Holodomor Hoax In Neo-Nazi ‘Maidan’ Ukraine


Maidan Neo-Nazi Ukrainians

The far-rightwing ‘Maidan’ Ukrainian regime currently occupying the territory of Western Ukraine was brought to power as part of a Western anti-Russia campaign supported by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron in 2014. This neo-Nazi movement illegally ousted the democratically elected government and set about a ruthless suppression of the population. The EU has collaborated in supporting this neo-Nazi regime, whilst Russia supports the Socialist Republics of the Eastern Ukraine. Part of the propaganda offensive by the ‘Maidan’ regime has been to develop US Cold War ideology, and continue with the inventing of Soviet atrocities. This is where the ‘myth’ of ‘Holodomor’ comes into play. The ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi regime would have an unsuspecting world believe that ‘ethnic Ukrainians’ were subjected to a deliberate ‘purge’ by the Soviet State (for reasons unspecified) where the alleged deprivation of food led to the starvation of between 7-10 million Ukrainians during 1932-1933. The problem with this is that there is no evidence for it ever happened. Holodomor is a pretentious myth invented to attract sympathy toward a ruthless neo-Nazi regime that has been allowed to ‘illegally’ seize power in Western Ukraine. What makes this claim even more ludicrous is that US President Roosevelt established full diplomatic relations with the USSR in 1933, and even sent Harpo Marx as a good will ambassador to ‘lighten the mood’ at the newly established US Embassy in Moscow. It stretches the imagination beyond belief to suggest that a US President would initiate such actions during an apparent ‘purge’ of Ukrainians.

The reality is quite different from what the ‘Maidan’ ideologues have been suggesting. The kulaks were peasant farmers that had been given years to prepare for the switch to collectivized farming. The kulaks were given every assistance by the Soviet State, but when the time came to present their cultivated land for government use, many kulaks smashed their machinery, slaughtered their livestock and destroyed the seed needed for growing vitally important crops. This sabotage had a disastrous effect throughout large areas of the USSR (not just the Ukraine) that took a few years to stabilise. During this time, life was hard and people went hungry. However, this was not the fault of Socialist thinking or the consequence of a deliberate Soviet plan, it was caused by kulaks acting in a selfish and destructive manner to the detriment of the entire Soviet population. What has to be seen clearly is that the ‘Maidan’ regime is desperately trying to achieve an internationally recognised ‘victim’ status, and it is attempting to do this by ‘inventing’ a false holocaust for themselves, such as the very real holocaust inflicted upon the Jewish population of Europe during WWII by the Nazi Germans. The irony here is that the Nazi Germans did indeed carry-out a very brutal ‘holocaust’ in the Ukraine between 1941-1943, and in this killing targeted the Jews, disabled, homosexuals, Communists and anyone who disagreed with their Hitlerite ideology. An inconvenient fact the ‘Maidan’ regime does not want remembered or broadcast is that a certain section of the ethnic Ukrainian population actively joined the ranks of the Nazi German armed forces, and enthusiastically participated in the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Soviet citizens. It is the descendents of these WWII Ukrainian criminals that are the architects of the modern ‘Maidan’ régime. The idea that the Soviet Union routinely committed atrocities against its own people is ahistorical and arose through US post-WWII anti-Soviet propaganda. This is why at the time the US and the USSR established diplomatic relations in 1933, the world knew nothing about any supposed Soviet attack on the Ukrainian people. There must be a certain element of insanity within a small population of the Ukrainian ‘Slavic’ people, that would conceive an invasion by the ‘anti-Slavic’ Nazi German forces as somehow being in their best interests! Finally, during November 2017, the ‘Maidan’ neo-Nazi regime approached its ally – the British government – and requested that the UK formally ‘recognise’ the Holodomor incident as a ‘genocide’ and a ‘holocaust’, but things did not go as expected. The British government declined, stating that the definition of ‘genocide’ was established in 1948 as a direct result of the Nazi German holocaust against the Jews of Europe. As Holodomor allegedly happened prior to 1948, it is was subject to the 1948 ruling. The British government further stated that whatever happened in Ukraine in the early 1930’s, it was a not a racially motivated attack from an outside power. During this dialogue the British government did mention that certain Western Ukrainians had participated in the Jewish holocaust.

Jack Whitehall’s ‘Bad Education’ Really is ‘Bad’ (2012-2015)


Bad Education was commissioned by BBC3 between 2012-2014 and even spawned a film in 2015. Although universally panned (even by the racist Daily Mail), it has received good ratings upon screening, and has sustained reasonable DVD sales. The problem is that this series as a concept is entirely premised upon its creator – Jack Whitehall’s – middle class stereotypes of the working class and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, its depiction of homosexuality is entirely homophobic in nature, but disguised as ‘inclusion’. In fact, all of Whitehall’s characters are nothing but negative gender, ethnic and class stereotypes that are demeaning and disemporing. This should not be surprising, as Whitehall is the product of his own bourgeois socio-economic conditioning. For a responsible parent, the idea of a teacher like Jack Whitehall’s character is distressing and alarming. Failing schools are not funny, and social inequality is not a laughing matter for those not living in a middle class utopia. When a society fails its children due to an asymmetric distribution of wealth and resources, this is ‘child abuse’ and not humour. Ignorant working class children with no responsible adult role models should not be the cannon fodder the Whitehall’s flagging career, but the class prejudice he displays runs much deeper than this. The assistant head master is depicted in an entirely misogynistic manner. This character is made to appear like a male fascist hell-bent on world domination. She is sexually aggressive (whilst depicted as ‘repulsive’), and her sexual preference appears to change with the wind. although Nazi-esque in attitude, Whitehall avoids all mention of Hitler and Nazi Germany, but instead has a Soviet education poster hanging on her office wall. At this point all is implied but nothing is said. Obviously Whitehall is so poorly educated in reality, that he accepts and perpetuates US Cold War propaganda that equates Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union (despite the fact that the USSR was an ally of the UK during WWII, and lost between 27-40 million people fighting Nazi Germany). In a later episode which features the sub-plot that the deputy head has committed suicide, Whitehall has one of his working class thugs stating that she is probably in hell with Stalin – as if Joseph Stalin was a bad person! Again, Whitehall does his best to demonize the Soviet Union whilst protecting the reputation of Nazi Germany. As for disability, Whitehall seems to think that everyone with a disability possesses legs that do not function – that is it.  Probably the most outrageously ‘racist’ element of this ‘comedy’ is the character of Jing Hua – a supposedly Mainland Chinese teenager attending school for some unknown reason in Watford. Whitehall does not seem to understand that Britain possesses its own indigenous Chinese community of children born in the UK. By depicting Jing Hua as he does, he omits from British history the historical Chinese presence in this country – a country that has forcibly deported its Chinese populations twice – once in 1919 and again in 1946 – due to White British racist and xenophobic attitudes. Even if it is argued that there are Mainland Chinese students in the UK (which there undoubtedly are), Whitehall is entirely wrong to cast a Japanese actress (Kae Alexander) in the role of Jing Hua, when there are many fine and capable British born Chinese actresses to choice from. Furthermore, Japan committed atrocities in China during WWIi (and before), killing millions of Chinese men, women and children, crimes that the Japanese government will neither admit to, or apologise for.  The character of Jing Hua appears to have been created by Whitehall for his character to attack Communist China, and make an apparently ‘Chinese’ student the butt of all his racially motivated ‘jokes’. Bad Education is a disgrace in the 21st century, and reminds me of a modern re-make of the notoriously ‘racist’ Mind Your Language from the 1970’s. Jack Whitehall and BBC3 demonstrate that prejudice and racism survives the changing times by adapting the manner in which they manifest.

Professor Elena Senyavskaya Dispels the Myth of Mass Red Army Rapes in Germany (1945)


An Interview with Professor Elena Senyavskaya (Еленой Сенявской)

Full member of the Academy of Military Sciences, Specialist in the Military History of Russia in the 20th century, Expert in Military Psychology, Author of more than 250 Scientific Papers.

