foreign Journalists in Rome of which I was a member to visit Bandera’s native Lviv. One still wonders that the European Union did not protest against the coup, against a Nazi-led government in the middle of Europe, the question that prompted the famous response of Victoria Nuland, the real organizer of the Maidan: “Fuck the EU.” That is, official America told official Europe to fuck off. America ordered Europe to fall in line and obey orders. Real history is ugly, brutal and vulgar. Real history is real people doing ugly or beautiful things that seldom reach the pages of written history.

But informed people know better. Informed people know who Stepan Bandera and his followers are. Those terrible Russians were of course right all the time. For the vast majority of Russians, the term Banderovtsy or Banderite is today even worse than Liberal applied to that small minority who worship Western things, yearn for America, the European Union and NATO and detest Putin and Russian nationalists. Much, much worse than Alex Navalny about whose pitiful existence many are unaware; but everybody knows what a Banderite is.

Already in his lifetime the little Bandera—he stood 5 feet and 2 inches—a Russian-hating, West Ukrainian Nazi—was detested literally by everybody: his political opponents within the Ukrainian independence movement hated him, as did many of his own allies and followers; Jews and Russian-speaking ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine hate and revile him as a fascist traitor to his country and a terrorist who collaborated with the Nazis and whose followers murdered thousands of Ukrainians; even his German Nazi masters considered him despicable because he betrayed and murdered his own people; the masses of displaced Ukrainians living in West Germany after World War II hated him for his crimes against other Ukrainians; elements of the post-war German government and many of Germany’s American occupiers hated him… even those he served; Poles hated him for his crimes against the Polish people; Russians hated him in a special way because Bandera, in his German SS uniform, was responsible for the elimination of hundreds of thousands of Russians, soldiers, prisoners of war and civilians alike; today his figure is hated by all Russians because of everything he stood for; Ukrainian immigrants in Russia hate him and dislike being called Banderites because they are Ukrainian.

Yet, nationalists in western Ukraine today revere him as a patriotic freedom-fighter, a martyr who led the struggle for independence from the Soviet Union: Bandera remains a hero in the eyes of the growing number of extreme rightists and Nazis in today’s nationalist, jingoistic Ukraine, among Ukrainian nationalists abroad and right-wing extremists elsewhere. To the joy of re-flowering Nazi-Fascist organizations and parties across Europe, the Nazi- Banderite Svoboda (Freedom) and Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) parties run things in today’s Ukraine. Bandera’s image is honored on a postage stamp while his memory has assumed founder-of-Ukrainian-nationalism proportions. Moscow Avenue in the Ukraine capital of Kyiv was changed to Bandera Avenue. Still, on the other hand, articles galore have emerged in the international press of the life of an ugly and justifiably hated man, especially in Polish, German and English writings which can be seen on the Internet.

Bandera was the son of a nationalist-minded Greek Catholic priest in Western Ukraine, formally known as Eastern Galicia-Volhynia. Stepan grew up as a self-punishing fanatic who is said to have stuck pins under his fingernails to prepare himself for torture at the hands of enemies. And that as a university student in Lviv (Lvov), he whipped himself with a belt. “Admit, Stepan!” he would cry out. “No, I don’t admit!” Yet, his followers found Bandera hypnotic: “You couldn’t stop listening to him.”

Stepan enlisted in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) at age twenty where he steered an already violent faction into more extreme directions. In 1933, he organized an attack on the Soviet consul in Lviv, killing an office secretary. A year later, he directed the assassination of the Polish Interior Minister. He ordered the execution of two alleged informers and was responsible for other deaths as well when the OUN took to robbing banks, post offices, police stations, and private households in search of funds.

A study by the German writer Rossoliński-Liebe of what drove Bandera’s violence takes us through the times and the politics that captured Bandera’s imagination. Galicia—more or less Western Ukraine —had been part of Austro-Hungary prior to WWI. The Polish-controlled western half of Galicia was incorporated into the newly established Republic of Poland in 1918; the Ukrainian-dominated eastern portion (of West Ukraine) where Bandera was born was absorbed also by Poland in 1921 following the Polish-Soviet War and in that period enjoyed a brief period of independence. Bitter at being deprived of a state of their own, Ukrainian nationalists there refused to recognize the Polish takeover and in 1922 responded with arson attacks on thousands of Polish-owned farms. Warsaw resorted to mass arrests. By late 1938, some 30,000 Ukrainian-Poles languished in Polish jails. Polish politicians spoke of the “extermination” of the Ukrainians while a German journalist who traveled through eastern Galicia in early 1939 reported that local Ukrainians were calling for Hitler to intervene and impose a solution of his own on the Poles. The conflict in the Polish-Ukrainian borderlands of mixed peoples, languages and cultures exemplified the ethnic wars that erupted throughout Eastern Europe as the legions of Adolf Hitler and Nazism approached in WW Two.

