This document gives an in depth view on the CIA backing of the Nazism in the western regions of Ukraine’s current state, its military and police. The document proves the US/CIA’s Nazi preferences in its plans to overthrow the Soviet Union. Today these long-cultivated contact surfaces are still being used against ethnic Russians and the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, to create regime change coup d’etat and civil war, all with a view to bring Ukraine into NATO, and finally to crush Russia.
Their main sources of information where Friedrich Buchardt, Yaroslav Stetsko, Stephan Bandera, Mykola Lebed and Reinhard Gehlen.
Reinhard Gehlen, head of the Foreign Armies East (FHO) intelligence unit during WW2, had been Hitler’s chief intelligence officer for the Eastern Front.
Reinhard Gehlen turned himself in to US Army counter-intelligence in May of 1945, and offered to hand over a treasure trove of intelligence about the Soviet Union, stored on microfilm, in exchange for his liberty. He and three assistants were secretly flown to Washington DC, where they were interrogated by military intelligence and the OSS – the forerunner of the CIA. He also met OSS chief Bill Donovan, and Allen Dulles, who headed OSS operations in Europe at the time, and who would eventually get appointed CIA Director by Eisenhower.
He set up an underground escape network that included transit camps, and used fake passports supplied by the CIA, to help over 5000 Nazis flee Europe to South and Central America.
In 1955, the Gehlen Organization was turned over to the West German government, and the following year, it became the nucleus of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND – Federal Intelligence Service), headed by Gehlen. He ran the BND until 1968.
The CIA worked closely with OUN’s founders, Yaroslav Stetsko, Stephan Bandera and Lebed, ever since the final stages of WWII, amongst other in an operation called “Nachtigall” and Gladio.
When Stetsko proclaimed himself Prime Minister of Ukraine under the Nazis, mentioned in the Buchardt document below, he wrote in his autobiography that:
“Moscow and Jewry are Ukraine’s greatest enemies and bearers of corruptive Bolshevik international ideas. Although I consider Moscow, which is in fact Ukraine held in captivity, and not Jewry, to be the main and decisive enemy, I nonetheless fully appreciate the undeniably harmful and hostile role of the Jews, who are helping Moscow to enslave Ukraine. I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like.”
The ”Nightingale” consisted of members of the former Ukrainian WWII SS death squads (Einsatzgruppen). The reactivated Nazis were based in Munich and were known as the ”UPA”, the units were flown in to the mountains around Lviv. As the CIA’s crown, the group was registered to stand behind many deaths as it continued to wreak havoc in the region, until it ”folded up” as it is called in the agency’s language, largely caused by information leaked to the Soviet Union by British super spy Kim Philby , who at the time was head of the joint US / UK intelligence service at the British Embassy in Washington DC.
In this declassified secret document from the CIA’s archives, you can read how it all began.
The re-written English text is presented as quotations. Explanatory links and illustrativ pictures have been added, these and all other markings are mine. I have highlighted the startling sections in which the CIA’s blatant involvement that points to what I mentioned earlier.
The first part is an explanatory background to the manuscript and what documents it is based upon.
It was put together as a letter by John Joseph Loftus who is an American author, former high level U.S. government prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer. He is the president of The Intelligence Summit and of the Florida Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg.
The letter was addressed to
Head of Specialist Talks
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
145-1531 Elizabeth Street
Sydney 2000 Australia
“Dear Mr. Norton,
Thank you for forwarding the article on page 10. Australian – Ukrainian Review, Spring 1986. The article implies that neither I nor Professor Dallin know of any evidence to show that Stetsko’s Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) collaborated with the Nazis or were involved with atrocities.
The article implies that I had not even read the Nazi documents cited by Dallin, and that the OUN was a benign organisation that assisted Jews with false passports.