Original Russian Language Article: http://sovsojuz.mirtesen.ru/blog/43183030982/1.-Vyimyisel-i-pravda-ob-«Iznasilovannom-Berline».-Oproverzhenie (Net Published 22.3.2016)

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

The US Cold War rhetoric is premised upon the disinformation that Soviet Communism was exactly the same as Nazi German fascism, and that Joseph Stalin was no different to Adolf Hitler. This ahistorical approach to misrepresenting the past has been so successful in the West, that many people are subsequently confused and dumbfounded to learn that the Soviet Union was an ‘ally’ of Britain and the US during WWII, and suffered between 27-40 million casualties fighting the Nazi German invasion of the USSR. The purpose of this US disinformation is to hide and obscure the egalitarian nature of Socialism, and turn the mind of the average Western worker against any association with it. In its drive to preserve its system of predatory capitalism, the US ideologues had to play-down the obvious advantages that Soviet Socialism offered the international working class, and drive a permanent wedge between the Western proletariat and its Soviet counterpart. To this end, much was borrowed by the US myth-makers from the Nazi Minister for Propaganda – Joseph Goebbels. The leading researcher of the Institute of Russian History (which is part of the Russian Academy of Sciences), is Doctor of Historical Sciences – Professor Elena Senyavskaya (Еленой Сенявской). Professor Elena Senyavskaya is an expert in the Nazi German and US disinformation campaign aimed at sullying the reputation of the Red Army, and associating its ‘liberation’ of Berlin with a deliberate policy of mass rape. Professor Elena Senyavskaya states that it was Joseph Goebbels who first ‘invented’ the idea that the Soviet Red Army was an army of barbaric rapists and murderers. He did this by simply accusing the Red Army of carrying-out the holocaustal activities the Nazi German Army had been routinely committing within the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe.  The Nazi German Army, enthused as it was by racist rhetoric of its own superiority, carried-out mass rapes of Soviet women and young girls as part of its demeaning of an inferior race. If the victims were not gang-raped to death, or killed in some other equally hideous manner, the resulting pregnancies would ensure that the Slavic ethnicity would be replaced with at least partly ‘Aryan’ off-spring, making the Soviet population easier to control from a Nazi German point of view. Goebbels simply inverted the situation and incorrectly presented the marauding Nazi German Army as ‘liberators’, and the self-sacrificing Red Army as ‘brutish’ savages. The problem for the Nazi Germans had been that ordinary German people were beginning to go over to the advancing Red Army – seeing it as a ‘liberator’ from Hitlerite oppression. In an attempt to counter this, Goebbels concocted the story that the Red Army had a policy of ‘raping’ any girl or woman aged between 8 – 80. This scare tactic was designed to encourage the German civilian population to either fight the Red Army as it approached, or to retreat with the Nazi German Army as it was pushed back.


The mythology of Red Army mass rapes in Berlin (and elsewhere throughout Germany) was slow to development in the post-WWII anti-Soviet climate. Even in 1945, as the Soviets and US collaborated to secure and rebuild a defeated Germany, Western generated rumours were being spread of the Red Army committing between 20,000 and 150,000 rapes throughout Germany (not just Berlin). As there was no documented evidence surrounding these rumours, no mainstream historian took them seriously (although the Western far-right ideologues continued to espouse Goebbels’ ahistorical ramblings). This changed with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1992, two (bourgeois) German feminists – named , Helke Zander and Barbara Yor – published a book entitled ‘Liberators and Liberated’, within which they ahistorically stated that the Red Army had committed 2 million rapes throughout Germany during the closing months of WWII. This was a dramatic reworking of Goebbels’ main anti-Soviet idea, and a massive increase in supposed ‘victims’, but a logical assumption of how these ‘authors’ arrived at this number reveals the fallacy of their argument. This incorrect number was arrived at using the following flawed methodology. Zander and Yor focused on a single Berlin Hospital for the years 1945-1946, and assessed the births that occurred there. For both years it was reported that around 500 babies were born respectively, with 15-20 fathers being recorded as ‘Russian’. In two or three cases it was reported that the pregnancy was caused by rape. These two ‘authors’ then ignored the fact that the vast majority of pregnancies were consensual, and assumed that ALL were the product of rape. They then presented Goebbels’ Nazi German propaganda of the Red Army raping all German women between the ages of 8-80 years, and concocted the arbitrary figure of ‘2 million’ as an ‘estimate’ of supposed rapes committed throughout the Soviet occupied areas of Germany. (These two ‘authors’, incidentally, remain ‘silent’ about the well documented rapes carried-out in Germany by US and British troops). However, even after this highly unreliable book was published, the idea of ‘2 million’ rapes did not gain much traction until the British historian Anthony Beevor published his ‘Fall of Berlin’ in 2002, within which he repeats without question the research of Zander and Yor, and perpetuates the anti-Soviet rhetoric of Goebbels’ Nazi German propaganda. This is the history behind how the Red Army was misrepresented by Nazi Germany and modern German and British revisionist ‘historians’ sympathetic to the political rightwing.


Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, German people have been tired of having to repent for the holocaust and destruction they brought to the world during the 1930’s and 1940’s. They have found solace in a type of fiction made fact, that demonises the USSR and equates Stalin with Hitler. This alternative history has gained a certain credence through the decisions of endorsement made by various European organisations, and of course, the European Parliament. Coupled with the US anti-Soviet (and now ‘anti-Russian’) position, the burden of ‘guilt’ for the appalling crimes of WWII is being shifted from Germany to Russia. An attempt is being made to make the Russian people take the blame for the crimes committed by the Nazi German regime. People like Zander, Yor and Beevor are pursuing a typical Western bias against Russia and against Soviet history. This may be viewed as a form of anti-Slavic racism. There is no doubt that a ‘united’ Germany is trying to ‘hide’ its Nazi past and with US help is actively transferring the burden of historical guilt onto Russia. The Soviet Red Army did no wrong and was on the winning side, it must always be remembered. The reality is that women were ‘equal’ and ‘respected’ within the USSR – as were all women from around the world. Men and women respected one another within Soviet Society, and wherever possible, this respect was exported outside the USSR. Considering the crimes committed by the Nazi Germans within the USSR, the defeated German citizens were treated very well. Did rapes happen? Yes – but on a very small-scale. This was considered a highly ‘immoral’ crime within the Red Army, with those responsible often being tried and executed, but the incidence was very low, certainly far lower than the rapes committed by US or British troops in Germany. A report by the military prosecutor for the First Byelorussian Front regarding the illegal actions carried-out against the civilian population for the period from April 22 to May 5, 1945. (i.e. seven armies of the front) states that whilst amongst a civilian population of 908.5 thousand people, it was recorded that 124 crimes took place, of which 72 were rapes. Total 72 cases for 908.5 thousand …


Front commanders were responsible for the ideological education of the Red Army soldiers, although guidance was also often issued by the Soviet Government. The point is that leaflets and lectures were given explaining that the German working class people needed to be liberated from the bourgeois fascist Nazi regime, and that it was the Nazi elite themselves that were ultimately responsible, and not the ordinary German people. It was made clear to every Red Army soldier that it was highly expected that sections of the German population might well support the Soviets, and that everything possible must be done to facilitate this eventuality. Regardless of official communiques from the Soviet Government in Moscow – front commanders had to strictly follow the ‘internationalist’  ideology of Marxist-Leninism. What the West has to ignore when propagating the ‘mass rape’ lies about the Red Army, is the numerous reports from former German soldiers who stated clearly how well-behaved the Soviet soldiers were, particularly toward the German children. Yes – it is reported that within a number of political lectures a certain portion of the Soviet soldiers ‘questioned’ the orders to be ‘kind’, virtually all Red Army soldiers did follow these directions (with the exception of a few). This is remarkable considering the death and destruction caused in the USSR by the Hitlerite forces. Indeed, Russian historian Yuri Zhukov (Юрий Жуков) is of the opinion that on the whole no serving Red Army soldier committed any rapes in Germany, but that the rapes that were committed were carried-out by former Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians released from Nazi German Concentration Camps. Due to the horrors experienced in these terrible places, obviously these people were not in their right minds. Eventually the Soviet Authorities took control of the situation and these people were apprehended and put in hospitals or special medical centres to recover from their ordeal. This was followed by a mass feeding and rebuilding campaign within Eastern Germany by the Soviet Authorities.