Bandera meanwhile moved ever farther to the right, reading the works of militant nationalists who dreamed of a united Ukraine stretching “from the Carpathian Mountains to the Caucasus, a Ukraine free of Russians, Poles, Magyars, Romanians, and Jews. He studied the works of Dmytro Dontsov, the ultra-rightist spiritual father who translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s La Dottrina Del Fascismo, and taught that ethics should be subordinate to the national struggle.

I have included a brief excursion into the lands of North Central Europe—Poland and Ukraine (including former Galicia)—because precisely these lands were the Lebensraum (Living Space) Hitler pinpointed for German expansion, the main reason for Germany’s quiet and rapid rearmament. Lebensraum was one of the pillars of Nazi Germany’s foreign policy. One small problem was that like Palestine these lands were inhabited by other peoples. So according to Hitler’s Aryan ideology the peoples of those lands had to be eliminated and peopled by German settlers. Here in a nutshell we have German Nazism in action: rearmament, anti-Semitism against the massive Jewry, the Ostjuden, and racism concerning the non-Aryan Slavic untermenschen.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was marked by extreme anti-Semitism, a message which far overshadowed the spread of socialist ideas spreading in these borderlands since the beginning of the twentieth century. Historically, however, anti-Jewish hatred had branded Ukrainian nationhood since the seventeenth century when Ukrainian peasants, maddened by the exactions of the Polish landlords and their putative Jewish estate managers, engaged in vicious pogroms. Nevertheless, while the influence of the OUN spread in Ukraine, Socialism was also taking firm hold. The gruesome pogroms during the Russian Civil War resulted in waves of Jewish emigration to Israel and accelerated the early acquisition of Palestinian lands by legal Jewish emigrants, the subject of a Spanish novel, Dispara, yo ya estoy Muerto (Shoot, I’m Already Dead), by Julia Navarro. A curiosity in the novelist’s presentation was that many of the early Jewish settlers who bought their lands near Jerusalem legally were Socialists/Communists and their small farms and orchards were organized as communist collectives. Still, in Ukraine anti-Semitic passions intensified in 1926 when a Jewish anarchist named Sholom Schwartzbard assassinated the exiled right-wing extremist Ukrainian political leader, Symon Petliura, in Paris. Such events spurred on the Jewish flight from East Europe to Palestine in the years following the Balfour Declaration in 1917 pertaining to the British commitment to the creation of a state of Israel in Palestine.

POLISH-UKRAINIAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS

Exactly where Russia’s real western border lies—or should lie—is one of the most contentious circumstances in Eastern Europe today. Some understanding of social-political currents in the huge area between Germany and Russia—that is, Poland and Ukraine—can shed light on the significance of the US fascist coup in Kiev of 2014 and the emergence of a fake country under US/NATO dominance. Ukraine with its 233,000 square miles is approximately the size of France with 248,000 square miles.

Stretching back centuries, the memory of the centuries-long confusion of past East Europe appeared like an open invitation to Hitler and Nazi Germany in the quest for Lebensraum and continues to influence EU/German policies of the present. So that the era beginning from World War II provides a useful starting point in understanding the current political role of Nazi Ukraine. Since Ukraine was part of the USSR, the Soviet Union’s western border was its (of the Ukrainian Socialst Republic) frontier with Poland. Today’s Russia borders with a NATO-controlled and occupied Ukraine. Not the same thing at all.

Western Ukraine, particularly the city of Lviv-Lvov, occupies a special part of the Polish psyche—something like Kosovo for Serbs which NATO stole, and where the USA built a huge military base, Camp Bondsteel. Therefore the separation of the former western portion of Ukraine, former Galicia, from the Polish state after WWII was hard for Poles to accept despite the socialist ideology in East Europe at the time when nationalism was not supposed to take on emotional significance. Socialist solidarity between peoples counted more than nationalism; emphasis was on economics, not nationality. Nonetheless, the border changes proved to be a strategic miscalculation caused by blindness to the ever-present nationalism. At the time there was little that Poland could do about what it felt was the unfair dislocation of its eastern provinces (with its many Ukrainians and peoples of complex and uncertain feelings of nationality).