Finally, the article insinuates that my criticism of the OUN stems from communist sympathies. Each of these allegations are false and I shall rebut them specifically. Firstly, I not only read the Nazi documents sited by Professor Dallin in his book ”German Rule in Russia”, I flew to California in 1980 to interview Professor Dallin on behalf of the Justice Department. Professor Dallin graciously loaned me the three cases of Nazi documents that he used In writing the book. Not only did I read them, in many cases I verified their accuracy against original Nazi records in the U.S. National Archives
Next, the article implies that the West German government rejected Dallin’s research in the Oberlander case. Since Oberlander was convicted as a war criminal, as I recall, I doubt these allegations. Professor Dallin’s international reputation as a historian needs no defence from me. Even if these charges were true, there may have bean a very good reason for Professor Dallin to withhold certain source material. I shall now reveal what Professor Dallin perhaps could not tell the West German Government in 1961, since it was declassified only recently,
The U.S. government had a secret Nazi document entitled “The treatment of the Russian Problem during the Time of the National-Socialist Regime in Germany”. For nearly forty years, the contents of this voluminous manuscript have been classified TOP SECRET by the U.S. Amy, and was available, until very recently, only to federal employees.”
The manuscript is a personal account of the recruitment and secret collaboration of various Russian and White Russian and Ukrainian groups with Nazi intelligence during WWII.
The author is an unimpeachable Nazi source, S.S. Obersturmbannführer Friedrich Buchardt, who helped coordinate the Nazi mobile killing units (Einsatzgruppen) on the eastern front.
In return for his encyclopedic knowledge of secret Nazi collaborators, including the OUN, Buchardt was bidden from the Nuremberg Prosecutors by American Intelligence. The remainder of the einsatzgruppen leaders were convicted as major war criminals and, with few exceptions were hanged. To my knowledge Buchardt was the only einsatzgruppen leader who escaped justice.
I verified Professor Dallin‘s carbon copy of Buchardt’s manuscript by comparing it with the original in the Top Secret Sensitive Document collection of the Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence.
In addition, I cross-checked the Buchardt manuscript against the unpublished and classified Einsatzgruppen report’s, as well as against our War Department Project (WDP) microfilm document collection of captured Nazi documents concerning the Ukraine and White Russia.
In addition. I had unrestricted access to the still classified eleven volume collection of the OUN/B which Mykola Lebed turned over to Army CIC, which consists of the internal files of the OUN. Professor Dallin and I are perhaps the only people alive who have had complete access to the original Nazi records of the OUN which have been classified by American intelligence for the last forty years. The Buchardt S.S. manuscript is indisputably authentic. I have a declassified translated version in my possession. The original German manuscript is in the Top Secret Vault N0.6. ACSI-SD Index, Confidential Informants Series, Suitland, Maryland.
I find It amusing that some Australian Ukrainians are denying the Nazi roots of the OUN. According to Buchardt the OUN in Australia was in secret contact with high level Nazi party leaders prior to 1933 through a man named Konovalets.
According to Buchardt (p.8), “Konovalets was the head of the extrem nationalistic Ukrainian secret organisation OUN which was active all over the world and supposedly was financially supported, especially by Ukrainian emigrants in Canada, USA and Australia. It developed a very active subversive and conspirative activity and would also not refrain from violence.”
Confirmation of Buchardts charges, can be found independently in Sayre and Kahn’s book Sabotage, which describes OUN terrorist activity on behalf of the Nazis in the pre-war America, including torture chambers, bombings, and robberies.
Admiral Canaris, head of German Military Intelligence (Abwehr) noted in his diary that he planned to use OUN for the ‘annihilation of the Jews and the Poles.’ (Nuremberg Doc.1047-P5.)
Buchardt confirmes, that the plans were carried out (P.158)
“The cooperation existing between the German authorities – particularly the German intelligence service – became effective for the first time in the German-Polish war when the OUN supplied services of all kinds to the German armed forces entering the Ukrainian settlement areas of Poland”
After the OUN proved its Nazi devotion in the Polish campaign, Buchardt notes (p.159)
‘The German Intelligence Service continued the promotion of the OUN because it was the intention to make use of its connections for their own intelligence service as well as for actions behind the Russian front during the expected war … Based on this assumed decisive back-up the OUN showed an increasing radicalism…This provoked a split in the OUN … whereby the more moderate predominantly older members, led by Colonel Melnik, left the organisation while Bandera continued its policy.’
According to Buchardt (P. 85) Banderas faction (OUN/B) continued through 1940 and 1941 with the planning for Operation Barbarossa,
‘In the south of the eastern front, in Ukraina, the above mentioned Ukrainian nationalist organisation OUN had been very much used already during the preparation of the Russian campaign by the German Armed Forces, particularly by the German intelligence. A close cooperation had been developed between the OUN under Bandera and the German authorities …´
Buchardt notes that the OUN’s role increased after the invasion to a new and more sinister role (p.26) ‘Thus, the OUN was used, before the war largely for intelligence purposes and later, during the advance, to put at the disposal [for] leaders, knowing the regions and the language, as well as for purposes of sabotage action, behind the Russian lines.´
For the first time, Buchardt confirms that the OUN was secretly behind the selection of local collaborators for the Nazi security machine in the Ukraine (P. 26) “Ukrainians, mostly persons named by the OUN, were then also immediately nominated as temporary mayors, police chiefs, etc.”
Mykola Lebed was in charge of the internal security section of Banderas OUN faction (OUN/B ) and helped the Nazis hand-pick OUN members to staff the police forces all across the occupied Ukraine. Lebed later provided his files to U.S. intelligence, including the security checks for some 8,000 OUN members, listing their positions in the Nazi police and security agencies.
Buchardt admits the these local police forces created feelings of terror in the conquered areas (p. 27) “Even though the first contact with the German occupation power – the organisational confusion, the lack of planning, the first arbitrary measures of violence, the first shooting of Jews – already created often mistrust and even already aversion and feelings of hatred…”
Buchardt’s S.S. account confirms Dallin’s independent charges (Id. at p.119) that, “During the following days of chaos, it became obvious to the Germans that the Bandera followers, including those in the ‘Nightingale‘ regiment, were displaying considerable initiative conducting purges and pogroms.”
Dallin adds in a footnote ‘For some information on Banderas excesses against Russians, Poles, and Jews, as well as members of the rival OUN/M. see. Wolfgang Diewerge Hg. “Deutsche Soldaten sehen Sowjet-Union” (Wilhelm Limpert, 1941), p.45/ Einsatzgruppen Reports July 16, August 9, and 28. 1941. / Petro Yakovyi, K. desystole godovahina great provocatiff / [unreadable] Vestnik (New York). xxxi (1951), 138-49.
The asterisk in Dallin’s footnotes indicates that these Ukrainian Einsatzgruppen reports are not available to the general public. These incriminating S.S. records, like Buchardts manuscript were also classified by U.S. intelligence to protect the OUN.
Not to be outdone by OUN/B in antisemitism, the S.S. noted that OUN/M had promised Hitler that they would also free Europe of its Jews. (Unpublished Einsatzgruppen Report, July I5. 1941.) No one denies that Jaroslav Stetsko, in one of his first notes of “government” issued a public call for the destruction of the Jew-Bolshevik menace in the Ukraine. The murder of Jews was the official policy of both political factions of OUN. The Nazis followed the same policy in every country they invaded, hire a native organisation to secretly recruit police volunteers who would help the Nazis with there mass executions. The Ukraine was no exception.
As Buchardt notes. p. 72, these local police battalions were granted some advantages by the Germans, including better rations in return for their “security tasks” The nature of these ‘security tasks’ is well-documented In the West German court records in 1976, in several cases where Ukrainian police battalions committed systematic mass murder. In addition the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Canada has identified an OUN leader in Volyn as one of the police commanders who supervised the infamous massacre of Jews at Babi Yar.
Some Ukrainian revisionists have claimed that the OUN could not have collaborated with the Nazis because, its leaders were persecuted and imprisoned within a month efter the war. There is only a little truth in that. One faction of the Nazis, the Gestapo, hated the OUN. Other factions, including the Abwehr and the Ostministerium supported the OUN enthusiastically. Buchardt’s faction, [unreadable] (Ant VI), at first hated the OUN, but soon changed its mind when confronted with the task of policing the Ukraine with only a handful of German troops.
Stetsko and the other OUN/B political leaders where temporarily arrested after their premature declaration of an “Independent’ Ukraine offended the Gestapo. Some of the pro-Stesko police chiefs were removed, but by and large, the OUN-dominated police forces not only remained intact, but the S.S. out of necessity actually expanded them in 1941-1942, from mere auxiliary policemen to full-fledged police battalions.
Sensing a new dependency (or weakness) by the S.S. Bandera sought to avenge his previous betrayal by organising his own military force. As Buchardt notes (p.160) “The military group of the OUN being called UPA…started a lively partisan activity and grew constantly in numbers through the Ukrainian youth who wanted to avoid being sent as workers to Germany.” For a brief period of time, the OUN had its own renegade force, hiding in the forests which would fight anyone who bothered them, including the Germans.
In order to wean potential police recruits sway from the political leadership of the OUN, the S.S. dangled a new bait in front of there noses; the elite honor of having their own Ukrainian S.S. Division. As Buchardt notes (p. 160). “The Germans hoped, in particular, to cut the ground away beneath the feet of the OUN or UPA, with the formation of this division.”
The new S.S. policy was enacted by “The new governor for Galicia, Dr. Wächter, who was appointed it the turn of the year 1942/43″, and according to Buchardt (p.160) “was considered a friend of the Ukrainians, and attempted to further strengthen the Ukrainian self-administration. Since he had good relations to Himmler, he succeeded in the establishment of an own Ukrainian division of the Military, as…and that is depended on how they would prove in combat whether additional national wishes of the Ukrainians would be taken into consideration.”
The OUN was slightly sceptical of the Nazi promises, and defections to UPA increased. At this point, the S.S. stopped negotiating with Bandera and tried to force him to obey their wishes. Buchardt. (p.141). “Finally, in 1943/44, Bandera, Melnik and a large portion of the OUN leadership where arrested, even including their wives, by the Gestapo. Since Bandera refused to issue an order to the UPA, which was active in his name, to stop its partisan activity, he was sent, together with the remaining Ukrainian leaders, into the concentration camp Sachsenhausen.” Although Bandera had been arrested and released by the Gestapo before, this apparently was the first time that he had really been imprisoned.
According to Buchardt the UPA forces negotiated a secret treaty with the S.S. while the OUN leaders were in jail. (p. 161) “the Germans made efforts to come to a tactical joint action against the Red Army, and to a truce with the Ukrainian partisan groups through a good treatment of the arrested Ukrainian leaders. Locally, respective agreements where actually made; attacks by the UPA against the German armed forces were temporarily stopped if it was left alone in the territories occupied by them.”
However, the S.S. wanted more than a cease fire, they wanted the OUN leaders to resume active collaboration with the Nazis who were rapidly losing the Ukraine to the communists.
As Buchardt states (p. 238): ” Also the German authorities – particularly the Armed Forces and the Gestapo – wanted to attempt to come to an understanding With Bandera and thus with the OUN and to a joint action with the UPA against the Red Amy and against the communist partisans. Since almost the entire Ukrainian settlement area, including Galicia, had been evacuated in the meantime by the German troops, the Germans believed that a tactical agreement could certainly be obtained because the disputed questions – Ukrainian self-administration…etc.. were not of any interest at the moment. Also the S.S. was in favour of an understanding with the OUN in order to give political impetus to its Ukrainian S.S. Division.”
Bandera was more than willing to collaborate with the Nazis, and despite his “good treatment” at Sachsenhausen (where he was allegedly living comfortably in the guards barracks, and not in the prison proper), he asked to be released to help to coordinate the new OUN-SS alliance. Thus, Bandera, Melnik and the other leaders of the OUN, confined in concentration camps, were released in September 1944 or temporarily held in loose house arrest in a Berlin villa. (Buchardt. p.238).
Bandera bargained hard throughout 1944 and 1945 with the SS for recognition of the OUN as an official fascist ally of the Third Reich. Until official recognition was given, Bandera would collaborate only to the extent of “joint tactical actions, if the Germans would be willing to minder render counter-services: – for example, supply special weapons, medicine, etc – one would comply with special German wishes concerning the blasting of bridges, supplying of militarily important information, etc. on the part of the UPA.” (Buchardt. p.240).
Perhaps sensing that a German defeat was imminent, Bandera preferred to keep the extent of his collaboration a secret, and suggested to the S.S. “that a neutral personality was to take over the formation of the Ukrainian Committee who had the confidence of the Germans as well as of the OUN, and of the remaining Ukrainian-German groups within the German sphere of influence. The Ukrainian General Shandruk was finally proposed for this position. – This was the result of a number of negotiations between the Germans, on the one hand, and Bandera and Orlov, on the other hand.” (Buchardt, p.240).
However, Bandera and the UPA kept raising there demands, insisting that the Nazis, favour “the OUN more than VIasov´s army, which undercut Schandruk’s negotiations. Bandera wanted the OUN to be the pre-eminent Nazi force, and according to Buchardt, (p.242 .443.) had the backing of Himmler and S.S. Group Leader Wachter, “who was considered the one sided friend of the Galician Ukrainians, whose anti-Russian attitude he had always strengthened.” By the time that the rest of the Nazis agreed to all of Bandera’s demands, the war was almost over.
In sum, Buchardt’s manuscript is quite sympathetic to the OUN and critical of German mismanagement and lost opportunities. One is left with the impression of an S.S. leader sadly pining for the on-again off-again romance with OUN. It Is quite farcical for modern Ukrainians to allege that Banderas gang were never Nazi collaborators. From 1933 through 1949, one faction or another of OUN was always in bed with the Nazis. The lower-level ratio staffs were dominated by the OUN all through the Nazi occupation. They were the armies of the Ukrainian Holocaust, the members of the police battalions, the soldiers of the S.S.
The myth of “Bandera the freedom fighter” were invented by American intelligence after the defection of Lebed and Buchardt. In 1951, a false version of OUN history was created to convince American immigration authorities to drop their ban on OUN members. Bandera himself were protected from arrest by U.S. Intelligence, and the horrible Nazi record of OUN atrocities were hidden from public view. The classified files paint a very different, and very damning portrait of the OUN leaders.
For example, in 1981, I gave the U.S. General Accounting Office, classified information concerning a prominent Ukrainian collaborator living In America. The GAO investigators confirmed the information I had given them, and described the individual as “Subject D” in an official report to the U.S. Congress. Subject D is identified as a convicted assassin, terrorist, and member of a “nationalist revolutionary organisation” which rendered valuable services to the German war effort. Subject D. was recently identified by a former member of the Congress as Mykola Lebed. Perhaps Mr. Lebed will accuse the entire U.S. Congress of being communist sympathizers.
Quite frankly, I agree with the Gestapo on one point: The OUN was infected from top to bottom with communist double agents who had joined the organisation in the 1930s under orders from Moscow. Our NATO intelligence files show that the OUN was dropped from the cold war effort in the late 1950s because “it was riddled with communist agents”. This information did not become public until the I960’s when Kim Philby fled to Moscow and wrote a book bragging how he had tried to foist the OUN leaders on the gullible Americans.
In the 70’s the communist propaganda machine bombarded the west with a barrage of largely truthful disclosures where western intelligence had protected OUN members who were actually Nazi war criminals. In the 1980’s the U.S. Justice Department commenced litigation against several OUN members who lied about their war crimes background. The existence of the OUN today only benefits the communist press which seeks to belittle the heroic yearning of honest and decent Ukrainians for the liberation of their homeland from Russian rule.
There is a bad joke in the Ukraine, that “a thousand years from now, history will state that Hitler was a petty tyrant in the time of Stalin”. A special Commission of the U.S. Congress has been established to investigate the forced starvation of the Ukraine in the 1930’s as one of the worst acts of communist genocide in human history.
The OUN, which climbed to power over the bodies of its own countrymen, is a disgrace to proud Ukrainians around the world who have long condemned the evils of communism, and fascism. As a devout anti-communist and an admirer of Ukrainian culture and courage. I hope that my remarks are directed against a tiny handful of thugs who are not representative of – or worthy of – the Ukrainian nation. Some day the Ukraine will be freed, but not by the likes of the OUN.
In conclusion, I would note that I have additional corroborating information, but I have been ordered to withhold it by CIA and the Department of the Army, on grounds of national security. I am appealing the classification decision. In the meantime, I have been instructed to inform the Australian Commission headed by Mr. Menzies, that if he wishes to obtain the classified files on this topic, he should apply directly through the U.S. Military Attaché.
It is time for the fraud of OUN to end. As George Orwell stated, “the most powerful form of lie is the omission, and it is the duty of the historian to see that those lies do not creep into the history books” I am proud to have been of assistance to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in setting the record straight.
John J. Loftus
Attorney at Law
(PS. Even a small micro blog like this has been shadow banned, so please share. Thank You.)
Du måste vara inloggad för att kunna skicka en kommentar.