What is little known today, is how German civilians fled in terror from the British and US Armies that advanced into Western Germany. Western atrocities against the German population is a subject for another topic – but the idea that Germans ‘instinctively’ headed to the Western Allies is a myth. Soviet troops treated German women (and girls) with respect and did not even visit prostitutes (an act looked down upon by the Soviet officers). German civilians often arrived in the Soviet Zone of Occupation with tales of all kinds of abuse suffered at the hands of the Western Allies. Evidence suggests that US soldiers carried ‘gang rapes’ of German girls and women – usually accompanied by much violence. The US High Command turned a blind eye to these mass rapes, and would only occasionally punish a ‘Black’ soldier – despite most US rapes perpetuated by ‘White’ Americans. This is obviously a reflection of the racism that exists throughout US society. It seems that the US Authorities over the years have tried to ‘hide’ the behaviour of their White troops by scapegoating Black troops. On the other hand, some Black troops – such as the French Senegalese in Stuttgart – are reported to have raped around three thousand women and girls in the Subway, over a one or two-day period. In occupied Italy, for example, the Allied Moroccan troops are said to have raped women, girls and young boys. However, the vast majority of the rapes and looting throughout Western Germany were carried-out by ‘White’ British and American troops. These crimes are very well documented in the West but not very well known throughout the Western population. Not so long ago, Western websites were sharing a photograph of a Soviet soldier apparently wearing ‘two’ wristwatches – with cries of ‘looting’! – before it was pointed-out that one of these supposed watches was in fact a Soviet-issued ‘compass’. Another picture of a Red Army soldier apparently ‘stealing’ a bicycle from a German civilian actually shows bicycles being ‘commandeered’ by order of the Soviet Authorities.


Part of the problem with interpreting Soviet history properly, is that nowadays there are Russian academics who accept the US Cold War disinformation as ‘fact’ and do not question it. These types of people are like ‘enemies within’, which teach false history and perpetuate anti-Soviet and anti-Russian lies. Sometimes these individuals are just misled, but at other times they know exactly what they are doing. Prior to the collapse of the USSR, this kind of incorrect thinking only existed in the West – where it was invented and perpetuated – but today it has penetrated Russia at many levels to the extent that Russian people no longer know their true history. This is a case of US Cold War rhetoric continuing to cause damage to Russia from within, with Russians spreading the damage to future generations. I would say that bona fide academics know the true history because the facts are readily observable through research, but the internet has generated many misinformed ‘amateur’ historians who research nothing and share ignorance everywhere.  What these distorters of history continuously omit is the truly horrific fate of Soviet women and the mass rape and abuse that they suffered at the hands of Nazi German troops and other Axis forces. It is the suffering of Soviet women that is being written-out of history, being replaced by the myth of the suffering of Nazi German women. This is exactly the result that Joseph Goebbels wanted and expected through his basic manipulation techniques. Black becomes white, up becomes down, and good becomes bad, etc. In the first decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West ensured that the films and documentaries that appeared all repeated the Nazi German and US lies about the USSR, about Stalin and about SMERSH, etc. Russian soldiers were depicted as drunken layabouts prone to violent outbursts, and the USSR not as an advanced Socialist society, but rather as a regime soaked in blood. This is brain-washing through the popular media which was illegal during the years of the USSR, but which is common currency today. The Soviet Leadership (particularly during WWII) is presented as fascist thugs that ordered the shooting of its best and most talented individuals, and won WWII by accident. None of this is true, and all of it is pure anti-Soviet fantasy from the West. There is no documented Russian language evidence for these things happening, and no reliable eye-witness reports. This pseudo-history forms a counter narrative to the facts of actual history and is used to obscure what really happened for what the US and Nazi propagandists would prefer the people to believe.


This all hinges on the Soviet Victory on May 9th, 1945, over the forces of Nazi German fascism. This victory by the Red Army had and continues to have immense historical impact upon world history. The Red Army brought men and women together from all over the Soviet Union and Russia, and served as a world-wide anti-fascist inspiration. The Nazi Germans tried to stop the Red Army on every level (including the use of anti-Soviet propaganda) but this rightwing effort failed. Where Goebbels has been successful is that his distorted thinking has been kept alive and developed by the US and its European Allies between 1945 and the present day. Not only did the USSR build a progressive Socialist society, but its victory over Nazi German fascism proved the superiority of its socio-economic structure even though warfare was not the primary focus of its existence. Building a peaceful world premised upon scientific development was the true purpose of the Soviet regime, but as these exposed the Western, capitalist system as being inherently inferior and of no developmental use for the working class, the enemies of Socialism must attack and destroy the true purpose of the USSR and replace it with a degenerate mirage. Modern Russia has been losing this battle of disinformation because there has been no reaction at State level. The Russian Government today remains ‘silent’ every time an anti-Soviet lie is perpetuated through the media, and makes no attempt to counter these untruths with alternative sources of reliable knowledge. This is a ridiculous situation where the Russian government refuses to act in the best interests of the Russian people. The Russian government says and does nothing whilst foreign money pays for anti-Soviet and anti-Russian films to be made in Russia! Even Czar Nicholas I acted against plays that criticised the Russian Army. Virtually every other government in the world acts in the best interests of its people – except in modern Russia. Could you imagine the US allowing Russian money to pay for a WWII film that depicts US soldiers mass raping German women? Of course not – the West never allows the truth of the behaviour of its soldiers in Germany to become common knowledge (although it is known by academics). In 1989, a Canadian author named James Buck published a book entitled ‘Other Losses’, which argued that around 1 million Germans ‘starved’ to death in relocation camps in the US Zone of Occupation. Although his work was well researched, factual and conveyed real history, the Western academic community turned on Buck and attempted to discredit his work because it contradicted the preferred US Cold War disinformation story of the Red Army being the bad guys. The current Russian Government will not even raise its voice against obvious false history that insults all Russian (and Soviet) people.


Eyewitnesses in Germany – 1945

“… At the end of my first day in Berlin, I was sure that the city was dead. Human beings simply could not live in this horrific pile of garbage. By the end of the first week my performances began to change. Society began to revive among the ruins. The Berliners began to receive water and food in quantities sufficient to survive. More and more people were engaged in public works under the guidance of Russians. Thanks to Russians who have extensive experience in dealing with such problems in their own devastated cities, the spread of the epidemics was put under control. I am convinced that the Soviets did more in those days to give Berlin a chance to survive than the Anglo-Americans could have done in their place … ”

“… After the fighting moved to German soil, soldiers of the Allied front units and those who followed directly behind them committed many rapes. The number of them depended on the attitude of this senior officers … The lawyers admitted that for violent and perverted sexual acts with German women, some soldiers were shot, especially in those cases when they were Negroes. However, I knew that many women were raped by white Americans. No action was taken against these criminals … ”

“… Severe discipline prevails in the Red Army. There are no more robberies, rapes and bullying than in any other zone of occupation. Wild stories about atrocities emerge due to exaggerations and distortions of individual cases under the influence of nervousness caused by the immoderation of the manners of Russian soldiers and their love for vodka. One woman who told me most of the tales of Russian cruelties, from which the hair stands on end, was eventually forced to admit that the only evidence she saw with her own eyes was how drunken Russian officers shot pistols into the air and threw bottles …”

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2018.