Contemporary Poland has believed that the influence of the EU can re-establish its cultural and historical hegemony in its eastern regions. Poland also believes it can rival Russia in terms of influence in those now western regions of Ukraine: whereas Russia’s influence is dominant in East Ukraine. Thus the German-dominated European Union, via Poland, has a strong influence in West Ukraine. On the other hand, the EU is also concerned about the quasi Fascist government of Poland: it worries that an unpredictable super-nationalistic Poland could consider a Polexit from the European Union, a defection that could topple an already shaky union. Moreover, such fears and hopes create confusion over both Polish and Ukrainian state identity.

Polish nationalists dream of their former great state. A kind of Polish Exceptionalism emerged from the influence of Polish Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) and Solidarity’s historical victory over the communist government in 1989. Aided by God via the Polish Pope, Poles successfully defied Soviet power. Today Poles feel they have a future historical role because of their Exceptionalism. Poles believe their historical legacy entitles them to a major presence in Eastern Europe. And it wants its eastern lands back. Therefore Poland’s special opposition to Russia and its historical legacy. In order to pursue this destiny, after the end of the Cold War Poland decided on its pro-Western course of political and military development. Poland exploits concepts of putative Exceptionalism also within the institutions of the EU and NATO in order to advance its national interests at Russia’s expense. Poland uses what it subjectively considers Russian Guilt to justify Polish Exceptionalism, thereby damaging Russia’s soft power potential. (See: Russian Guilt and Polish Exceptionalism by Andrew Korybko, August 1, 2017 for more on the above)

Stepan Bandera In the Post-War

In such confusion, nationalism and Nazism flourished and men like Stepan Bandera and Adolf Hitler played their particular roles. During the postwar of the late 1940s and early 50s, Stepan Bandera was an immigrant in West Germany. He worked for the BND, the German Intelligence Service, and its forerunner, the Gehlen Org, a top secret organization established in a Munich suburb run by Hitler’s former intelligence chief in East Europe, General Reinhard Gehlen. Financed by the USA, the Gehlen Org specialized in espionage and training of spies to be infiltrated into the Soviet Union. Bandera and his wife, Yaroslava, and their three children had also settled in Munich. While the Germans and Americans used Bandera only sparingly and for many he seemed forgotten, the Soviet Union had not forgotten him. Repeated attempts were reportedly made on his life. Yet Bandera remained in Munich, living under the name of Stepan Popel, still a thorn in the side of his many enemies.

On October 15th of 1959, Bandera was killed at his apartment on Kreittmayrstrasse 7 in downtown Munich near the Main Rail Station, allegedly by the KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinsky. According to the police report Bandera had let his bodyguards off that day. When Stashinsky produced his cyanide gun inside a rolled-up newspaper, Bandera didn’t even draw his own gun. Shot in the face, the fifty-year-old Bandera died on a third-floor landing before the ambulance arrived. A medical examination established that the cause of his death was poison by cyanide gas. Stepan Bandera was buried in the Waldfriedhof Cemetery in Munich.

Bandera’s murder was one of the most publicized assassinations of the Cold War. In the sensational show trial in 1962 in the Federal Constitutional Court in the city of Karlsruhe, the 30-year old alleged assassin, Bogdan Stashinsky, a self-declared Soviet citizen, was both defendant as well as star witness about the “nefarious” KGB. He allegedly defected to Germany together with his wife in 1961 and after spilling the beans to the CIA was handed over to German authorities. The young man was presented as a KGB killer and spy; he confessed to having assassinated another Ukrainian émigré in the 1950s. After weeks of testimony, Stashinsky (in reality, a patsy) was condemned to only eight years in prison — for at least two assassinations! The whole affair stank to high heaven. It smelled of false flag operation.

Some reports claimed that the Bandera faction of the OUN had been backed by British MI6 since the 1930s. In any case, Banderites were associated with the CIA in the post-war for espionage in the Soviet Union. Yet American intelligence organizations too described Bandera as “extremely dangerous”, traveling around in disguise, killer, counterfeiter and political abductor. When the Bavarian government cracked down, Bandera promptly offered his services to the German BND intelligence despite the CIA’s growing mistrust of him.