Russian Language Source:



USSR: Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald in Minsk (BSSR) – 1959-1962


Lee Harvey Oswald and Fellow Minsk Workers

(Research and Translation by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Translator’s Note: The Warren Commission made much of Oswald’s sojourn to the USSR just prior to the murder of JFK. The US Authorities tried to amass as much information about this stage in Oswald’s short life, as a means to fabricate ‘probable cause’. Bear in mind that Oswald never stood trial, and his guilt was never ascertained in a court of law. The reason the US Authorities were pursuing this line was because of the ‘witch-hunt’ pogrom initiated against all ‘Socialists’ and ‘Communists’ living in the US since the end of WWII. This pogrom had existed in a less intense form prior to WWII, but following the Soviet victory over fascism during the Second World War, the US Authorities embarked upon a fully comprehensive ‘disinformation’ campaign that re-wrote Soviet history to give the false impression that Soviet Communism was no different to German National Socialism, and that everyone who adhered to Marxist-Leninist ideology were morally repugnant and pursuing a political path of utmost ‘evil’. Rather illogically, and in no way acting inaccordance with established legal practice, the US Authorities declared that Oswald’s association with ‘Communism’ proved that he had the ‘motive’ to pull the trigger and incentive to murder President John F Kennedy. In fact, this approach means nothing from a legal perspective, and is defined as ‘hearsay’. In short, the assumption that Oswald killed Kennedy because he was a ‘Communist’ is inadmissible as evidence in Court, and yet it is this assumption that is used to ‘judge’ Oswald and a priori suggest that he is guilty. As a consequence, anyone who ‘questions’ this assumption is falsely presented as ‘supporting’ the murder of JFK, rather than questioning a faulty legal procedure. Although the recent release of a number of previously ‘secret’ JFK Files strongly deny Oswald’s involvement, there are still elements of the US Establishment who are keeping to script and trying to ‘sell’ the old and tired idea that ‘absence of evidence’ is indeed ‘proof of culpability’. The article below gives a different side to Oswald, and highlights his time in the Soviet Union. Interestingly, he did not partake in any shooting clubs, did not visit any firing ranges, and appears never to have owned a fire-arm of any sort whilst living in Minsk. There is no evidence within Russian language sources that Oswald was being ‘trained’ to assassinate JFK whilst visiting the USSR. This is important as the Warren Commission suggests that whilst acting alone and aiming from the Book Depository Building, Oswald managed to fire three of the best rifle-shots ever recorded at a moving vehicle that was not entirely clear in his sights. In summary, being a Communist does not imply ‘Criminal intent’. ACW (11.1.2018)

The recent release of the JFK Assassination Files in the US not only shed doubt on whether President John F Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman – but question whether Lee Harvey Oswald was involved at all. He was ‘set-up’ as a ‘patsy’ or fall-guy’ because he was known to be a Communist (this was true even when serving in the US Marine Corp). There is no logical reason why a Socialist like Oswald would murder one of the most progressive and potentially leftwing Presidents the US has ever known. It appears that the US Intelligence Services co-opted Oswald’s name in the fabrication of a cover-story to divert public attention away from the fact that the US Political System had conspired to kill its own democratically elected leader. Nptice also how Lee Harvey Oswald was treated for his visit to the USSR between 1959-1962 – compared to Bill Clinton who spent a week in the Soviet Union in 1969. The former was oppressed and murdered for his political views, whilst the latter became the ‘elected’ 42nd President of the United States!

Lee Harvey Oswald described his political views as being ‘Marxist-Leninist’, and stated on live US TV that he was being framed for the murder of President John F Kennedy, because he had lived in the Soviet Union. When only 19 years old, Oswald was discharged from the US Marine Corp, and travelled to the UK, and then on to Helsinki, where he obtained a five-day tourist visa from the Embassy of the USSR. The motivation for this journey was to develop his understanding further about Socialism, an interest he possessed even before joining the US Marines. He arrived in Moscow on October the 16th, 1959, and informed the tourist agent assigned to assist him, that he wanted to defect. Following an initial refusal, Oswald is said to have suffered a ‘breakdown’ and was briefly hospitalised in the USSR. Following this episode, the Soviet Authorities relented and he was granted Soviet Citizenship. It was made clear to him that as an ex-member of the US Military, he could not stay in Moscow or Leningrad for security reasons, but must relocate to ‘Minsk’. Russian language records state that Oswald did not know where Minsk was, and thought that it might be in Siberia (the Soviet Officials laughed).

On January 5th, 1960, Oswald received the relatively large amount of 5000 rubles from the Red Cross as a means to relieve hardship during his re-settlement. As a Soviet Citizen, Oswald arrived on January 7th, 1960, in Minsk (Belarus Soviet Socialist Republic – BSSR), and stayed for two months at the fashionable ‘Minsk’ Hotel (Room 453 – 4th Floor). Following this, Oswald would spend most of the next two and half years living in a flat in the vicinity Minsk Victory Square. On January 11th, 1960, Oswald visited the ‘Minks Lenin Radio Plant’ where he would be employed for the rest of his time in Minsk. He was paid 700 rubles a month, and on the 5th of every month, he received a further 700 rubles from the Red Cross. Oswald mentions that the factory floor was dominated by a large picture of Lenin which all employees had to stand and appraise from 11am – 11:10 am – a procedure Oswald did not favour. Two points of oddity exist here, which originate from within Oswald’s diary.

Firstly, there was no need for the Red Cross to grant sums of money to Oswald when the USSR possessed one of the most comprehensive Welfare Systems in the world. The Constitution of the USSR guaranteed all people living within the USSSR – whether ‘foreigner’ or ‘Citizen’, the right of full access to the Welfare System. Oswald received ‘free’ medical care and was given benefit payments whilst being re-settled. He was allocated a ‘flat’ in a modern (post-WWII reconstructed) part of Minsk, for which he was charged a nominal rent only after he started working full-time. Furthermore, the USSR had full employment and everyone was given a job suited to their abilities and needs. There was no competition for jobs as is the case in the capitalist West. Secondly, as a Marxist-Leninist, who had presumably read at least some work related to Marx and Lenin, Oswald would have appreciated the need for political education amongst the people. Standing to attention for ten minutes during a mid-morning break is the minimum a Soviet Citizen could do as a means to ‘appreciate’ and ‘remember’ where all the material benefits they enjoyed, had historically originated. Prior to the rise of revisionist Khrushchev, Lenin’s portrait may well have rested alongside that of Joseph Stalin. Whatever the case, Imbuing a sense of innate respect for the Soviet State was an important part of Soviet identity. Oswald was young, of course, and there is no guarantee that his diary was not ‘altered’ or ‘adjusted’ to give a negative impression of the USSR – the very country Oswald had given-up his US Citizenship to enter.

On January 8th, Oswald recorded in his diary about a meeting he had with the ‘Mayor of the City’ Sharapov (Шараповым), who promised him a free apartment and separately warned of ‘uncultured people who sometimes offend foreigners.’ Lee did not have any special conflicts, however, with local residents, but he was given the promised apartment quite quickly. Already by March 16th, 1960, Oswald recorded in the ‘Diary’:

‘I’m getting a small one-room apartment with a kitchen and a bathroom. Near the Plant (8 minutes walk). Beautiful view from two balconies to the river. Almost free of charge (60 rubles per month). This is a dream for Russians.’

A separate, albeit ‘small’ apartment was considered very highly by most of the Minsk citizens, who appreciated everything the Soviet State provided. In addition, the American guest was placed in an excellent post-war home, almost on the main avenue of the city, with a view not only of the river, but also of the headquarters of the Red Banner Belarusian Military District. Oswald’s new address was – Ul. Kalinin, 4, ap. 24. A year later, ‘ul. Kalinin’ is renamed the ‘Communist’ (Коммунистическую), under this name it continues to exist today. The photo of this apartment house, apparently made by Oswald, is contained in the materials of the Warren Commission. During his ime i Minsk, Oswald would marry ‘Marina’ and have a child before decding to return to the USA during May, 1962.


Oswald and his New Apartment




Oswald (far-left) and Alexander Sieger [Александр Зигер] (far-right)


Oswald and his Wife (Russian) Marina





Marina Oswald (nee: Prusakova) [ Марина Николаевна Прусакова]

Russian Language Source:


The Origins of Trotsky’s Ill-Discipline


Trotskyite followers tend to perpetuate the ‘myth’ that somehow Leon Trotsky was Lenin’s successor in-waiting, and that the nasty Joseph Stalin ‘stole’ that role. However, even a cursory examination of Bolshevik history reveals how Lenin was continuously criticising Trotsky, and did not view him as a ‘reliable’ candidate. This stems from the 1903 ‘split’ between the Bolsheviks (under Lenin) and the Mensheviks – with Leon Trotsky never losing his support for the latter, or his resistance to the former. Trotsky would never submit to Bolshevik Party Discipline – and it was this failure to behave in ‘solidarity’ with the workers that Lenin saw as the basis for Trotsky’s ill-disciplined production of thought. As there was no self-imposed discipline at the beginning, there was no production of disciplined thought at the end. Lenin stated:

‘It is impossible to argue with Trotsky on any point of substance since he has no opinions. He is always creeping through the crack of this or that controversy and running from one side to the other.’

Lenin also said that Trotsky deployed ‘resounding but hollow phrases’ to deliver his ‘incredible bombast’! As Trotsky would not conform to the pristine order of Bolshevik Party Discipline, his opinions were highly unstable, and bourgeois in nature. This is why Lenin did not trust Trotsky with the leadership of the Bolshevik Movement. The Mensheviks – being a party of bourgeois tolerance – lacked the ability to lead any revolution due to their collective siding with capitalism and opposition to any genuine workers’ movement.


The Bolshevik Revolution (Vol, I), by EH Carr, Macmillan, (1950), Page 63

Raphael Samuel – The Lost World of British Communism Exposed


‘It is a curious fact that in the years of the Cold War, when the Party was defending some terrible causes as well as some noble ones, and when, in trade union branches and on street corners, members were having to make a case for the indefensible, the Party was in better shape morally and organisationally than it is today, when its positions are no longer impossibilist, and when it is a great deal more modest about itself.’

(Raphael Samuel – The Lost World of British Communism – Page 43)

This book is comprised of three articles written by Raphael Samuel between 1985 – 1987 (and published in New Left Review). The author died in 1996 – one year before the rise of the neo-conservative ‘New’ Labour, but he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union (in 1991). Whether Raphael Samuel was ever a ‘true’ Communist is open to doubt, as his book is as much an attack upon the Marxist-Leninist ‘Communist’ Movement, as it is a presentation of a blinkered history. Of course, this attack is camouflaged as ‘discussion’, but it is important to note that Samuel left the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) in 1956, at the young age of just 21. Although broughtup in a ‘Communist’ family, (the entire ‘moral’ justification behind Samuel considering his own rhetoric ‘knowledgeable’), the fact remains that his understanding at that time (which obviously was not ‘formulative’) remains dialectically immature, and may account for why Samuel continuously refers to CPGB rules and regulations passed, abandoned or reformed during the 1920’s! That is, Samuel exercises the habit of presenting the CPGB through the history, data and information he has subsequently encountered after leaving movement. Therefore, this is not a truly ‘biographical’ account of the CPGB – as asserted on the cover’s publicity blurb – and any history of Samuel’s direct involvement with the CPGB is understandably childish recollections of long ago, with no historical value.

Raphael Samuel is writing as a bourgeois historian who has fully accepted and endorsed the capitalist status quo, but who maintains a ‘nostalgia’ for what he considers a lost past. Samuel seeks to draw the reader into this inverted would of bourgeois illogicality whereby what he thinks about the CPGB (and International Communism) is the only viewpoint of the world worth having. This is very similar to a ‘cult mentality’ that is all-pervasive and beyond rational examination. Raphael Samuel’s entertaining, and at times informative take on the history of the CPGB is over-all ‘wrong’ simply because it is a bourgeois distortion. He takes (as his ideological basis) not the Marxist-Leninism allegedly of his youth, but rather the rightwing rhetoric of Trotsky and US Cold War disinformation. Samuel possesses the ability to simultaneously sentimentalise the CPGB whilst denigrate and misrepresenting its history and political function within British society. His continuous allusions to Joseph Stalin being a dictator is never once balanced with any reference to the suffering the Soviet people suffered during the ‘Great Patriotic War’ (1941-45), or the fact that it was Joseph Stalin and his command of the Red Army that eventually destroyed Nazi Germany. Again, this ‘anti-Slavic’ undercurrent is well-hidden behind the fact that Samuel had a relative who is ‘Russian’.

What I find interesting is how Samuel, describing himself as a historian influenced by Marx, could not see in the 1980’s, the blatant misrepresentation of Soviet history and policy that is easily visible to the more perceptive of us today. Even if Raphael Samuel argued that we possess a better vantage point now – post-USSR – than he did then, I would have to counter with the work of Alexander Werth and ER Carr (both British historians), who never identified themselves as ‘Communists’, but who as ‘objective’ historians, continuously worked to expose US and British Cold War lies against the Soviet Union and the character of Joseph Stalin. Grover Furr in modern times has investigated and exposed this ‘pseudo-history’ to a much greater extent, together with such modern Russians historians as Lyudo Martens, etc. Raphael Samuel could not have been much of a ‘Marxist’ historian if he could not dialectically ‘see through’ the vagaries of Trotskyism and the deceit of US Cold War ideology, unless, of course, Samuel actually supported Trotskyism and related that support to rightwing capitalism as practised by the USA.

Dishonesty runs through this book from start to finish. The reader who feels entertained by Samuel’s descriptive antics and paradoxical turn of phrase, will continue to read regardless of the anti-Communist views being expressed. Writing in the midst of rightwing Thatcherism and the whole-sale Tory attack upon the British Welfare State, NHS, Social Housing and free education, Raphael Samuel remains oddly ‘mute’ on what is going on around him. It is as if he is busy living the bourgeois ‘good life’ in a state of splendid isolation, and divorced from reality. He is busy interpreting the CPGB through its 1920’s rules and regulations, and his brief (and immature) experience in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. He appears completely unaware of the social and cultural devastation sweeping through the Tory Britain of the mid-1980’s, or indeed the slow disintegration that was beginning to unfold in the Soviet Union during this time. He also misses the most important of historical and political points relevant to the time within which he lived, namely that the CPGB remained the only sole and genuine representative of the working class in the UK, and never faulted in this task. This continued in 1988, when key CPGB Members – together with the Morning Star newspaper – left the by now disintegrating CPGB – forming the Communist Party of Britain (CPB). Raphael Samuel sees none of this coming. He is too busy explaining his path toward the acceptance of capitalism and the bourgeois status quo, and when he looks back at his youth, how he now remotely perceives a past image of the CPGB, mistakenly believed to be existing in the present moment, albeit modified so a to seemingly corrupt its character.

Exposing Trotskyites: Russia and China are not ‘Imperialist’ (2017)


he latest Trotskyite disinformation offensive is that both Russia and China are ‘imperialistic’ powers. As Trotskyites are bourgeois deceivers, interpreting reality through an ‘inverted’ mind-set, obviously their assertion presents reality back to front, and the wrong way around. This is to keep the working class confused and unable to unite around true Scientific Socialism. In reality, it is Russia and China that are both victims of Western capitalist imperialism, i.e. anti-Slavic and anti-Chinese racism. Although Russia is capitalist today, it has an ingrained Socialist past and its Communist Party has around one-third of the seats in the Russian Parliament. The US fears a Communist Party in Russia democratically elected into government and would prefer Russia to be annexed by the EU. As for China, despite the racism aimed against all Chinese people around the world, and the official US disinformation that states China is ‘capitalist’ – this is wrong. China is a Communist State from the base-up, which has modernised and is in the early stages of building Socialism (with Chinese characteristics). China uses ‘Socialist’ market forces to build wealth for the nation. These changes came about during the Sino-Soviet Split (1956-1991) – whereby Khrushchev denounced Stalin and Mao Zedong disagreed, referring to Khrushchev’s utterances as ‘revisionism’. Khrushchev, in retaliation for China not agreeing with his denunciation of Stalin, Khrushchev cut-off all economic and military aid to China – leaving it an impoverished position. Deng Xiaoping orchestrated the economic reforms as a means to ‘earn’ back the wealth stolen from China by the West during imperial times. Trotskyites always misrepresenting China’s history with a blatant disregard for the facts.