I fictionalized the Bandera-Stashinsky story in the political novel, The Trojan Spy, from which the following excerpts:

Truth is elusive, many-sided. In any case, a young Ukrainian KGB agent by the name of Stashinsky was later tried in Karlsruhe and convicted for the murder of Bandera with a poison spray concocted in Moscow. They said he was an agent of “Smersh”.… A Russian acronym for Death To Spies. Once a top secret NKVD organization for its wet work. For the assassination of enemies. Killers all. Maybe they wanted to enlist him. But I doubt it. One said that during the Nazi occupation of the Ukraine, Stashinsky learned enough German to pass for a German and that he was hired by the KGB already at the age of nineteen after he was caught on a train without a ticket. All unlikely. Not KGB style. He admitted he worked in Germany…. He traveled around Germany…. He had a supervisor in Berlin…. But it’s a long jump from that to Smersh. I’ve always suspected Ukrainian émigré political opponents of Bandera’s murder. Western Ukrainian émigrés were always killing Eastern Ukrainians. With German and American help. That is, if Bandera was even murdered. He might have had a heart attack. As in a fairytale the cold-blooded assassin Stashinsky allegedly repented after he saw a newsreel in an East Berlin theater of poor Bandera lying in his coffin and his wife and children weeping. Can you imagine that touching scene? Oh, the soft heart of a KGB killer! ….Unimaginable….It’s a ridiculous story from beginning to end. Not even the stuff of mythology. Who knows what really happened? Once he got back to East Berlin after killing Bandera, the handsome young Ukrainian fell head over heels in love with a German woman … who hated the Soviet Union….When she learned Stashinsky was a KGB agent, she convinced him of the perfidy of Communism and they escaped to West Germany the day before the Wall was built. Soap opera stuff. An American story, the whole Stashinsky affair. A Reader’s Digest story. The naiveté is disgusting….

Two feature films have been made about Stepan Bandera – Assassination: An October Murder in Munich (1995) and The Undefeated (2000), both directed by Oles Yanchuk—plus a number of documentary films.

Gaither Stewart

A veteran journalist, essayist, and internationally recognized novelist. His latest novel is Time of Exile (Punto Press), the third volume in his Europe Trilogy, of which the first two volumes (The Trojan SpyLily Pad Roll) have also been published by Punto Press. These are thrillers that have been compared to the best of John le Carré, focusing on the work of Western intelligence services, the stealthy strategy of tension, and the gradual encirclement of Russia, a topic of compelling relevance in our time. His newest novella, Words Unspoken, is available in multiple formats. 

How Russia foiled an US-UK program for grooming Nazis and sending them behind Russian lines
SHARE VIDEO

The CIA reports show that U.S. officials knew they were subsidizing numerous Third Reich veterans who had committed horrible crimes against humanity, but these atrocities were overlooked as the anti-Communist crusade acquired its own momentum. For Nazis who would otherwise have been charged with war crimes, signing on with American intelligence enabled them to avoid a prison term.
“The real winners of the cold war were Nazi war criminals, many of whom were able to escape justice because the East and West became so rapidly focused after the war on challenging each other,” says Eli Rosenbaum, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and America’s chief Nazi hunter. Rosenbaum serves on a Clinton-appointed Interagency Working Group (IWG) committee of U.S. scholars, public officials, and former intelligence officers who helped prepare the CIA records for declassification.
Many Nazi criminals “received light punishment, no punishment at all, or received compensation because Western spy agencies considered them useful assets in the cold war,” the IWG team stated after releasing 18,000 pages of redacted CIA material. (More installments are pending.)

The decision to recruit Nazi operatives had a negative impact on U.S.-Soviet relations and set the stage for Washington’s tolerance of human rights abuses and other criminal acts in the name of anti-Communism. With that fateful sub-rosa embrace, the die was cast for a litany of antidemocratic CIA interventions around the world.

IPS

THE PAPERS

1946: RECRUIT OR ARREST

Taken from:

1948: TERRORIST

Taken from:

Taken from:

1951: HITLER’S SPY

1952: tOTALITARIAN

Taken from:

1959: REFORMED ASSET APPLIES FOR US VISA

1959: DEAD. SOURCES POINTING AT MOSCOW REEK OF INTOXICATION

Bandera’s death was most likely a romantic soap-opera turned spy thriller by politicians:

As CIA describes it, Ukrainian Nationalism used to look more like a pirate boat, but with masons. As I see it, it still does.

“However, the ‘strength of these movements such as the Bandera, Melnik, and “Taras Bulba” groups were partly dissipated by righting among themselves. Their attitude towards the Soviet ‘partisans was largely hostile, although the Ukrainians did in some cases propose to the Soviet partisans neutrality so both sides would be free to fight the Germans, A, German report of August 9th, 1943, states “Fortunately, no agreement has thus far been effected between the Ukrainian nationalist and Soviet bands, On the contrary, these groups are bitter enemies, and only recently engaged in a three-day battle at Ostrog about twenty-five miles southeast of Rovno, with both sides suffering several hundred casualties.” The more important Ukrainian groups were committed to a struggle against the Germans as well as against the Soviets. The same German report states that “the Ukrainians directed their efforts exclusively against the German civil administration with the avowed purpose of bringing as much Ukrainian territory as possible under their control, They freely admitted that they had no interest whatsoever in attacking the German military and German supply lines, since before any independent Ukraine could be established the German and Soviet armies would have to destroy each other.” 

Taken from:

“Despite the fact that the OUN (Bandera) was more aggressively chauvinistic and (in this sense) less pro-German than the OUN (Melnik), the SD concluded that the Bandera faction rep- resented less potential danger to German objectives than did the Melnik faction.’ 14. As they played with Arab nationalists, so the Germans toyed with the nationalists of the Eastern territories. By maintaining a discreet silence about what the future held in store, they permitted the leaders to believe that independence was just around the corner. At the time of the report, the SD had been told that OUN (Melnik) was British oriented and anything but sympathetic to the anti-Jewish campaign. While this policy of devious procrastination did not make for solid friendships, it did avoid stirring up dangerous enmities.* In 1942 the SD reported that the OUN (Bandera) and OUN (Melnik) were rivals which contributed greatly to the German cause.”

CIA – “STUDY OF INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ON THE EASTERN FRONT AND IN ADJACENT AREAS DURING WW II”

The above quote taken from:

THEY REACHED DETROIT

Taken from:

Transcripts from the above document:

ORGANIZATIONS PERSONALITIES OF UKRAINIAN LIBERATION MOVEMENT Organizations

UVO (Ukraine’ka Viys’kova Organizatsiya, Ukrainian Military Organization) (Ukraine) Ukrain’skyy Natsional’nyy Soyuz, Ukrainian National Union (Paris). OUN (Organizatsiya Ukrain’skikh Natsionalistyy, Organization of Ukrainiin Nationalists) (Ukraine). SB (Sluzhba Bezopasnosti, Security Service of the OUN) (Ukraine). Bandera Group (Ukraine). Melnik Group (Ukraine). “Taras Bulba” (Borovets) Partisan Unit (Galicia). UPA ,(Ukrainska Povstancheska Armiya, Ukrainian Revolutionary Army) (Western Ukraine and Galicia). UNS (Ukrain’ska Natsional’na Samookhorona, Ukrainian National Self- defense) (Western Ukraine). UNRA (Ukrain’ska Natsionalna Revolutsiyna Armiya, Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army) (Eastern Ukraine). OUNRP (Organizatsiya Ulraintskoy Revolutsyynoy Partii, Organization of,Zhe Ukrainian National Revolutionary Party) (Ukraine). Hetman Movement (Ukraine). Union or the Liberation of the Ukraine (Paris). UNANKOR (Ukrainian National Cossack Movement) (Berlin). KNOD (Cozatsko Natsionalne Oposytsiyne Dvizheniye, Cossack National Opposition Movement) (Prague). UNAKOTO (Ukrainske Natsionalne Kozatske Tovarishchestvo, Ukrainian National Cossack Association) (Rumania). UKO (Ukrainska Kulturna Organizatsiya, Ukrainian Cultural Organi- zation) (Bulgaria). Ukrain’ska Sel’skokhosyayska Ob’yednannya, Ukrainian Agricultural Association (Bulgaria).

Leading Personalities of the Ukrainian Liberation Movement

Alekseyev, Konstantin — Cossack general; member, Ukrainian National Cossack Association (UNAKOTO).

Bandera, Stefan — Leading nationalist and cofounDer of OUN. Sentenced to 8 years in prison in Poland because of illegal political activities. After death of Colonel Konovalets, assumed leadership of entire OUN. Course of action taken by him within the Ukrainian liberation movement is known under the name of “Bandera Movement”; pursued his aims ruthlessly and fought simultaneously against the Soviets, Poles, and Germans. At present in protective custody.

Boroshchenko — Ukrainian writer; leading member of UPA. Borovets — Undercover name: Taras Bulba. In 194] formed a Ukrainian militia in Galicia and Volhynia to combat Bolshevist partisans and dispersed parts of the Red Army; organized the Ukrainian units into the so-called “Sich” units which were outlawed in 1943. Fled with some of his partisans into the woods and continued his fight against Bolshevists and Poles.

Galyp, Jacob — Engineer; lived in Paris and acted as liaison man between the Cossack liberation movements (KNOD) in Prague and England. Belonged to a masonic lodge.

Gulay, Diomid — Leader of Ukrainian National Cossack Association (UNAKOTO). Kapustyanskiy, Mikola — General; one of the oldest Ukrainian nationalists; belonged to the Petlyura Army after World War I; subsequently emigrated to Paris and entered Ukrainian National Union in 1921; as a good speaker and journalist propagandized nationalism among Ukrainian emigrants in Europe and the USA; cofounder of OUN.