Soviet Photography and the Presentation of Socialist Reality – Exposing the Trotskyite Work of David King


(Research and Translation by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

After spending hours reading through Russian language source materials, I remain unconvinced that elements within the Soviet Government conspired to deliberately ‘alter’ photographs in a manner that would today constitute the production of ‘fake news’. However, such an allegation fits-in well with the machinations of US-produced (anti-Soviet) Cold War propaganda, and it is an allegation that the British graphic designer David King made a lucrative career trumpeting through his numerous books. David King ‘collected’ Soviet public information posters from the former USSR (which were issued ‘free of charge’ as a public service), and ‘sold’ these most distinctive of Russian ‘working class’ expressions, to the unsuspecting Western working class. King took the Socialist propaganda of one chapter of the international working class and sold it back to another – this understanding should give an indication of the true ‘bourgeois’ and ‘Trotskyite’ credentials of the man. Although it is true that from the earliest days, photographs were clarified and categorised, the idea of a sinister plot remains highly suspect. This article rejects a priori the bourgeois assumption surrounding the subject of Soviet photograph editing, and encourages the reader to look anew at the situation and attempt to scrutinise afresh what usually passes as ‘evidence’. This process requires the operation of a direct working class approach that is not distracted by the baubles of bourgeois assumptions. My considered opinion is that this phenomenon is part US fabrication, part the imagination of David King, and partly the product of the Soviet Government retaining the ‘purity’ of Socialist Realism’. Those who originally assisted the Bolshevik Revolution – and then outrageously ‘betrayed’ it, have no moral right to be historically associated with it, and it is interesting to note that the deliberate fabrication of photographs and film in the West and in Nazi Germany (before its destruction by the Soviet Union) is not given the scrutiny allotted to the case of the Soviet Union.


Modern Russia is a capitalist State with a Socialist past. Whereas many people assume for forward moving of evolutionary forces, whereby things progress in one direction from simple to complex forms, in fact evolution does not work like this, and can produce less complex forms from more complex forms, as environmental conditions demand. Marx understood that evolutionary forces can be progressive as well as regressive, and stated with regards to the eventual idea of a (permanent) World Socialist Revolution, there will be many false starts, set-backs ad defeats. Modern (capitalist) Russia is just one such example, whereby the power of capitalist greed eventually brought-down the egalitarian Soviet System, and inflicted the highly unequal and vicious system of modern capitalism upon the Russian people. Although this has led to severe hardship and suffering throughout Russia, this is understood as being irrelevant to the advocates of capitalism, just as long as a ‘few’ Russians become multi-millionaires. This situation has led to the wide-scale importing into Russia of US-generated Cold War disinformation about the Soviet State, translated into the Russian language, and uncritically accepted by younger Russians as being representative of ‘genuine’ Soviet history. This is an example of pseudo-history at its worst. The point of this exercise for the US, is to ‘colonise’ the minds of modern Russians, and teach them to ‘hate’ the history of the Soviet Union, as if it had nothing to do with them, and was not acting in their best interests. Although there are modern Russian historians who are well-aware of this phenomenon (and take active steps to combat it), nevertheless, this ‘ahistorical’ approach to Soviet history negatively influences the opinions of many (fulfilling its primary propaganda purpose). The rather stupid US assumption appears to be that if English language disinformation about the Soviet Union is translated into the Russian language, no one will notice that these ludicrous stories DO NOT arise from within the genuine narrative of Soviet history as defined by the indigenous Russian intelligentsia.


Whereas once anti-Soviet disinformation only existed outside of Russia, today it also exists firmly within Russia, but it can be easily discerned by accessing information correctly. Soviet history stems from a progressive and non-inverted, proletariat mind-set, whilst the bourgeois mind-set is essentially ‘inverted’ and views reality a priori the ‘wrong way around’. Simply, the bourgeoisie propagate the myth that god created man, whilst the proletariat know that the mind of humanity created god, and so on, and so forth. The proletariat mind-set takes the material world as the basis of reality, whilst the bourgeois mind-set exists in the realm of mythic imagination. US anti-Soviet disinformation, therefore, emanates from the bourgeois (inverted) imagination, and is not reliant upon the correct and accurate recording or interpretation of history as it unfolds. US anti-Soviet disinformation exists in a realm of imagination and myth that is divorced from the conditions of material reality. In this regard, much of the US approach to misrepresenting the Soviet Union, is to mimic the Christian Church (and its theology), and (falsely) present the Soviet System as being ‘evil’, and its leaders as being personifications of the ‘devil’. This is a simplistic and regressive inverted mind-set, but it can be effective amongst general populations that lack any progressive elements in its education. Of course, those populations which lack a general degree of any progressive education, are the easiest to manipulate with this kind of disinformation. Undoubtedly, one of the most important propaganda victories for the US is creating a mythical climate within Russia whereby many Russians know believe the US lies about Soviet history.


Western attempts at manipulating Russian opinion are not new, and can be seen with the development of the bourgeois deviation now known as ‘Trotskyism’. This distortion of Socialism advocates that the workers of the world should ‘unite’ not against the forces of capitalism, but rather in alliance with the forces of capitalism. Workers should not follow Marx or Lenin, but rather the incoherent ramblings of Leon Trotsky – who built a major part of his theory upon the requirement of the working class to ‘co-operate’ with the forces of international fascism, and not to oppose the enemies of Socialism in anyway. This anti-working class mentality Trotsky termed ‘Socialism’, and it was welcomed in the West by those liberals who resented any working class attempts at self-rule, and who naturally opposed the Soviet Union for that purpose. One such example was the British graphic designer (and supporter of Trotsky) David King (1943-2010), who made a career ‘selling’ books in the West of Soviet public information posters that he had collected since the fall of the USSR in 1991. His obsession with Trotsky led to him fabricating the idea that the Soviet System (by which King specifically meant ‘Stalin’), was fundamentally ‘dishonest’ and routinely manipulated Soviet public opinion by altering photographs (thereby changing the meaning and content of specific pictures). This (false) narrative has now penetrated both Western and Russian narratives (a poignant example of the Trotskyite principle of ‘entryism’ or gaining influence through deception), and is generally accepted as being true without question. Whilst misrepresenting the Soviet Union in this manner, King remained steadfastly ‘silent’ about the numerous well-known and well-documented instances of Western governments (and media) fabricating news events and news stories around the world. This is understandable, as King was directly involved in such a deception.