Konovalets — Colonel; was one of the oldest and best known leaders of Ukrainian liberation movement and Ukrainian National Self- Defense (UNS); was founder and, together with Melnik, leader of OUN. Was shot in Amsterdam in 1938.

Kosenko — Leading member of “Union for the Liberation of the Ukraine” in Paris.

Lebed’, Stefan — Cover name: Vilnyy; political leader of UPA; had illegally taken active part in politics earlier and has been known as extremely radical. Attempted to gain military control of the UPA, but did not succeed. Consequent split between Lebed’ and Sukhevich was aggravated by the fact that Lebed’ got in touch with Communist partisan leader K)lpakov in order to cooperate with the Bolshevists.

Lebeda, Daria — Wife of Stefan Lebed’; had also worked politically in earlier years; was imprisoned for 5 years for illegal political activity during the Polish period.

Markotun — Ukrainian emigrant in Paris; freemason. Known as liaison man between Cossack liberation movement and England.

Milnik, Andreas — Engineer; one of the oldest members of Ukrainian resistance movement; took part in Ukrainian war of independence in 1918-20. Emigrated later to Paris and there founded, together with other famous Ukrainian nationalists, the Ukrainian National Union. Took part in unification of various groups in OUN in 1929. After death of Colonel Konovalets, was defeated by Itefan Bandera in struggle for leadership of OUN. His followers left OUN under his leadership and formed the so-called Melnik group.

Orlov, Y. N. — Ukrainian emigrant in Bulgaria, representing there the interests of national Ukrainian organization, “Khleboroby.” Main task to observe the treatment of Ukrainians shipped to Germany for forced labor.

Parashchuk, Michael — Leading member of Union for the Liberation of the Ukraine in Paris.

Proshivskiy, .0. — Ukrainian emigrant; leader of Union for the Liberation of the Ukraine in Bulgaria, and liaison man between the latter in Paris and Bulgaria.

Poltavets-Ostranitsa — Colonel; real leader of UNANKOR (Ukrainian National Cossack Movement). In spite of his pro-German attitude is known as the spokesman of British politics among Ukrainian emigrants.

Salskiy — General; leading member of Union for the Liberation of the Ukraine in Paris.

Small-Strotskiy — Leading member of Union for the Liberation of the Ukraine in Paris.

Sokolovskiy, Yuriy — Leading member of Milnik group and OUN. Was shot by followers of Bandera group in 1943.

Sukhevich, Stefan — Military leader of UPA; has taken active part in Polish politics and is suspected of participating in assassination of Pierratskis, Polish Minister of Interior. In 1939-40 stayed in training camps of German army and police in Cracow, Neuhammer, Brandenburg, and Frankfurt-Oder; later assigned in the east for partisan warfare. Was to be arrested with other Ukrainian officers because of illegal participation in the Bandera group, but succeeded in escaping at the Lemberg station and in getting in touch with Lebed’.

Sushko, Roman -? Colonel; one of the cofounders and leading members of OUN; was assassinated by members of Bandera group at the end of 1943. Was to be follower and friend of Melnik.

Udovich, Alexander — General; leading member of Union for the Liberation of the Ukraine in Paris.

Volkov — General; leading member of National-Ukrainian organization, “Khleboroby.

10+ REASONS FOR CIA TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE ON BANDERA’S DEATH

What happened after World War II in Ukraine? There was a resistance movement by Ukrainian nationalists, supported by a certain organization I know, and it lasted for years. In the ’50s, what were the Soviets doing? They were killing Ukrainian resistance leaders in West Germany, the ‘wet affairs.’ During my time there they killed two. One was Stepan Bandera.”

Burton Gerber, former chief of the CIA’s Soviet section, New Lines Magazine February 22, 202

That’s the version for the press. And this is the version for internal use:

Taken from:

Taken from:

BONUS: GUESS WHO BECAME a prosperous US CITIZEN, INSTEAD OF BANDERA

Note to self: find out if Kissinger had to do with this too.

And by “prosperous” I mean CIA agent.

This last couple of document was dug out by The Last American Vagabond, who, about same time as I, was doing parallel diggings on the same topic, and now we can beautifully complete each other.

COMING SOON: THE NAZI SKELETONS IN TRUDEAU’S CABINET SPEAK UKRAINIAN

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This isn’t trying to take a side in the abortion debate.
This is about pealing one more layer off this stinky onion.

Long ago, I came to the conclusion (unchallenged ever since) that both sides in the televised abortion debate are equally and symmetrically wrong, hypocritical and irrational about it. And those sides are all you will hear from, because both will forcefully exclude you from the discussion if you attempt to introduce new o more nuanced perspectives.

I have many reasons to suspect this by design, an Overton Window that is built to never allow a view to truth and solutions, also serving as backdoor to the collective mental.


So I am siding with neither.


But the moral balance between the two camps is inclined by a major factor that has nothing to do with the debate itself:
While one side holds its position on religious / ideological grounds with honestly held beliefs, the other camp seems to weaponize abortion as a mean to ulterior motives. And that’s when it gets to the next level of danger and villainy.


So I dug up a few pieces of history and put them together to incite, as always, deeper analysis and more personal conclusions.

And the long course:

The real Jane Roe exposed by ABC Nightline 1995

‘Jane Roe,’ from Roe v. Wade, made a stunning deathbed confession. Now what?

Washington Post, May 20, 2020

Image without a caption

What to make of Norma McCorvey?

This week, a new documentary drops a boulder into the already complicated legacy of the woman better known as “Jane Roe” — the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion in America. In the mid-1990s, McCorvey had made a public religious and political conversion. She was baptized on television in a backyard swimming pool; she wore overalls and came out beaming. She declared herself newly pro-life and spent the last two decades of her life crusading against the ruling her own case had made possible.

But in “AKA Jane Roe,” premiering Friday on FX, McCorvey turns to the camera with an oxygen tube dangling from her nose and tells director Nick Sweeney, “This is my deathbed confession.”

She never really supported the antiabortion movement, she tells Sweeney, in a scene filmed in 2017. “I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say, and that’s what I’d say.”

“It was all an act?” the director asks.

“Yeah,” she says. “I was good at it, too.”

The revelation comes 60 minutes into the 80-minute documentary. By minute 70, McCorvey has died, succumbing to illness, leaving the people she knew on both sides of the most polarizing cultural debate in America slack-jawed and stunned.

McCorvey never had an abortion. A lot of people don’t realize that. By the time the Supreme Court handed down its decision, she’d been forced to carry out her pregnancy; the child had already been adopted.

It was her third time giving birth. One daughter had been primarily raised by McCorvey’s mother; McCorvey placed a second child for adoption. McCorvey strung together low-paying jobs in Texas and at various points struggled with substance abuse; she wasn’t prepared to become a parent. Her desperate circumstances were what made her a suitable plaintiff. If she’d had money to travel to a locale where abortion was already legal, her attorneys wouldn’t have been able to argue that the current state-by-state solution placed an impossible burden on their client.

So “Roe” didn’t help McCorvey, but it helped other women like her, and one evening, a Dallas abortion provider named Charlotte Taft was holding a public event at her clinic when a petite, curly-haired woman approached her and said, “I’m Jane Roe.”

The abortion rights movement had the law on its side now. Its supporters didn’t need a public face. “But she put herself out here to say, here I am,” Taft says in an interview.

McCorvey’s life had been hard. Her mother hit her. As a girl, she ran away with a female friend, and when they were caught kissing, she was sent to reform school for punishment. She escaped a marriage to a man who she said abused her and found a long-term partner in Connie Gonzales, but the 1970s and ’80s weren’t always welcoming times for lesbians. Now, though, there was a movement that saw her as a hero. She was offered speaking engagements — local ones at first, and then she met famed feminist attorney Gloria Allred, and the engagements became national. She was funny and vulgar and had the wry, weary wit of an early Roseanne Barr. When a reporter at a news conference asked how much money she made as a maid, she shot back: “Why? Anybody here need a good housecleaning?”

In the early 1990s, a new tenant moved in next to the abortion-related nonprofit where McCorvey volunteered. It was a branch of Operation Rescue, the prominent antiabortion group helmed by a minister who took a special interest in McCorvey.

“When I think about Norma, one of her yearnings in life was to be good,” says Taft. “Being the poster child of the pro-choice movement — she got to be a hero, she got to meet celebrities, she got to have applause and give speeches. But with them, they told her she was finally good.”

Rob Schenck, then a leader in the antiabortion movement in Washington, D.C., remembered opening an email in 1995 from a professional acquaintance in Texas. Norma McCorvey had been saved, the email said. She would be on their side, now.

“I regret now that I thought this,” Schenck says in an interview. “But Norma was the equivalent of a world-class trophy.”

McCorvey’s conversion was a cinematic story, a morality play, and who you thought was good or bad depended entirely on what you thought of abortion. McCorvey was either bad then became good, or she was good and then became bad.

“The thing is, we want our stories to be tidy,” Taft says. “And humans aren’t tidy.”

McCorvey certainly wasn’t.

Something that abortion rights activists might not realize: In the 1980s when McCorvey was on their team, she would sometimes call Taft late at night. Usually she’d been drinking, sometimes she was introspective, occasionally she seemed to regret the starring role she’d played in America’s morality play. “The playgrounds are all empty, and it’s because of me,” Taft says McCorvey said one night.

Something that antiabortion activists didn’t realize: In the 1990s, when McCorvey was on their team, she would still tell evangelical leaders that she supported a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester — the procedure that accounts for the majority of all abortions. “We managed that by saying she’s a brand-new convert; she needs time to mature in her faith and in her understanding of the pro-life ethic,” Schenck says. “We thought, just give her a little time and she’ll mature.” Eventually, they got her to stop saying it publicly, but they didn’t know whether she’d actually changed her mind.

The activists on both sides who knew her found her charming — and found her maddening. She rewrote stories into fantasies. She could be mercenary, and always needed money. Maybe the best word for her was “survivor,” multiple people decided independently. After a rough life, she’d now do whatever it took to survive. At one point in the FX documentary, she chuckles that she’s always “looking out for Norma’s salvation and Norma’s [butt].” At times, she seemed to be exactly what their movements needed. At times, she seemed hellbent on complicating an issue that they found to be absolutely simple and clear.

This made her the perfect Jane Roe, the perfect figurehead of the abortion issue, because it wasn’t simple for a lot of people. Antiabortion activists with accidental pregnancies suddenly find themselves calling Planned Parenthood, convinced that their situations are exceptional. Pro-choice women who terminate pregnancies can move through unexpected grief. At various points in her life, Norma McCorvey represented the issue in all of its complexities and untidiness.

This also made McCorvey a difficult Jane Roe, because movements want their heroes to be pure.

Nick Sweeney wasn’t sure that McCorvey would agree to his documentary. She’d been turning down interview requests for years or demanding payment, which is journalistically unethical (Sweeney says he gave her a “modest licensing fee” to use her family photos and personal video footage in the documentary).

He thinks she agreed to participate because she knew she was nearing the end of her life and because Sweeney hadn’t approached her with an agenda. He didn’t want to make an abortion rights or antiabortion film; he simply wanted to know about her as a person. “There’s a temptation to reduce her to something like a trophy or an emblem, but it’s important to know there was someone who was a real person,” Sweeney says. “People on all sides wanted her to be the person that suited their aims, and in a lot of ways, she just wanted to be herself.”

Does Sweeney believe that McCorvey was telling the truth in her bombshell revelation that she was just faking it for the antiabortion movement? Yes. But does he also believe that she had experienced a sincere religious conversion? Yes.

Did he ask her whether she regretted anything about her choices over the past 20 years? Yes.

And what did she say?

“She said no.”

There’s a scene in the documentary when the clip of McCorvey’s revelation is played back for all of the other participants, one by one. Robert Schenck, Charlotte Taft, Gloria Allred — they all hear McCorvey say, “I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say.”

One by one, they all gasp.

“It felt like such a betrayal,” Taft says in an interview. “The stakes were so high.”

“Seeing it was shocking to me,” Schenck says in an interview. “Not because of what it revealed about her, but what it revealed about me and the movement. She forced me to be honest with myself.”

The antiabortion movement had used her, he thinks now. They’d used her image, and her story, and her regret, and they’d shaved off all the rough edges, turning her into a perfect poster girl instead of a person.

Which is so easy for people to do with abortion. Get so caught up in scrambling for the moral high ground, you forget about the women underfoot.

In recent years, Schenck has had his own reckoning with abortion. He used to be an absolutist: no exceptions, no excuses, no justifications. In recent years, his position has softened; he understands why some people’s life circumstances might make abortion the best option for them. And he’s grown disillusioned about the public debate around abortion.

“Realizing how much the political leaders on both sides had exploited the issue — that seemed to be very problematic, morally and ethically,” Schenck says. “I’m not ready to celebrate abortion; I still think it represents a tragedy and a failure. But I think the human realities around it make it understandable.”

So, what to make of Norma McCorvey? Maybe she works best as a symbol of a different kind of struggle — personal, not political. It’s the struggle that comes with trying to reconcile our untidy, doubt-ridden, trophy-seeking inner monologues with the roles we inhabit in America’s morality play.

In the end, McCorvey seemed to make a sort of peace with the legacy of Jane Roe. “Women have been having abortions for thousands of years,” she says near the end of the documentary.

“If it’s just the woman’s choice, and she chooses to have an abortion, then it should be safe. Roe v. Wade helped save people’s lives.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them