The government of the Soviet Union represented a proletariat approach to interpreting, directing and ordering material reality. This is the application of an ‘honest’ and ‘non-inverted’ mind-set and has nothing to do with the bourgeois moralising and sentimentalising of reality. More to the point, many Soviet pictures that David King claims were ‘altered’ for nefarious reasons, were nothing of the sought, and easily explained. Simply lifting key figures out of group photographs (such as in the picture at the top of this article), is not ‘dishonest’ as King suggests, but is an example of Soviet ingenuity and technology. An important point that David King does not want a Western audience to understand is that although he claims pictures were altered for deceptive purposes, the ‘original’ photographs continued to exist in the public domain (thus rendering all alterations pointless, if the main aim was indeed ‘deception’). Obviously, where alterations occurred, there was good reasons for them, but the fact that David King possessed not only the altered images but also the originals, suggests that his entire ‘Trotskyite’ approach was typically ‘dishonest’ and deliberately misrepresentative of Soviet reality, as King (falsely) implies that the Soviet Authorities presented ‘fake’ images to the Soviet public after eradicating all alternative versions. David King’s own work (which utilises what he considers the dramatic ‘before’ and ‘after’ format) proves its own central assumption thoroughly incorrect. Furthermore, there is a distinct element of ‘dishonesty’ to King’s work which was not exposed at recent exhibition at the Tate Modern (London) entitled ‘Red Star Over Russia’. One example of this attempt by King to manipulate public opinion can be seen, his presentation of two similar (but separate) photographs (of Bolsheviks in 1915) featuring the same location and many of the same people (including Stalin who is in both), being described as indicative of Soviet alteration:



The people involved simply ‘posed’ twice – many holding different positions with others appearing in one photograph, but not in the other, etc. The question is how many pictures are presented as ‘altered’, when in fact they are different pictures, or products of zooming ‘in’ or zooming ‘out’? These types of pictures are not ‘alterations’, but of course David King was highly focused upon protecting the historical presence of Leon Trotsky within the Soviet media, and was willing to practice exactly the same ‘fabrication’ he accused the Soviet ‘Marxist-Leninists’ of perpetuating. Here is an example of ‘zooming’ presented as deliberate ‘alteration’:


Another question to be asked is that of the ‘authenticity’ of many photographs purportedly ‘altered’ by the Soviet State. What would be the point of ‘altering’ pictures when many copies or versions of the images seeking to be repressed from public attention, are already freely circulating within the media? The answer is none at all. Certainly within Russian language sources, this is not a common subject indicative of a deliberate, wide-spread or sustained Soviet policy, and only comes into being with the dubious work of David King. Of course, whilst defending Trotsky and accusing Joseph Stalin of all kinds of (imagined) crimes, King firmly establishes his ‘anti-Soviet’ and ‘pro’ US Cold War credentials. The glaring problem for King is that in so doing, he completely ‘omits’ any mention or recognition of Leon Trotsky’s extensive collaboration with fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the forces of international Jewish Zionism in the 1930’s. King also fails to refer to Trotsky’s 1938 demand to his followers to support the fascist countries in the world, in a collective effort to ‘destroy’ the Soviet Union. King ignores all of Trotsky’s bourgeois and rightwing attitudes, opinions and behaviours, and instead choices to misrepresent history by turning the ‘science’ of Soviet photographic ‘editing’ into something of an obsessive fetish. Leon Trotsky, as a convicted criminal and proven enemy of the Soviet State, no longer deserved the honour of being ‘historically’ associated with the Soviet State he played a small part in building, and which he subsequently set-out to destroy. I have speculated elsewhere that Trotsky’s contradictory, paradoxical and at times ‘bizarre’ behaviour contains all the hallmarks of the on-set of mental illness. This inconsistency is evident from the incoherent ramblings that pass as his ‘collected works’. Lifting perfectly good and historically significant and important images of Lenin and Stalin from photographs ‘tainted’ by the presence of Trotsky (and other proven traitors to the Bolshevik Revolution) is not a sinister act, if indeed it really happened at all. One example of ‘clarifying’ a picture of Lenin is:



The Soviet Union led the world in the development of photography and film technology (which reached its apex during the space race). The ability to perfect the process of recording events in either ‘still’ or ‘moving’ images was elevated to a high science within the Soviet Union. Clarifying old or damaged photographs was a matter of importance with regards to properly recording the historical events that led to the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, and this logical demand generated the development of advanced technology and progressive editing processes. Trotsky was an anti-Bolshevik criminal whose image was quite rightly removed from certain photographs (if the sources can be trusted). Of course, it could be that the entire idea of photographic editing has been a US-Trotskyite collaboration of disinformation from start to finish. Whatever the case, the Soviet Union had a responsibility to the international working class it represented, and expunging fascist traitors from prominence within Socialist Society should be interpreted as an enlightened act – similar to how the Western (bourgeois) societies destroy and side-line the lives of those people they considers the most heinous of criminals (such as the British paedophile Jimmy Saville). Trotsky’s crimes were no less repugnant to the proletariat mind, and the dubious and misleading work of David King must be exposed for the deceptive (Trotskyite) nonsense it represents.

Russian Language References:









The Fabricated Zinoniev Letter – How the British Establishment Brought-Down the 1924 Labour Party


Winston Churchill and His Close Personal Friend Major Desmond Morton

In the 1930’s, the conservative (bourgeois) establishment in the UK made much of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Indeed, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph continued to support Hitler’s policies and military adventures right up until the eve of war between the UK and Nazi Germany, whilst Winston Churchill made glowing written comments about Hitler, and the British royal family (including Queen Elizabeth II) were photographed making straight-armed (fascist) salutes! The rightwing proclivities of the British middle and upper classes are quite clear for all to see, and are active today in the British State’s support for the ‘Madan’ neo-Nazi government, currently active in Western Ukraine. What many are unaware of, however, is that whilst the conservative British establishment harps on about the merits of ‘liberal democracy’, it has historically behaved in a distinctly ‘illiberal’ and ‘non-democratic’ manner on a number of notable occasions.

The ‘minority’ Labour government of 1923 was established with the cooperation of the Liberals – this was the first Labour government and the Liberals only allowed it access to power as a means to discredit and bring-down this working class movement. In this respect, the Liberals were acting in concordance with the Conservatives and the British State. Just ten months later, the Labour Party (under Ramsey MacDonald) lost the October, 1924 General Election to a landslide Tory victory. In November, 1924, a delegation of British trade unions arrived in Moscow, and subsequently published a report stating that its representatives had studied the minutes of the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Comintern and had not found traces of anti-British activity. However, it is believed that the Labour Party was ousted from its tenuous grip on power by a plot perpetuated by White Russians, MI5, MI6, the Daily Mail, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, Winston Churchill and Major Desmond Morton (amongst many other colluding individuals in positions of power and influence). This notorious episode in British politics has become known as the ‘Zinoniev Letter’ scandal, but is highly disturbing in its non-democratic and rightwing nature. I am researching from contemporary Russian language sources, but include a short English language video for reference purposes.

Although the Soviet Union was allegedly involved in this plot to incite a Socialist Revolution in the UK (by exporting the idea of armed worker uprisings via the various branches of the Communist Party), very little direct reference is made in Western sources to Soviet thoughts on this matter. Georgy Zinoniev (1883-1936) was the head of the ‘Communist International’ (i.e. ‘Comintern’) during the 1920’s, which served as the coordinating hub for all the Communist Parties of the world. Georgy Zinoniev (originally supported Joseph Stalin against Trotsky’s attempt to bring-down the Soviet System (following Lenin’s death in 1924), but slowly gravitated toward the Trotskyite Insurgency after this date.  This ideological about-face eventually led to his arrest, trial and execution for ‘Treason’ in 1936. However, in September, 1924, the British MI6 stated that one of its operatives (in Latvia) had been handed a letter signed by Georgy Zinoniev on behalf of the Comintern, which was directed toward the Communist Party of Great Britain, and suggested that the Labour Party could be used to incite an armed uprising in the UK. The letter was handed to the British MI5, and subsequently found its way to Ramsey MacDonald – the Labour Prime Minister. However, British Secret Intelligence Services also took matters into their own hands (despite being instructed by the Prime Minister to keep this letter ‘secret’), and distributed copies to the heads of the army and navy, as well as to the rightwing press and various other establishment figures – without the knowledge or consent of the British Labour Prime Minister. The motivation for this underhand (and non-democratic) activity stemmed from the Labour Party’s willingness to recognise the existence of the Soviet Union, and enter into formal trade agreements.

As the Labour Party struggled to hold on to power, the rightwing and racist British newspaper the Daily Mail published the ‘Zinoniev Letter’ under the alarmist headline ‘Civil War Plot by Socialist Masters’ four days before the 1924 General Election (on the 25.10.1924). The Daily Mail falsely stated that if the UK became a Socialist State, it would directly fund the development of the USSR. In the meantime, in the Soviet Union an investigation was underway with Georgy Zinoniev denying any involvement and pointing-out obvious structural and rhetorical errors in the text. The Soviet Government had not issued any orders for such a letter to have been written, and it was proven through investigation that Georgy Zinoniev had not written this letter. Despite Soviet denials, and the fact that Georgy Zinoniev wrote an open letter exposing the fake letter that carried his name, the British press conspired not to publish Zinoniev’s ‘real’ letter until a month after the 1924 General Election. By that time the Tories had won power and had cancelled all previous diplomatic and trade agreements with the USSR, and nobody in the government was listening. In 1925, however, the German Language newspaper entitled ‘Red Flag’ published an article exposing the White Russian emigre named ‘Sergei Druzhilovsky’ (Сергей Дружиловский), who was immediately expelled from Germany. In 1926 he was arrested by the Soviet Border Guards after illegally crossing the Latvian-Soviet border. After an open trial held in Moscow (by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR) Sergei Druzhilovsky was sentenced to be shot. Soviet sources make it very clear that the ‘Zinoniev Letter’ episode in the UK was the work of intelligence operative Major Desmond Morton, and that in the shadows behind him was the nefarious Winston Churchill.

The original letter was discovered in 1965, resulting in a book-investigation entitled ‘Zinoviev’s Letter’ and written by three journalists of the British newspaper The Sunday Times.  In February, 1968, The Sunday Times published an article stating that photocopies of the original ‘Zinoniev Letter’ had been inexplicably found in the archives of Harvard University. The graphological analysis carried-out by the expert John Conway, suggested that the hand-writing within the ‘letter’ belonged to the British spy Sidney Reilly, who thus also was involved in fabricating the fake letter. Interestingly, Soviet Intelligence lured Sidney Reilly into the USSR in 1925, under the pretension of him contacting a fictitious anti-Soviet underground movement. Two stories then compete for attention, one is that Sidney Reilly was ‘shot’ for spying, whilst the other story suggests that he changed sides and started spying for the USSR. In the late 1990’s, Robin Cook, Foreign Minister of the Labour Government of Tony Blair, ordered the opening of certain archives. According to these files, the Zinoniev Letter was transferred to the Riga residence (in Latvia) by a Russian emigrant from Berlin, who earned money by creating such fakes. The research was conducted by Dr. Jill Bennett, and although placating the British establishment (whilst ‘hinting’ at impropriety), it nevertheless falsely claims that the exact identity of the original forger cannot be known. This demonstrates how the Labour Party had moved to the right, and how it was willing to ‘ignore’ the Soviet research on this subject.

Perhaps a lasting testimony to the corruption of the bourgeois British State and the Conservative Party, lies in the Labour Party’s rejection of true Socialism, and the 1925 pogrom aimed at the 12 leading Members of the Communist Party of Great Britain by the Tories, all of whom were put on trial and found guilty of seditious libel and incitement to mutiny – before being sentenced to various prison terms. All this was allowed to happen due to the anti-Socialist (and anti-Russian) atmosphere created in the UK by the fake ‘Zinoniev Letter’.


Of course, this entire episode is bizarre and indicative of an inverted bourgeois mind-set. Why would a letter addressed to the headquarters of the CPGB situated in London, be ‘discovered’ in Latvia? Logic dictates that if it was genuine, it would have been openly published by the Comintern and thereby made public. The Comintern made no secret of its Marxist-Leninist ideology, or the idea of its preference for a world-wide Socialist Revolution. However, such a Revolution arises from indigenous and spontaneous Workers’ Movements, and cannot be imposed ‘from above’ so to speak (as the fake ‘Zinoniev Letter’ and distorting bourgeois rhetoric suggests).

Russian Language Reference:


Tate Modern: Red Star Over Russia (19.11.2017)



Many, if not all Western exhibitions purporting to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the Russian October Revolution, are merely excuses for the prevailing bourgeois, capitalist system to continue to attack and denigrate the reputation of the Soviet Union, as a means to discredit Marxist-Leninism, and influence the working class away from positively relating to Soviet (Bolshevik) Socialism. It is perhaps ironic that the Tate Modern, a complex of art galleries constructed within an old (and huge) Central London factory, should host such a poorly conceived, badly organised and thoroughly ‘revisionist’ exhibition designed to convey not only the prevailing bourgeois negative view of the Soviet Union, but compounds this error by dedicating an entire room to the criminal Leon Trotsky! As the bourgeoisie has a tendency to ‘fetishize’ Trotsky, this exhibition focuses upon the removal of his image from all Soviet documentation, and completely ignores Trotsky’s open collaboration fascist Italy, fascist Spain, fascist Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany throughout the 1930s! Furthermore, this exhibition (based upon the collection of Soviet propaganda posters formerly owned by the British Trotskyite David King), has a number of historical facts incorrect. The 1905 Revolution had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks, and the February Revolution of 1917 also had nothing to do with Lenin. Stalin died in 1953 and not 1955, and Leon Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1929 and not 1927! Lenin is treated as a potential criminal, whilst Stalin is treated as an actual criminal. Lenin disagreed with Trotsky but thought that he could be reformed through labour – but Trotsky always remained a bourgeois leftist and self-serving careerist. Whilst dedicating the last 11 years of his life to trying to destroy Lenin’s masterpiece creation of the Soviet Union – the Tate Modern commentary laughingly insists that Trotsky was Lenin’s greatest supporter! I have photographed a number of interesting Soviet posters because their original purpose was to express an entirely ‘new’ and ‘proletariat’ way of viewing the world, but I reject the Trotskyite viewpoints of David King, and the ludicrous bourgeois interpretation of events as conveyed by the Tate Modern. Nothing positive is said about the Soviet Union, and just as Trotsky’s dalliance with world fascism is ignored, so too is the Soviet Sacrifice in its war with, and subsequent victory over Nazi Germany (where the USSR lost between 27-40 million men, women and children killed and wounded). David King erroneously makes much of police photographs of suspected and/or convicted criminals which he gathered from the USSR, but the fact remains that if capitalism ever collapsed in the West, there would be millions of similar photographs ‘liberated’ from the bourgeois police archives!









The following is the official Tate Modern propaganda:


A dramatic visual history of Russia and the Soviet Union from 1905 to the death of Stalin – seen through the eyes of artists, designers and photographers

2017 marks the centenary of the October Revolution. Rebellion brought hope, chaos, heroism and tragedy as the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union, endured revolutions, civil war, famine, dictatorship and Nazi invasion. A new visual culture arose and transformed the fabric of everyday life.

The core of this exhibition comes from the extraordinary collection of photographer and graphic designer David King (1943–2016). He started his collection of over 250,000 items relating to this period while working for The Sunday Times Magazine in the 1970s. The collection was acquired by Tate in 2016.

This show is an opportunity to see the rare propaganda posters, prints and photographs collected by King – some bearing traces of state censorship. Including work by El Lissitzky, Gustav Klutsis, Dmitri Moor, Aleksandr Deineka, Nina Vatolina and Yevgeny Khaldei, it is a thrilling journey through a momentous period in world history.

Photographer Unknown, Preparing for May Day in the Railway Workers' Club 1929. Purchased 2016. The David King Collection at Tate
Photographer Unknown, Preparing for May Day in the Railway Workers’ Club 1929. Purchased 2016. The David King Collection at Tate
Aleksandr Rodchenko, USSR in Construction, Issue 8 1936, Journal, Purchased 2016. The David King Collection at Tate
Aleksandr Rodchenko, USSR in Construction, Issue 8 1936, Journal, Purchased 2016. The David King Collection at Tate
%d bloggers like this: