West’s Support for Extremism “Blows Back” in New York Shooting

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Brian Berletic
THE NEW ATLAS

West's Support for Extremism "Blows Back" in New York Shooting



The tragic mass shooting in Buffalo, New York was carried out by an extremist with an ideology stemming from modern-day |\|AZlSM practices most openly in Ukraine. Just as Western support for extremists in Syria blew back in the form of global terrorism, its support for |\|AZlS in Ukraine is emboldening and encouraging their toxic ideology worldwide.


https://newatlas.report/ (backup site): https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/ Odysee (YouTube alternative): https://odysee.com/@LandDestroyer:8 Rumble (YouTube alternative): https://rumble.com/c/c-1459863


Brian Berletic is an ex- US Marine Corps independent geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, formerly writing under the pen name “ Tony Cartalucci ” along with several others. His new online venue is The New Atlas, found on most leading video platforms.

 


Addendum
By TGP editors
(Below material from a local news source in the Buffalo area)

The young shooter (Gendron) making the "V" sign. V for what?

One of the victims in the attack was identified as Aaron Salter, a retired Buffalo Police officer who was working as a security guard at Tops. Officials said Salter attempted to stop the attack and shot Gendron in the chest, but he was unharmed because he was wearing tactical body armor.

The alleged manifesto carries on for numerous pages about the type of gear that was chosen specifically for the attack, from his helmet and weapon all the way down to his underwear. It plots his breakfast, arrival time, live stream and getaway.

Gendron apprehended.

The writer says he will plead guilty in trial if he survives the rampage.

Gendron said only four words in court Saturday before being taken away: “I understand my charges.”

Payton Gendron in custody, during arraignment.


The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.


 


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读




DeSantis Vows To Fight Biden’s “Ministry Of Truth”

Be sure to circulate this article among friends, workmates and kin.

EXPOSING CAPITALISM'S MULTITUDE OF VICES AND INCURABLE PROBLEMS


Jimmy Dore • Max Blumenthal

DeSantis Vows To Fight Biden’s “Ministry Of Truth”
THE BETRAYAL OF THE LIBERALS IS MAKING SCUMBAGS LIKE DE SANTIS LOOK GOOD.



Apr 30, 2022
On the heels of the Biden administration’s announcement of a “Ministry of Truth”-esque “Disinformation Governance Board” in the Homeland Security Department, Florida’s GOP Governor Ron Desantis responded by insisting that he will do everything in his power to protect liberty and not let the federal government stifle free speech under the guise of exposing propaganda and misinformation by foreign governments. Jimmy and The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal discuss how the Democrats are becoming authoritarian and ceding the freedom-defending zone to right-wingers like Ron Desantis.



 


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

NOTE: ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读



Luis Kutner: The Declassified Life of a Human Rights Icon

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


by the Our Hidden History team




Luis Kutner in his office.

Important Note: Day may come, sooner than you think, when all dissident, truly democratic anti-oligarchic thought will be banned, or simply quietly disappeared. Big Tech, the huge Silicon Valley corporations that control most of the Internet and its popular platforms—Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.—all fully and seamlessly integrated with the US imperialist state, are already systematically scrubbing inconvenient narratives from their databases. Because of that, it's up to you to safeguard important documents. So please download this post to your desktop, a flashdrive, or any other equivalent device, and keep it there for possible future use. If the worst happens, the inconvenient truths will not be so easily swept away from our public memory.
—The Editor
—The Editor

Human rights icon, mob lawyer, and “co-founder of Amnesty International.” A “publicity hound,” a “vain, egotistical trouble maker,” and a wannabe CIA conspirator. A poet, an associate of Jack Ruby, and a “Friend” of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.
Such was the complicated life of a famous cold war-era human rights lawyer, Luis Kutner.

Kutner built up his reputation as a human rights lawyer during the late 1940s. Gaining a reputation among the convicted as “the Springman,”1 Kutner was noted for his ability to get people out of prison. By the end of his career, he would be credited with gaining the release of over 1,000 people. Some were wrongfully convicted, others were being held without charge.

One prisoner whom Kutner freed was an African-American man named James Montgomery.2 Kutner effected his release in 1949. Montgomery had spent nearly two-and-a-half decades in prison, having been framed for rape. The appeals court judge called the original trial a “sham” and found that the prosecutor threatened Montgomery and his defense lawyer with violent retaliation by the Ku Klux Klan if a guilty plea was not entered.

Three years before Rosa Parks would make her famous refusal to move to the back of the bus, Kutner filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Black passenger against Illinois Greyhound Lines.3 Upon entering Jim Crow Tennessee on a trip from Chicago to Mississippi, the bus driver had forced the passenger to the back of the bus where no seating was available. The passenger was forced to stand for a trip of approximately 150 miles.

In 1949, Kutner organized what is thought to be the first federal lawsuit against a prison warden by inmates. The suit charged the warden with stealing from prisoners, using prison labor for the personal benefit of prison staff, and a regime of brutality run by the prison guards.4

In 1966, Kutner was instrumental in getting an injunction against George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party.5 The judgment prevented the Nazis from holding a demonstration in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. Rockwell hoped to intimidate the area’s Jewish residents into ceasing their support for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts to integrate areas of the city.

Kunter’s reputation began to grow—especially as he began to take on more international cases. These cases tended to (though not always) deal with prisoners held in the Eastern Bloc or in the newly independent countries of the non-aligned world. Such cases, for obvious reasons, were most attractive to the U.S. press.

Kutner worked on the case of József Cardinal Mindszenty, a Hungarian priest whose story became a centerpiece of anti-communist propaganda in the west. Mindszenty’s “glazed over” look at his trial would become the CIA’s excuse to embark on MK/ULTRA experimentation.6

In 1958, he helped free the fascist poet Ezra Pound. Kutner claimed that, upon release, Pound asked him if he was Jewish and then spat in his face.7

He is listed in several obituaries, including in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, as “co-founder of Amnesty International.”8 This is almost certainly an exaggeration. His papers from the period do show a close correspondence with Peter Benenson,9 Amnesty’s “other” co-founder. These letters date from the early days of the organization (then called “Appeal for Amnesty”). But they also seem to indicate that he and Benenson met only after its creation. Kutner did, though, serve on the National Advisory Council of the organization’s U.S. branch.

Some of his other famous cases include seeking the freedom of Moise Tshombe, a Belgian-backed Congolese secessionist leader, and that of hundreds of prisoners in Northern Ireland—held without being charged by the British government—in Long Kesh prison.

Kutner also built his reputation by devising some important legal concepts. One of them was a legal device that Kutner called “World Habeas Corpus,” which he hoped would extend the right to people across the globe. Kutner attempted for years to create a non-governmental organization around this idea. In the style of Amnesty International, it would maintain offices across the world. The method by which Kutner aimed to fund his dream, declassified documents show, were considerably less worthy than the concept.

An examination of declassified government documents only adds to the controversy. They reveal Luis Kutner’s many hidden interactions with the FBI, the CIA, and the mafia underworld.10 The record of his association with various far-right figures is also included. They even reveal the violent efforts of a terrorist group he defended under the guise of “human rights.”

Committing Conscientious Objectors

Kutner’s earliest documented attempt to collude with the FBI came in 1944. He had been called upon to defend indigent draft resisters in federal court. Unfortunately, he seemed to place what he perceived to be the needs of the U.S. war effort above the interests of his clients.

During the course of a trial, Kutner approached the judge with a somewhat “novel” idea. He proposed that the judge place his client, one of the numerous Black Muslims who was refusing the draft for religious reasons, into a mental hospital.11 Kutner reasoned that being committed rather than being incarcerated would prevent the man from being seen as “martyr.” Kutner said:

These so-called “Mohammedans” are seeking martyrdom. Many have been sent to prison, and that pleases them. They consider themselves martyrs. They should be examined for sanity. The prestige of their movement would be destroyed if they went to asylums instead of prisons.

The judge took Kutner’s advice and the case made the newspapers.

Apparently pleased with his formulation for dealing with religious objectors, Kutner advised the same method for dealing with another client of his, this one a Jehovah’s Witness.12 Kutner typed a letter to J. Edgar Hoover which discussed this approach to objectors—and then alerted the FBI boss of the supposed dangers the Jehovah’s Witnesses presented to the U.S. war effort. Kutner received an appreciative, if somewhat dismissive, letter back from Hoover.13

Apart from what looks like a lawyer working against the wishes of his clients, Kutner was also working against a liberalizing shift in conscientious objector laws which had taken place as the Second World War approached. Recalling the horrific abuse meted out to anyone who refused service during World War One, organizations emerged to press the U.S. government for new protections for religious objectors.

One such organization is the Center on Conscience and War. It formed in 1940 and still works to protect conscientious objectors today. Maria Santelli, the Executive Director of the Center, judged Kutner’s actions this way:

[Kutner] is bringing in his own personal bias in his representation… [the defendants were] ready to go to jail as thousands of others had. That was their witness. So that was their act of conscience as they saw it. He circumvented that. The lawyer circumvented that witness.14

This may have been the first time Luis Kutner prioritized his political views over human rights, but as we’ll see later, it would not be the last.

“On the Fringes of the Chicago Mob”

According to the Chicago Historical Society who keeps part of his papers, Kutner was “on the fringes of the Chicago mob” in his youth.15 This brought Kutner into contact with one “Sparky” Rubenstein16 — more familiarly known to history as Jack Ruby. Rubenstein was just three years Kutner’s junior and also a hanger-on of Chicago’s West Side gangs.

Both remained tied to the mob in one way or another in the following years. Ruby moved to Dallas to help the Chicago mob expand its rackets in the city. Kutner stayed in Chicago to practice law, counting mob figures among his clients. And during this period, they apparently did not lose touch.

In the early 1950s, a Senate committee known as the Kefauver Committee was investigating the power of organized crime in the United States. Kutner made national news for his representation of two men in front of the committee: Harry Russell, a Chicago bookie who worked for the Capone gang, and William Drury, a former police officer. Drury was called to testify17 against a corrupt Republican candidate for Sheriff—but he was murdered before he could testify.

But one important event didn’t make the news at the time—it would rather become famous in the wake of the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Kutner had acted as an intermediary between his old acquaintance, Jack Ruby, and the Senate committee.

According to Kutner, he connected Ruby with the committee’s Chief Counsel, Rudolph Halley. Kutner described Ruby’s goal as becoming the mafia’s “pipeline” into the commission.18 Ruby’s apparent goal was to steer the committee away from taking its investigation to Dallas.19

Though there’s no evidence that Jack Ruby’s influence had any effect, Kefauver did not end up taking his investigatory road show to Dallas. Kefauver actually complimented20 a police representative for the Texas city “for catching [organized crime] before it got started down in Dallas.”

The facts in Dallas were a little bit different — the city had a steadily growing underworld and burgeoning drugs trade. Within a few years, another Senate investigation would put Dallas in the top tier21 of U.S. cities for narcotics trafficking.

It is perhaps important to note that Kutner wasn’t just representing others in front of the Kefauver Committee—he was also called upon to defend himself from serious accusations. Specifically, he was forced to deny reports that he had “obtained $60,000 from racketeers by falsely claiming he could ‘fix’ the Senate Committee.”22

At some point in the ensuing years, Kutner became an FBI informant. Listed by the Bureau as symbol informant CG 5973-C,23 Kutner reported on the activities24 of Chicago mob “fixer” Gus Alex and his lawyer, Sidney Korshak. Korshak would later famously become a focus of a New York Times investigation lead by Seymour Hersh.25

CIA, the Mafia, and the Plots to Kill Castro

Kutner first became involved in international intrigues26 in 1960 when he acted as an emissary for two major mafia figures to the FBI. Kutner carried an offer to eliminate Cuban leader Fidel Castro to the FBI.

The two mob bosses were Norman Rothman and Sam Mannarino. Mannarino ran the rackets in Pittsburg, and Rothman had run mafia casinos in Batista’s Cuba. Kutner was Rothman’s attorney while the two gangsters were out on bond, awaiting sentencing for a recent federal conviction. A jury had found them guilty on two important counts: a 1958 theft of weapons27 from an Ohio National Guard Armory, and neutrality act violations for attempting to get the stolen weapons to Cuba.

An FBI memo28 describes the events of May 9th, 1960. Seeking a lighter sentence for his client, Kutner walked into the office of the Assistant U.S. Attorney and advised officials there of the following:

[Rothman] has been a close personal friend of Fulgencio Batista, and is one of the few persons trusted by Batista… in fact he, Rothman, during the time Batista was in power, was in charge of all gambling in Cuba. Having known Batista as well as he claims and being aware of his current activities and also revolutionary activities he is in a position to know what may happen in Cuba in the future. As a matter of fact, he claims to be able to “deliver Castro to the United States cause or cause Castro to be wiped out”. Rothman likewise claims an acquaintanceship with Castro. (Emphasis added)

The response of the FBI was to ask Kutner’s cooperation to “determine specifically what information Norman Rothman might have, which might be of interest to the Bureau or any other Government agency.” (Emphasis added)

In 1975, when the Church Committee made the first official exposures of combined CIA/mafia efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro,29 they pinpointed the first plotting as starting in August of 1960—just a few months following Rothman’s offer.

But while the Church Committee’s story begins with the relationship between the CIA, Howard Hughes, attorney Robert Maheu, and Las Vegas gangster Johnny Roselli, a 1975 New York News investigation30starts somewhat earlier. It appears to fill in the intervening months and places Rothman at the center of the early plotting.

“Rothman was in touch with several CIA agents,” a former agent said. “They had many meetings concerning assassination plots against Castro.”

Rothman in turn discussed the matter with his peers… among those who took part in these parleys, reliable sources said, were Santo Trafficante of Tampa, and Sam Mannarino of Pittsburgh… the mob and CIA finally gave [the contract] to [Johnny] Roselli, reputed boss of Las Vegas, federal sources said. And Roselli agreed to recruit a death squad to hunt Castro.

From the timeline, it appears that the offer Kutner carried was accepted.

It is worth noting that Jack Ruby’s reported Cuban gun-running also coincides with the same period as Rothman and Mannarino’s. Further, Ruby’s friend, Lewis McWillie,31 managed one of Rothman’s Havana casinos.32

Rothman’s attempts to intervene in international politics didn’t end in 1960—and as we’ll soon see, neither did Kutner’s. FBI files implicate Rothman as a partner in a plan to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1965.33 Weapons for the effort were provided by CIA agent and anti-Castro Cuban fighter Luis Posada Carriles. Posada would later become infamous for his role in the terror bombing of Cubana Airlines flight 455, which killed all 73 people on board.

Through 1961, Kutner continued his role as an FBI criminal informant, but was dropped by the FBI for providing dubious information on the mafia’s pilferage along the New York waterfront. The FBI determined that Kutner’s information was substantiated “only by Kutner’s own opinion and belief.”34

Sometime in the early 1960s, Kutner became Guatemala’s Consul General for the city of Chicago. Why Guatemala would give him this honor is unclear, but the country did play an important role in the war against Cuba. Since before the Bay of Pigs operation, it was a key base35 for CIA, mafia, and Cuban exile attacks on Cuba. Additionally, a 1966 FBI memo36 indicated that Chicago mobster Sam Giancana had a home in Guatemala. While acting as a consular official for the Guatemalan military government in the United States, Kutner would have been able to provide important services for travelers between the countries.

Whether Kutner continued his mediation between his mafia clients and the CIA during the period is unknown. But by 1963, Kutner felt self-assured enough to approach the Central Intelligence Agency for clandestine funding.

A CIA Staffed Newspaper

In 1963, Kutner embarked on a publishing venture—a newspaper called the Yugoslav Herald. The paper would be aimed at the Midwest’s large Southern Slav population.

A memo between the CIA and their liaison with the FBI37 notes a remarkable fact: Kutner had requested CIA financial support for the paper. In return, Kutner offered the CIA a hand in choosing the newspaper’s managing editor.

Mr. Kutner stated that the post of managing editor would be held open and that he was confident a candidate could be found for this job in consultation with this agency.

The CIA told the FBI that they “planned no contact” with Kutner, and intended no “follow up action” on the matter. It stated that it was relaying this information solely because of the FBI’s interest in both Kutner and the editor of Kutner’s new paper, one Andrew Kondich.

Kondich was a vocal anti-fascist and the editor of a second paper, the Abendpost, which was targeted at Germans in the Chicago area. Kutner seemed especially interested in Kondich’s knowledge of (and opposition to) the fascist European exile movements. Interestingly, Kutner thought the CIA might be as well—but to what end is hard to gather.

It was just a few months prior that Kutner had become publicly involved with a group called the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). The ABN was created during the Second World War by ultra-nationalist Ukrainians who had collaborated with the Nazis. There was a substantial crossover between the group which had started the ABN and groups that had committed war crimes and participated in the Nazi’s genocidal military campaign inside the USSR. The ABN became associated with U.S. intelligence in 1945 when General Reinhard Gehlen delivered the Nazi’s Eastern Front intelligence apparatus to the U.S. Army.

Kutner had met with the ABN’s President,38 Yaroslav Stetsko, in March of 1963. That summer, he was a prominent speaker39 at one of the ABN’s “Captive Nations Week” events.

Likely the ABN leadership felt that Kutner provided them with the liberal cover of a “Nobel Prize nominee” and the ability to deflect charges of anti-semitism. Kutner seemed to move with ease between groups founded by Nazi-aligned war criminals to groups that were dedicated, in part, to the extradition of Nazi war criminals.40

The nature of Kutner’s Yugoslav Herald is as difficult to decipher as Kutner himself. It billed its politics as “neutral,” had a decidedly anti-fascist editor, but according to an FBI informant41 it was printed in the same location as a far-right Serbian language paper called Serbian Struggle. The publisher of Serbian Struggle, a member of the John Birch Society named Slobodan M. Draskovich,42 would be interviewed by the FBI in 1964 for spreading the rumor that “Oswald had studied sharpshooting43 in Kiev.” Kondich’s take on the Kennedy Assassination, on the other hand, was the polar opposite. An FBI memo notes his opinion that the murder was carried out by “Birchites and Nazis.”44

Perhaps the Yugoslav Herald collapsed under the weight of its numerous contradictions—it printed only one issue before folding. According to an FBI informant, Kunter received a call45 from “a representative of a U.S. government agency” which precipitated a violent falling out46 between Kondich and Kutner. What followed an FBI investigation during which Kondich was fired from his job at Abendpost. The FBI then began looking into Kondich’s alleged attempts to infiltrate and disrupt47 Chicago’s Eastern European far-right community.

Old Associates—Jack Ruby and Luis Kutner

After Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald in the presence of over 70 Dallas police officers, the U.S. press turned to Kutner for information on his old associate. Kutner’s statements appeared in several newspaper articles. For the most part, his statements centered around his interactions with Ruby and the Kefauver commission as discussed above, but he also filled in some blanks on Ruby’s ties with the Chicago mob. This included, according to Kutner, links to the lieutenants of Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa.


S I D E B A R

Anya Parampil talks to Sputnik Journalist, Alex Rubinstein, about recently declassified documents which show Amnesty International Co-Founder, Luis Kutner, ratted out Fred Hampton, Deputy Chairman of the National Black Panther Party, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation just days before he was killed in a Chicago Police and FBI raid on his apartment. Anya and Alex discuss other shady elements of Amnesty’s history, including Co-Founder Pete Benenson’s relationship with the British Foreign Office.


ABOVE: Amnesty Int. Shady Ties to Intelligence Agencies Exposed • Oct 29, 2018 

 

All of Kutner’s information would be largely ignored by the Warren Commission who told the country, without irony, that Jack Ruby was just a second “lone nut,” Kutner’s picture of Ruby would come much closer to the revisions that the House Select Committee on Assassinations made to the historical record in the late 1970s.

In a 1978 interview48 on a Canadian television show, Kutner pointed to a conspiracy by giving his opinion that Ruby would not have killed Oswald without being pressed into it:

I say it again and I say this with positive conviction that Jack Ruby, or Sparky Rubenstein, was totally incapable of that kind of an aggressive decision and doing it so openly and so deliberately.

Q: YOU KNEW JACK RUBY. WHY DID HE KILL OSWALD?

I would say enormous pressure, had to be enormous pressure. But if he did this job they would stand by him and get him out of this mess. That is a reasonable considered and informed conclusion, I could be in many schools of thought but he was not the man to do it on his own initiative.

Authors Peter Dale Scott and William W. Turner have both touched on the fact that Kutner made an appearance at an Information Council of the America’s (INCA) “National Citizen’s Congress” event in 1969. INCA was a far-right anti-communist group that could count among its supporters’ Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza49 and Guatemalan general and one of the plotters of the 1954 coup, General Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes.50 INCA was founded by Ed Butler—the man who famously participated in a radio debate with the Lee Harvey Oswald just months before the assassination in Dallas.

These far-right activists billed Kutner as a “moderate” and put up to debate radical New Left lawyer William Kunstler. INCA’s National Producer at that time was one Lee Edwards, a far-right promoter who Kutner would work with closely within the coming years.

“The Worst African Ever Born”

Katangan Moise Tshombe played a part in the killing of Congolese patriot Patrice Lumumba. His name is now synonymous with "Quisling" or "sellout" in several African languages.

In 1967, saving the life of an African leader, [and notorious imperialist collaborator] Moise Tshombe, became a cause among America’s far-right51—and Kutner was at the center of the efforts. Here, he would find himself in alliance with high-powered politicians, like Senators Strom Thurmond and Thomas Dodd, as well as with conservative activists like Marvin Liebman and William F. Buckley.

Tshombe came to international prominence in 1960 during the “Congo crisis.” Almost immediately following the country’s independence from Belgium, Tshombe—backed by Belgian paratroopers and millions of dollars from Belgian mining companies—split the Katanga province from the rest of the country. The area was, by far, the most resource-rich in the country and was the home to the mining companies which were backing the succession. Within six months, Congo’s independence leader Patrice Lumumba—a symbol of rising African nationalism—would be sent to Tshombe’s pseudo-statelet and murdered.

Tshombe became a reviled figure in many parts of the world. In the Shona language of Zimbabwe, a derivative his name took on the same connotations52 that Norwegian traitor Vidkun Quisling’s surname had taken during the Second World War. In a 1965 Harlem speech,53 Malcolm X called Tshombe “the worst African ever born” and “a cold-blooded murderer.”

Tshombe faced a United Nations effort to oust him and rebuild the country. It was an episode during which UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld lost his life in a still controversial54 airplane crash. Tshombe was eventually ejected from Katanga—and sent off to exile in fascist Spain.

Reliably anti-communist and pro-western, Tshombe was recalled back to Congo in 1964. He was installed as Prime Minister of the country he had attempted to wreck just a few years before. With the help of the United States and its anti-Castro Cuban mercenaries, Tshombe waged a brutal civil war against Lumumbist and other Congolese rebels. He was finally toppled from within by Joseph-Désiré Mobutu. Fleeing again to Spain, Tshombe was sentenced to death as a traitor by the coup government.

Things were about to get much worse for Tshombe. In an event whose authorship is still a mystery, Tshombe was kidnapped55 during a flight that was diverted to Algeria. It landed, and Tshombe was thrown into prison. The Algerian government assured the Congo that he would be extradited to face his sentence.

Though the Johnson administration seemed happy to stick with Mobutu, the American right sprang into action to “save” Tshombe. Op-eds flowed into newsprint and onto television. Speeches were made on the Senate floor.56 Luis Kutner became Mrs. Tshombe’s lawyer, who was traveling the world seeking support for her husband. Kutner took this as another chance to apply his World Habeas Corpus concept and convince the United Nations to act to spare Tshombe’s life.

Kutner made the media rounds, defending Tshombe’s record:

…Tshombe at all times has been a friend of human rights (sic), and he has always made an attempt to preserve the integrity of all persons in preaching the human dignity which the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems to provide for.57

Tshombe’s record was considerably less perfect than Kutner described. As noted before, Lumumba’s torture and murder—along with those of his aides, Maurice Mpolo and Joseph Okito—was carried out in Tshombe’s puppet state.58 To lead his army, Tshombe turned to French Colonel Roger Trinquier, a veteran of France’s brutal Algerian counter-insurgency war and “a ruthless enthusiast of torture.”59Tshombe’s white mercenaries habitually shot their prisoners.60 Some of these mercenaries summed up their attitudes towards the Africans in a 1965 ABC television interview:61

Moloney: Well, one last night told me that he had burned two villages because two of his men had been killed in an attack. How would you defend this? 

Major Hoare: Yes. Well, now it’s a question of how we define atrocities…. The burning of villages, this is punishment, and I’m entirely in favor, when it is required of punishing the rebels in this manner….

ABC’s Peters: Wally, how do you feel when you’re out there fighting? How do you feel about killing anyone?

Harper (a South African mercenary): The first time I felt a bit squeamish, but after that it was like, well I’d done a lot of cattle farming you know, and killing a lot of beasts, it’s just like, you know, cattle farming, and just seeing dead beasts all over the place. It didn’t worry me at all.”

Maybe it was Kutner’s involvement with Tshombe that warmed him to hired killers. Professor Kyle Burke, author of Revolutionaries for the Right, found some 1976 correspondence showing that Kutner planned to form a nonprofit with far-right mercenary and Soldier of Fortune magazine founder Robert K. Brown. The so-called “World Veterans for Human Rights” mission would be to “take the sting out of the connotation of ‘mercenaries’.”62

While Kutner was playing the human rights lawyer in public, he became involved in a bizarre plot, in private, to spring Tshombe from prison. The plot would come to light because it ultimately lead to the murder of a wealthy California socialite.

Between Kutner’s 1970 description63 of events and those of the prosecutor in the murder case, the story goes like this: Kutner was approached in July of 1967 in New York City by two strangers who made him a simple offer. For a $40,000 down and $1 million more on “delivery,” the men could free Tshombe. Kutner claimed he considered them “cranks,” but nonetheless he continued to take their calls—one of the men using the codename “the Fox.”

By August, the plot was apparently in full swing. “The Fox”—still in contact with Kutner—was in Algiers, working with an American mercenary to bribe the Algerian police guarding Tshombe. For whatever reason, the plan failed—but “the Fox” was not deterred. He approached another man, one Robert Forget, and offered him $25,000 which would come from “Tshombe’s sympathizers” if he would join him in his efforts to free the former African leader. It is worth noting perhaps that those amounts were very close to the amounts eventually demanded from Kutner (though Burke, who examined Kutner’s papers on this topic, found no evidence that any cash was delivered).64

Amid such intrigue, declassified documents show that Kutner once again reached out to the Central Intelligence Agency. He was seeking support for his World Habeas Corpus concept (more on this shortly). During the course of the call, Kutner intimated to a CIA officer of an ongoing plan to re-“kidnap” Tshombe.65

As a hero of the Right, Tshombe's death in prison was immediately ascribed to foul play, assassination, plain and simple.

Probably needless to say, the wild scheme involving a Chicago lawyer and someone who called themselves “the Fox” never did free Tshombe. In 1969, the former Congolese leader fell dead of a heart attack in his Algerian prison. As for “The Fox,” he had apparently moved on to other plots—he told Forget that the plan to free Tshombe was now the “phase two” of a larger plan. “Phase one” was to be the murder of wealthy Los Angeles resident, Norma Carty Wilson.

“The Fox” turned out to be a young California financial advisor named Thomas Devins. He had swindled Wilson for some $1.5 million. In an effort to cover up his theft, he lured the woman to Switzerland, murdered her, and disposed of her body.

“The Fox” was convicted of her murder in late 1970. Wilson's jawbone and teeth were finally found in the Swiss hills in 1973.

A World-wide Human Rights Organization—Funded by CIA

As mentioned above, Kutner made another pass at Agency sponsorship in the middle of the Tshombe affair. He contacted two CIA officers about turning World Habeas Corpus into something considerably more solid than a legal concept. The two officials were a Domestic Contact Division officer named R.K. Oakley and the CIA’s General Counsel, Lawrence Houston.

CIA was interested enough in Kutner that the CIA’s top lawyer agreed to a lunch meeting. For some reason, before the lunch took place, Kutner called Oakley. According to CIA documents, Kutner asked the agency to fund his “World Habeas Corpus Centers,”66 which he hoped, with CIA backing, could be established around the world.

Kutner attempted to entice the CIA with a proposal that celebrated the tough stand on human rights in communist countries taken by a “human rights” conference held in the capital of one of the most repressive cold war torture states—the U.S.-backed Shah’s Iran. It is an irony surpassed only by, perhaps, the idea of a worldwide archipelago of CIA-backed “human rights” centers.

The CIA saw the propaganda value in such an organization, but Oakley told Kutner that the organization would probably harm the project more than help it.

[Domestic Contact Division] Oakley did not absolutely rule out contact because it appears Kutner might have something worthwhile if he will somehow eliminate his conspiratorial urge…

Kutner, for his part, repeated that CIA-backing would be “very helpful.”

CIA, though, had a little more experience with this sort of problem. It was during the previous year that news of CIA infiltration of NGOs was broken when Ramparts Magazine exposed the Agency’s use of the National Student Association as a CIA front.67

But Kutner played things without much finesse. Kutner was found to be telling acquaintances68 that “World Habeas Corpus… is financed by the CIA.” One of Kutner’s acquaintances alerted R.K. Oakley to this fact. It was behavior that, had the CIA been funding him, represented a major security breach. If Kutner was making things up, it represented a serious lack of judgment on his part—as well as a potential public relations problem for the CIA.

For this strange name dropping of the CIA, his lunch with the CIA’s top lawyer was canceled. With a gentle warning about his “indiscretions,” his request for funding was finally—though politely—brushed off.69


The “Ranting and Raving” of Fred Hampton

In December of 1969, Luis Kutner sought out a talk70 of Black Panther Leader Fred Hampton. Hampton was speaking alongside Reverend George Riddick71 of the Southern Christian Leadership Council before a small audience of mostly elderly peace activists. Kutner reported the content of Hampton’s address—and seemingly the names of as many attendees as he could—to the FBI.

Kutner reported that Hampton had stated that the Panthers were armed, and quoted the Black Panther leader’s statement that their weapons were for self-defense. Kutner also reported that Hampton stated several times that “Nixon must die.” Kutner, to his credit, made it clear that the statements were “meant to accentuate HAMPTON’s statement that the BPP was a revolutionary party” and in no way did Hampton link his statement to the BPP’s armed status.

The document shows that Kutner advised the FBI that he…

…has taken a personal interest in the BPP because of its “ranting and raving” and this personal interest on the part of KUTNER has reached the point where he would like to take legal action to silence the BPP…

KUTNER included [sic] by stating that he believed speakers like HAMPTON were psychotic, and it is only when they are faced with court action that they stop their “ranting and raving.”

Just four days after Kutner made his report, Hampton would be murdered72 by the Chicago Police Department in a raid on his home. A blue-ribbon commission73 found that Hampton had been given a near-lethal dose of secobarbital—most certainly by one of the many informants the FBI had placed inside the organization.

Chicago Police officers fired nearly 100 bullets into Hampton’s apartment. All of the shots missed the young activist aside from two—one entered his shoulder, and another grazed his leg. Despite these wounds, the amount of the drug given to Hampton was such that he remained unconscious on his bed. Hampton’s death was caused, two autopsies showed, by two closely placed shots to the head. The angles of the shots were consistent with the police approaching the incapacitated Hampton and murdering him execution-style.74

The assassination, which the FBI helped to plan,75 also took the life of BPP member Mark Clark. Seven more Panthers, none of whom fired a shot according to a federal grand jury76 (and many themselves wounded), were arrested and charged with “attempted murder, armed violence, and a variety of weapons charges.”

Kutner’s taking exception to the rhetorical “Nixon must die” comments is especially interesting. As we’ll soon see, he himself worked with groups which both preached violence and carried it out—including the attempted assassination of at least one world leader.

Human Rights, Terrorism, and Assassination

As Nixon planned to cement a relationship with the People’s Republic of China and the PRC moved closer to securing its seat at the United Nations, relations between the U.S.A and its old allies in Taiwan began to strain. It was a relationship that had appeared to have little to recommend it outside of the shared U.S./ROC opposition to revolutionary China. The CIA supported at least one coup plot77 against the country’s leader, Chiang Kai-shek.

The resentment of native Taiwanese was also growing. The island’s pre-1949 inhabitants made up the vast majority of the population and had now been living under twenty years of martial law imposed by mainland exiles. A necessarily secret opposition to one-party Kuomintang rule developed. Governments on both sides78 of the Taiwan strait suspected that the United States was encouraging such groups. It may well have been true—exchanging the elderly Chiang and his small group of mainlanders for a new government with broad support appealed to many in and out of the U.S. government. Just so long as the new government was staunchly anti-communist.

On the island itself, the Taiwan Independence Movement became the central organization for native Taiwanese activism.79 The FBI described the group as “dedicated to the overthrow of the present Chinat [Chinese Nationalist] government”80 on the island.

A global movement for Taiwanese (Formosan) independence also developed—especially in the United States. The main grouping in the U.S. was known as United Formosans in America for Independence (UFAI). By 1970, all of the Taiwanese independence groups around the world had formed an umbrella organization. That group called itself World United Formosans for Independence (WUF).

On April 24, 1970, a black limousine carrying the Vice Premiere of Taiwan pulled up to New York City’s luxurious Plaza Hotel. Chiang Ching-kuo, the son of Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, had come to New York on the second stop of an official visit to the United States. His visit to the city was especially contentious because New York had become the heart of the overseas Formosan student movement.

In front of the hotel, the WUF demonstrated against the younger Chiang’s visit. As the Vice Premier exited his car in front of the hotel, one of the demonstrators rushed towards him and fired a pistol. The assassin’s shot missed, and he was quickly wrestled to the ground by New York City police and Chiang’s bodyguards. In the scuffle that ensued, another member of the group leaped into the scuffle and both were arrested.

An FBI report confirmed both men’s membership in the WUF. The information came from a leader of the group, one Chen Lung Chu.81 A close correspondent with Kutner, he had gone into the FBI office in New Haven, Connecticut and identified both of the would-be assassins as members of the WUF. He did so, though, in order to stress to the FBI that the assassination attempt “was in no way associated with the work of the organization.”

It seems that the group was enough associated with the assassination that their lawyer Kutner would be called on to defend the attackers82 in court.

Was this simply a case of Kutner, a lawyer for an otherwise peaceful group, taking on the defense of two out-of-control members who had engaged in a terrorist act? Two declassified documents, one withheld from release83 for decades by the Defense Intelligence Agency, add considerably more to the story.84

A Defense Intelligence Agency specialist, Richard Hennighausen, received a letter filled with violent rhetoric from an acquaintance of his, one Eric Lin. Importantly, Lin (in one of his numerous letters printed in the Chicago Tribune85) identified himself in 197386 as the Public Information officer of the WUF.

The admissions in the letter apparently spooked the DIA employee sufficiently that he went to his superiors to tell them what he knew, presumably to avoid getting implicated in any sort of crime himself.

The FBI saw Lin’s letter as an apparent attempt to recruit Hennighausen87 to the WUF and the Taiwan Independence Movement. In his letter, Lin stated that he had stalked Chiang Ching-Kuo in Washington D.C. alongside the assassins who later made their attempt in front of the Plaza Hotel.

Lin then invited Hennighausen to Chicago to “assist the Formosan group and that they might discuss the secret plans of the Formosan group.” Included in the letter were Xerox copies of news releases from World United Formosans on which Kutner’s name and Chicago address were printed.

A CIA memo from August 197088 makes clear Kutner’s involvement in clandestine plans in support of Taiwanese independence.

The memo contains a letter, which describes how Kutner approached one Robert Fleming. Fleming was the Vice President of a company called the Mid-America International Development Association (MIDA). It is important to note that the Chicago-based MIDA was undoubtedly associated with the Central Intelligence Agency. Founded by Thomas H. Miner, MIDA worked under U.S.AID contracts in Africa. U.S.AID is a government agency which has been well-known for its utility as a CIA front. Another of Miner’s companies was listed in Philip Agee’s explosive Inside the Company: CIA Diary as having been used for CIA cover, and Miner himself was called “The CIA’s Chicago Front Man”89 in a fascinating 1979 article by Thomas J. Dolan of the Chicago Reader.90

This was the milieu to whom Kutner approached with his remarkable offer: the overthrow of Taiwan’s Kuomintang government.

[Kutner] indicated he represented a group willing to [illegible] a handsome return to anyone investing $20,000,000 which they require to overthrow the Taiwan government.

Fleming “hastily declined” the offer, though he did engage Kutner for further information on another of Kutner’s “projects” in Africa. Though the memo is unfortunately partially illegible, Kutner’s other offer in some way involved the Ghanaian government of Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia. Busia (who would himself be overthrown) had been an official in the military coup government which had overthrown Ghana’s socialist leader, Kwame Nkrumah.

Though, in August, Kutner covertly approached a CIA-linked company for regime change cash, by October he was again the human rights crusader. Kutner once again made the papers, this time as the counsel for Peng Ming-min,91 the leader of the Taiwan Independence Movement.92

Clearly, Luis Kutner had no problems being associated with groups engaged in violence—whether that meant an assassination on the streets of New York or the CIA-sponsored overthrow of a government on the other side of the globe.

At the end of 1970—just one year after reporting Fred Hampton to the FBI—Kutner found himself the subject of Bureau surveillance.93 FBI informants reported an event where Kutner took the stage with Meir Kahane, the leader of the militant Jewish Defense League. The group, though only recently formed, had already been responsible for at least one bombing and had attempted to hijack an international flight. But this did not stop Kutner from, according to an informant, publicly “pledging his support for the JDL.”

With Kutner looking on, Kahane reportedly stated: “if it takes a bombing of the Soviet Embassy in New York to be put on page 1—fine.”

There’s no evidence that Kutner reported Kahane’s ranting and raving to the FBI.

“Friends of the FBI”—Covering for COINTELPRO

On March 24, 1971, an example of what one might call the 20th Century version of “hacktivism” occurred. A group called “The Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI” burgled an FBI office [in Media, PA], stole a cache of documents, and released them to the press. The documents proved that the FBI was engaging in police state tactics against dissidents in the United States. Included in the FBI documents were floor plans of Fred Hampton’s apartment with a large “X” over Hampton’s bed.

The repression that had been considered conspiracy theorizing by the left had now hit the newsstands in black and white. A few years later, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan would state succinctly the dose of reality that such news brought:

As I’m sure others have, I have been told for years by, among others, some of my own family, that this is exactly what the Bureau was doing all of the time, and in my great wisdom and high office, I assured them that they were — it just wasn’t true. It couldn’t happen. They wouldn’t do it.94

J. Edgar Hoover began to receive sustained criticism in the press. LIFE Magazine’s April 9th, 1971 cover depicted a marble bust of FBI’s director—now in his post for 47 years—with the caption “Emperor of the FBI.”95

But while the media was at long last giving the nation the undeniable truth about J. Edgar Hoover’s methods, Kutner was at a table with two far-right promoters devising a way to protect the reputation of the director and his Bureau.

First known as “The Friends of Hoover” and (when that became untenable) as “The Friends of the FBI,” the “Friends” ironically billed itself as an “impartial” organization designed to study the FBI. They would accept tax-exempt donations by tying the group, to another of Kutner’s human rights non-profits, the Commission for International Due Process of Law. An actor named Efraim Zimbalist, Jr., famous for his lead role in a television show called The FBI, would provide the star power for the group.

Kutner’s partners in the potentially lucrative propaganda scheme were Lee Edwards and Patrick J. Gorman—two men deeply immersed in America’s far-right.

Lee Edwards ran a variety of conservative organizations. He was the National Producer96 of the Information Council of the Americas (INCA), a group of far-right anti-communists with ties to anti-Castro groups and Latin American dictators. He apparently felt that the Nixon Administration wasn’t far enough to the right97—he ran one group which was against Nixon’s China policy, and another—”Americans for Agnew”—which tried to pressure Nixon into standing by his corrupt and disgraced Vice-President.

Patrick Gorman was a fundraiser for a variety of right-wing causes: a “Draft Goldwater” campaign, “Schlafly for Congress,” and The American Enterprise Institute—just to name a few.98

A fundraising letter99 soon hit tens of thousands of mailboxes. It was filled with hyperbolic pro-Hoover rhetoric and was signed with Zimbalist’s famous name.

The F.B.I. and J. Edgar Hoover are being subjected to the degradation of an attack by self-serving politicians, their supporting media and certain radical elements that ultimately seek the destruction of all law and order in the United States…

We, the Friends of the F.B.I., are determined to counter the campaign against the F.B.I. and Mr. Hover, which threatens to undermine the whole structure of law and order in the United States.

It also asked for “generous” and “tax-deductible” gifts.

And the money began to pour in: “a Niagara of dollars,”100 as one called it. But not everyone was impressed with the effort.

The US media, and in particular television, have long served as cheerleaders for the elite's "security" agencies, especially the FBI and CIA. Numerous shows present their agents as the "good guys", protecting the people, and hide the sordid business they are usually engaged in. Actor Ephrem Zimbalist not only approved of such activities, he sought to enrich himself through such affiliations.

Newspapers started to dig.101 Kutner had claimed several big names on the board of the “Friends.” But of those big names, one claimed not to know he was on the board, another said that he had never heard of the group, a third stated “I have never heard of the ‘Friends of the FBI’ and I repudiate it.”

Liberal supporters of Kutner’s Commission for International Due Process of Law were dumb-founded by his use of its good name (and theirs) to defend J. Edgar Hoover. Democratic Congressman Abner Mikva of Illinois summed up the hypocrisy to Kutner this way: 

You can imagine my dismay when I read most recently that you had “lent” [The Commission] to Ephraim Zimbalist, Jr., for a promotion called Friends of the FBI. I noted with further dismay that Mr. Zimbalist proceeded to attack anyone who has ever criticized the FBI or its director, as people desiring to undermine the whole structure of law and order in the United States…

Wholly apart from the fact that Mr. Hoover has not always shown the great enthusiasm for due process that some of us might hope (to wit, his stands on wire-tapping, his attacks on Dr. King and his former superiors, his attitude about arrest and raids, etc.) it grieves me to see such a worthy organization… being used to enhance the money-making propensities of Mr. Zimbalist… That you should have permitted such a use and the Commission for International Due Process of Law to be so prostituted is indefensible.102

The Congressman then requested that he be disassociated with Kutner’s organization “since I am so out of sympathy for what you are doing.”

Kutner penned a fiery response to Mikva, denouncing among other things the “anarchy,” “assassinations,” and “sexual licentiousness” haunting America. He assured the Congressman that (apparently despite the name) the “Friends” of the FBI was “not in predetermined preference to the FBI.”

As for Hoover and the FBI, they had never liked the idea of such a group (though it found Kutner “pro-FBI and sincere”). The FBI was informed of the effort early on103 and advised Kutner not to use the name of the FBI or of Hoover. This advice was obviously ignored. Once the fund-raising started, the FBI had to repeatedly make statements that it was not associated with its “friends.”

Kutner might ignore the FBI, but the Internal Revenue Service could be more convincing. It opened an investigation and began to visit Kutner’s office.104 The Post Office also started to look into the matter.

By mid-1972, the group had split—mutual recriminations and accusations were pointed in all directions. Zimbalist felt he had been used. Kutner was scared off and pulled his group’s support away. Edwards and Gorman managed to limp along under a slightly changed name.

While the original group held together, though, it was quite lucrative. Some $400,000 (nearly $2.5 million in today’s dollars) had been raised in donations. Of that $400,000, Kutner took in $47,000 for his efforts. Edwards earned $27,000 and Gorman gained an enormous $155,000. $20,000 more went to the group’s lawyers.105

The scheme haunted the partners for years. In 1976, Kutner sued author Harvey Katz106 and his publisher. Kutner wanted $7 million in damages for his inclusion in a book entitled Give! Who Gets Your Charity Dollar. He lost.

In 1977, the state of Illinois would win a lawsuit against Patrick Gorman107. The suit would cause Gorman to be forbidden to fundraise in the state. Among his other frauds: “Allegedly helping widows and orphans of slain policemen, Gorman raised $300,000, but kept over 99.8 percent of it as his fundraising overhead.” The suit also noted his work with the “Friends of the FBI”.

When all was done, as author Harvey Katz noted, Kutner seemed to have created “a rather novel definition of friendship as well as of charity.”

Still at it—Kutner Invites the CIA to Beijing

A January 31st, 1973 CIA memo documents another astonishing offer.108

Kutner claimed a “close” relationship with the U.S.-toppled neutralist King of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk. Sihanouk was then in exile in the People’s Republic of China. Apparently, through the King, Kutner claimed that he was going to be allowed to open an office of World Habeas Corpus in the Chinese capital. Apparently, Kutner was still attempting to realize the scheme he had approached the CIA about in 1968.

Kutner’s offer, as stated by the CIA, was simple enough:

…the [Beijing] office could be set up for $250,000. If we wish to furnish that sum, [Kutner] would open the office for us and allow us to staff it completely with our own people (Emphasis added).

The CIA officer ends his memo by requesting advice from the Chiefs of both Vietnam and China Operations as to whether they have any interest in following up on the offer. Unfortunately the response, if any, isn’t in the available record. There is no evidence that the CIA took Kutner up on his offer or that such a center was ever built in China (or anywhere else for that matter).

In any case, Kutner’s constant reaching and endless schemes seem to have worn out his welcome with the intelligence agencies. The document notes that the FBI “do not regard [Kutner] highly.”

Amnesty International, the CIA, and Chile

Though Kutner may have been a pretty poor self-styled secret agent, his case does raise important questions about the conflicting covert and overt behavior of those who have been given the unimpugnable moniker of “human rights defender”.

The question becomes more important when considering large organizations with a worldwide presence like Amnesty International. There is no doubt that such groups can do vital, politically unbiased work on issues of human rights. But there is plenty of space for manipulation and misinformation to make its way into their narratives as well—whether it comes from inside or outside the group.

A shocking example of such disinformation came during the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War. In a story which belongs in the annals of infamy alongside “the huns are cutting off the hands of Belgian babies,” Amnesty International set off a firestorm of jingoistic anger when it “confirmed” the murder of hundreds of Kuwaiti incubator babies109 by Iraqi troops. But Amnesty soon had to drop its supposed verification:110 the “incubator babies” story was shown to be a complete fabrication—a public relations ploy to sell a war. Amnesty may have reversed course, but the U.S. military would not.

In the more recent case of 2011 Libya, Amnesty loudly demanded an investigation111 into the claims that Gaddafi’s troops had been given Viagra and condoms and urged to use rape as a weapon.112

Unfortunately for the people of Libya, NATO’s bombers would not pause for while the facts were pinned down. The results of the investigation would come out three months later—at a considerably lower volume than those of the salacious atrocities. There was no evidence113 for the reported mass rapes or specific other war crimes which Western media had turned into the bloody shirt of Libya intervention. All the stories about the rapes were found to have largely come from the testimony of a single Libya doctor.

Amnesty International may have found the testimony to be unreliable on several occasions, but that hasn’t slowed their efforts. During Syria’s destructive war, Amnesty found a new way of drawing attention to reports of abuse when testimony was the only evidence available: flashy 3D animations114 which claimed to recreate the insides of a “Syrian torture-prison.” These computer graphics were shown in major media across the United States and Europe. All just in time for Trump administration to take over—its devotion to his predecessor’s policies towards Damascus in question.

Though the examples above all fulfilled U.S. policy objectives, there’s no direct evidence of pressure being put on the human rights organization by governments or intelligence agencies. But declassified documents from 1974 do show a CIA attempt to involve Amnesty International in a scheme to make Chile’s fascist Pinochet regime more palatable to world opinion.

In late-1974,115 with criticism of the Pinochet Regime and the CIA at “dramatic proportions,” the CIA sought to exploit an offer made by General Pinochet for a Soviet-Chilean prisoner swap.

[The prisoner swap] is opportunity to blunt hostile propaganda. If the USSR and Chile can be lumped together in popular mind as each having political prisoners, the situation can be exploited to divert some of attention from junta’s supposed misdeeds…

It is worth noting here that the “supposed misdeeds”116 of the Pinochet regime have since been found to include, according to Chile’s truth and reconciliation commission, the imprisonment, and torture of some 40,000 people (including the rape of thousands of women), and the murder of more than 3,000 more. All this stemming from a coup—a coup the CIA had helped to launch.117

Suggest [redacted] approach DEFLOWER118 to see whether he can get his group interested in taking practical steps to get prisoners released from Chilean junta on exchange basis. Perhaps if he can picture himself as saving the prisoners (communist and socialist leaders in Chile and important intellectuals in the USSR) from a fascist regime on one hand and from a Stalinist country on the other he can become sufficiently interested in the exchange.119

As worthy as a release of prisoners might be to those with liberal sensibilities, the CIA had its own, less altruistic, motives for the plan. A later document,120 also marked “secret,” makes it clear that the real goal of the effort was to shield the CIA and the Pinochet regime from criticism.

Given perishability ref ideas, request your comment on feasibility of approaches to DEFLOWER and Amnesty International as outlined. Welcome any other suggestions on means limit further anti-BKHERALD propaganda in relation to Chile and anti-junta propaganda connected with treatment of political prisoners.

The identity of DE/FLOWER is unknown, but from the context, it appears to be a leader of Amnesty International. The fact that a cryptonym was given at all is in itself interesting. It generally indicates a higher level of interest in a person or group by the CIA—or even an asset. According to Dr. John Newman, an author and a former military intelligence officer who studies the CIA:

…it does not necessarily mean they were assets. In the majority of instances, they probably were assets. But, even then, that doesn’t tell us whether the “asset” was witting or unwitting. On many occasions, crypts were assigned to persons of interest simply because they were associated with assets or otherwise peripherally involved in Agency operations.121

Another heavily redacted document122 shows that the CIA was keeping a close watch on the composition of the leadership of Amnesty International. The CIA felt that a recent change in leadership might make the group more inclined to put “pressure on the Soviets.”

Though there are no documents showing anything more than CIA discussing such an approach, at least two such Chile-USSR prisoner swaps did occur123 in the following years. And Amnesty International negotiated the terms.

Later Years

And here the trail on Luis Kutner largely ends, though probably only because few documents in the tranche released through the JFK Act go past the 1970s. A FOIA request made to the FBI did reveal another interesting (but apparently unconsummated) offer: a 1983 attempt to trade access to a court case against the government of India for CIA or FBI funding.124

After the mid-‘70s, Kutner appeared in the news and in the Congressional Record occasionally. He called Carter’s Panama Canal treaty a “potential diplomatic Pearl Harbor”125—another stand for which he would be praised by Senator Strom Thurmond. The year 1981 saw an apparent reversal of his commitment to habeas corpus when he advised the Swedish government to detain the crew of a Soviet submarine126until the USSR released information on the 1945 disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg.

In 1989, Kutner gave his legal okay for using military force to bring Panamanian General Manuel Noriega to trial in a U.S. court. “No problem at all,” Kutner advised the New York Times.127 “The law is pretty much settled. The manner used to get a defendant before a court is not relevant to his being tried for a crime.”

Not included in the article was any statement Kutner might have made about the human rights of the thousands of Panamanians injured and killed so that the U.S. government could “bring to justice” a former ally whose crimes they had studiously overlooked for over a decade.128 Maybe worth noting that another lawyer interviewed for the article did at least mention “human rights.”

Conclusion

Kutner’s career is nothing if not contradictory. He worked with the mafia and with the FBI. He deplored groups who used violent rhetoric, but supported groups engaged in violent actions. He was deeply and publicly enmeshed in the far-right, but was regarded by many as a liberal.

The informant work he did for the FBI did ingratiate him to the Bureau, but he wrecked that relationship not once, but twice: once with misinformation in the early 1960s, and then again in the early 70s with his “Friends of the FBI” debacle.

Throwing around the name of the Central Intelligence Agency showed astonishingly poor judgment—it alarmed the very agency he hoped to engage. It is certainly strange to imagine that the CIA would need a Chicago lawyer to help them kick off a coup or link up with militants. As the CIA put it, Kutner seemed to have many “conspiratorial urges,” but he rarely seemed able to satisfy them. Indeed for the most part, his covert actions were largely self-destructive. His approach to the Mid-America International Development Association, for instance, earned him the label of “some kind of nut.”129

Professor Kyle Burke, who studied the far-right networks which Kutner worked among in his book Revolutionaries for the Right, summed up his career this way:

He was certainly an anti-communist, though I sense not as fervent as others in the American right with whom he worked…. He believed in human rights, but, like many on the right, he tended to think that it was only leftist governments that violated them…. I also sense that he was motivated by financial concerns as much—if not more than—political and ideological concerns. That, of course, is not uncommon for lawyers working in any field.130

Though, undoubtedly, his overt work—freeing prisoners and giving liberal cover to right-wing groups—often proved effective, in his grander schemes and his covert efforts, Kutner seems mostly lonely and feckless.

Kutner passed away in 1993. His New York Times obituary was simply titled “Luis Kutner, Lawyer Who Fought For Human Rights.”131

Notes

  1. James Litke. “The Springman Begs for Justice.” The Honolulu Advertiser. 04 Sep 1983. Newspaper. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27138214/kutner_career/

  2. Associated Press. “Freed After Serving 24 Years for a Crime that Never Happened.” Hattiesburg American. 10 Aug 1949. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26234054/kutner_montgomery_rape/

  3. “Lyons v. Illinois Greyhound Lines, Inc, 192 F.2d 533 (7th Cir. 1951) Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.” https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/228138/lyons-v-illinois-greyhound-lines-inc/

  4. “Siegel et al. v. Ragen et al, 180 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1950).” https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/180/785/389103/

  5. Ronald G. Berquist. “Chicago Nazis Curbed During Jewish Holiday.” The Los Angeles Times. 15 Sep 1966. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26235128/kutner_american_nazi_party/

  6. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=history_capstones#page=5

  7. Independent Press Service. “Mr. Habeas Corpus: Seeking to Agitate World’s Conscience.” The Daily Oklahoman. 03 Jan 1984. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26577509/kutner_history/

  8. Saxon, Wolfgang. “Luis Kutner, Lawyer Who Fought For Human Rights, Is Dead at 84.” The New York Times. 04 Mar 1993. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/04/us/luis-kutner-lawyer-who-fought-for-human-rights-is-dead-at-84.html

  9. Correspondence between Peter Benenson and Luis Kutner. Luis Kutner papers. Box 47, Folder 11 “Amnesty International, 1962-1967”. Hoover Institution Archives.

  10. Documents relating to Luis Kutner are included in the JFK Act releases because of his association with Jack Ruby during the 1950s. Due to the broad interpretation of what constituted an “assassination record” under the JFK Act, the files encompass the whole record of Kutner’s interaction with the FBI and the CIA (at least through the mid-1970s) and are not limited to issues related to the assassination of President Kennedy.

  11. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140300#relPageId=2&tab=page

  12. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140297&search=Kutner#relPageId=3&tab=page

  13. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140296&search=Kutner#relPageId=2&tab=page

  14. Chicago Historical Society. “Luis Kutner papers, 1916-1981, bulk 1950-1980. Biographical/historical note.” http://chsmedia.org/media/fa/fa/M-K/KutnerL-inv.htm

  15. Freeman, Joe. “Possible Assassination Records Within the Jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee (Kefauver Committee Files).” Internal memorandum. 30 Sep 1996.

  16. Goldenstein, Robert. “Probe of Chicago Gang-Style Slaying Ordered.” Messenger-Inquirer (Owensboro, Kentucky). 27 Sep 1950. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26234545/kutner_kefauver_drury/

  17. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&search=kutner#relPageId=422

  18. Freeman, Joe. “Possible Assassination Records Within the Jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee (Kefauver Committee Files).”

  19. Scott, Peter Dale. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. 1993. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

  20. United Press. “Daniel Terms Dallas as Top Narcotics City.” The Monitor (McAllen, Texas). 20 Oct 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26975203/dallas_narcotics/

  21. Kantor, Seth. The Ruby Cover-up. 1992. Kensington Publishing Corporation. A contemporary example of the information cited by Kantor can be found in: Link, Theodore C. “Tie-In of Capone Ring With Other Crime Syndicates Shown in Inquiry.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 08 Oct 1951. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26972294/kutner_kefauver/

  22. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140366&relPageId=3&search=5973_kutner

  23. NARA Document Id: 32289230. archives.gov. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32289230.pdf#page=3

  24. Hersh, Seymour. “The Contrasting Lives Of Sidney R. Korshak.” The NEw York Times. 27 Jun 1976.

  25. NARA Record Number: 124-90101-10010. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117206#relPageId=2

  26. Rodgers, James. “Apalachin Linked to Gun Plot.” The Pittsburgh Press (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), 05 Feb 1960. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26553423/mannarino_rothman_gunrunning/

  27. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117206&relPageId=2

  28. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate (The Church Committee). Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. 1976. Page 74.

  29. Maskil, Paul, New York News. “Strange saga of mob and the CIA.” The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California). 23 Apr 1975.

  30. Shapiro, Howard for the Select Committee on Assassinations. JFK Exhibit F-572. Summary of Deposition of Lewis McWillie, Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy: Hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives, Volume 5. Page 8. 1978.

  31. NARA Document Id: 32267344. Page 27. archives.gov. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32267344.pdf#page=27

  32. NARA 180-10143-10215. archives.gov. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/180-10143-10215.pdf

  33. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140310&search=Kutner#relPageId=2

  34. Central Intelligence Agency. Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation, Volume 2. Page 79. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB355/bop-vol2-part1.pdf#page=90

  35. NARA Record Number: 124-10198-10132. archives.gov. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/124-10198-10132.pdf#page=2

  36. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140281&relPageId=2&search=Kutner

  37. “ABN President Yaroslav Stetzko in U.S.A.” ABN Correspondence, Bulletin of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations. Vol. XIV No. 3. May-June 1963. Munich, Germany. Page 34. http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/13906/file.pdf#page=108

  38. “Slave Nations to Mark Day with Speeches.” Chicago Tribune. 14 Jul 1963. Section 1A Page 10. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26234956/kutner_captive_nations_week/

  39. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140366&search=Kutner#relPageId=9

  40. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140279&relPageId=10

  41. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95945&relPageId=4

  42. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95772&search=slobodan#relPageId=5

  43. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140374&relPageId=3

  44. Ibid. Page 14.

  45. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10124. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140373#relPageId=2

  46. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140279&search=security#relPageId=18

  47. Fifth Estate. Transcript of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 1978. The Weisberg Collection. Hood College, Frederick, MD, U.S.A. Page 2. https://archive.org/stream/nsia-CanadianBroadcastingCorporation/nsia-CanadianBroadcastingCorporation/Canadian%20Broadcasting%2013#page/n1/mode/2up

  48. DeBenedictis, Frank. “A Short History of INCA (Information Council of the Americas).” cuban-exile.com. https://cuban-exile.com/doc_076-100/doc0078.html

  49. Bird, David. “General Ydigoras of Guatemala, Bay of Pigs Figure, Is Dead at 86.” The New York Times. 8 Oct 1982. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/08/obituaries/general-ydigoras-of-guatemala-bay-of-pigs-figure-is-dead-at-86.html

  50. https://books.google.com/books?id=NgN64EXv8mgC&pg=PA168

  51. Pekeshe, Munhamu. “Tshombe, Geneva and détente in the village.” The Patriot. Harare, Zimbabwe. 15 Jan 2015. https://www.thepatriot.co.zw/old_posts/tshombe-geneva-and-detente-in-the-village/ and “Shona word chombe in the Shona Dictionary.” vashona.com. 30 Jul 2015. https://vashona.com/en/dictionary/sna/chombe

  52. Herman, David. “Harlem Rally Demands: ‘Hands Off the Congo!’” The Militant. Vol. 28 No. 46. 21 Dec 1964. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/themilitant/1964/v28n46-dec-21-1964-mil.pdf#page=1

  53. Borger, Julian. “Plane crash that killed UN boss ‘may have been caused by aircraft attack.’” The Guardian. 26 Sep 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/26/plane-crash-which-killed-un-boss-dag-hammarskjold-may-have-been-caused-by-aircraft-attack

  54. United Press International. “Tshombe Reported Kidnapped On Flight.” The Cincinnati Enquirer. 02 Jul 1967. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26927720/tshombe_kidnapping/

  55. https://books.google.com/books?id=_JhVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47

  56. Public Affairs Staff. “Tshombe’s Attorney Says CIA Was Not Involved.” Transcript. Newscope. WFLD-TV, Chicago. 21 Jul 1967. The Weisberg Collection. Hood College, Frederick, MD, U.S.A. https://archive.org/stream/nsia-TV-RadioTranscriptsFromTrunzoRuss/nsia-TV-RadioTranscriptsFromTrunzoRuss/TV-Radio%20Transcripts%2019#page/n18/mode/1up

  57. Black, Ian. “Belgium accused of killing African hero.” The Guardian. 14 Jan 2000. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jan/15/ianblack

  58. Othen, Christopher. Katanga 1960-63: Mercenaries, Spies and the African Nation that Waged War on the World. The History Press. Kindle Edition. Kindle Location 1967.

  59. Garrison, Lloyd. “White Mercenaries On a ‘Rabbit Hunt.’” The New York Times. 15 Nov 1964. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1964/11/15/132732562.html?pageNumber=365

  60. Stone, IF. “Just a Fine Bunch of Fellows.” Reprint of portion of transcript of ABC-TV show aired on Dec. 9th, 1964. IF Stone’s Weekly. 11 Jan 1965. Page 2. http://www.ifstone.org/weekly/IFStonesWeekly-1965jan11.pdf#page=2

  61. Burke, Kyle. “Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War.” UNC Press Books. 2018. Page 115.

  62. Cohen, Jerry. “Tshombe Plot Tied to Missing LA Woman.” LA Times. 8 Apr 1970. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26710411/kutner_tshombe_norma_carty_wilson/

  63. Burke, Kyle. “Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War.” UNC Press Books. 2018. Page 47.

  64. NARA Record Number: 104-10105-10082. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=51752

  65. NARA Record Number: 104-10105-10084. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=51753

  66. https://www.nytimes.com/1967/02/16/archives/ramparts-says-cia-received-student-report-magazine-declares-agency.html

  67. NARA Record Number: 104-10105-10082. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=51752

  68. Ibid.

  69. NARA Document Id 32989646. Page 192. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32989646.pdf#page=192

  70. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/15/obituaries/rev-george-riddick-61-dies-advocate-for-poor-in-chicago.html

  71. “Fred Hampton.” archives.gov. https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/individuals/fred-hampton

  72. Johnson, Thomas A. “Report Assails Inquiry on Slaying of Black Panthers.” The New York Times. 17 Mar 1972. Via The Weisberg Collection. Hood College, Frederick, MD, U.S.A. https://archive.org/stream/nsia-BlackPanthersChicagoHampton/nsia-BlackPanthersChicagoHampton/BP%20Chicago%2003#mode/1up

  73. Democracy Now. “The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther.” Interview with Jeffrey Haas. 04 Dec 2009. https://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/the_assassination_of_fred_hampton_how

  74. Gottlieb, Jeff and Jeff Cohen. “Was Fred Hampton Executed?” The Nation Magazine. 25 Dec 1976. https://www.thenation.com/article/was-fred-hampton-executed/

  75. https://books.google.com/books?id=YoB35f6HD9gC&pg=PA181

  76. U.S. State Department. “162. Memorandum of Conversation, Beijing, October 21, 1971, 10:30 a.m.–1:45 p.m.” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XVII, China, 1969–1972. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d162

  77. To some in the U.S., Taiwanese independence will imply the long Nationalist/Communist rift between the mainland and the island. It’s important to note that in this case, Taiwan independence means the replacement of the mainlander Kuomintang government—imposed on the island when Chiang Kai-shek’s army retreated there in 1949—with a government run by the native Taiwanese.

  78. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10125. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140375

  79. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10138. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140286

  80. Kupcinet, Irv. “Gregory Back In Night Clubs.” Recurring Column. San Francisco Examiner. 12 May 1970. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26871880/kutner_taiwan/

  81. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10140. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140378

  82. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10140. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=167157

  83. https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/#query=lin&user=5946199

  84. Lin, Eric. “Chiang’s Tokenism.” Letter to the Editor. Chicago Tribune. 08 Jan 1973.

  85. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10127. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=197019

  86. NARA Record Number: 1993.07.30.15:01:11:370034. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=64395

  87. Dolan, Thomas J. “The CIA’s Chicago Front Man.” The Chicago Reader. 02 Feb 1979. https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-cias-chicago-front-man/Content?oid=3343286

  88. http://altgov2.org/wp-content/uploads/CounterSpy_7-4.pdf#page=14). The later, a public relations firm, would be involved in fundraising for Nicaragua’s Contras (Hamilton, Lee H. and Daniel K. Inouye. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran/Contra Affair. Page 86. https://books.google.com/books?id=ew_K3auTwEgC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86 and Associated Press. “Expenses Eat Up Proceeds of Dinner to Aid Nicaraguans.” The Boston Globe. 03 Sep 1985. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26610205/miner_fraser/).

  89. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10125. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140375

  90. To add a further twist, Kutner also approached the Chiang government, then trying to arrest his client, and, according to a Nationalist Chinese official, “offered his services” to them.

  91. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10129. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140274

  92. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate (The Church Committee). Hearings, Volume 6. 1975. Page 41. https://archive.org/stream/ChurchCommittee/Church%20Committee%20Volume%206%20-%20Hearings%20on%20the%20Federal%20Bureau%20of%20Investigation#page/n50/mode/1up

  93. Cover image. Life Magazine. 09 Apr 1971. http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/life/36#i1779

  94. Butler, Ed. National Citizen’s Congress Fundraising Letter. Information Council of the Americas. New Orleans, LA. Approx. 1971. The Weisberg Collection. Hood College, Frederick, MD, U.S.A. https://archive.org/stream/nsia-InformationalCounciloftheAmericas/nsia-InformationalCounciloftheAmericas/Information%20Council%2022#mode/1up

  95. Magruder, Jeb S. Citizens for the Re-election of the President, Memorandum for the Attorney General. Contested Materials Collection, Box 26 Folder 3. Richard Nixon Presidential Library. 31 Aug 1971. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/contested/contested_box_26/Contested-26-03.pdf#page=31

  96. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140347&relPageId=3

  97. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10008. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140260

  98. Kotz, Nick for the Washington Post. “‘Friends of the FBI’: A high-sounding cause, a Niagara of dollars.” The Record (Hackensack, New Jersey). 24 May 1972. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27011809/friends_of_the_fbi_kutner_edwards/

  99. Nelson, Jack and Bryce Nelson. “Zimbalist Aids Fund Drive To Defend FBI, Hoover.” Des Moines Register. 15 June 1971. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27012798/kutner_friends_of_the_fbi/

  100. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10039. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140336

  101. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10018. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140304

  102. NARA Record Number: 124-90157-10028. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=140319

  103. Kotz, Nick for the Washington Post. “‘Friends of the FBI’: A high-sounding cause, a Niagara of dollars.” The Record (Hackensack, New Jersey). 24 May 1972. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27011809/friends_of_the_fbi_kutner_edwards/

  104. https://books.google.com/books?id=WUFn5FMRkY4C&pg=SL109-PA14

  105. Haught, James A. “How Crooks Prey On Your Charity.” Quad-City Times (Davenport, IA). 15 May 1977. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27010196/patrick_j_gorman_fraud_fundraising/

  106. NARA Record Number: 104-10071-10096. Mary Ferrell Foundation. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53536

  107. Associated Press. “Standoff in the Gulf: Amnesty Report Says Iraqis Tortured and Killed Hundreds.” The New York Times. 20 Dec 1990. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/20/world/standoff-in-the-gulf-amnesty-report-says-iraqis-tortured-and-killed

  108. MacArthur, John R. “Remember Nayirah, Witness for Kuwait?” The New York Times. 06 Jan 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/06/opinion/remember-nayirah-witness-for-kuwait.html

  109. Flock, Elizabeth. “Gaddafi ordered mass rapes in Libya, ICC prosecutor says.” The Washington Post. 09 Jun 2011. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/gaddafi-ordered-mass-rapes-in-libya-icc-prosecutor-says/2011/06/09/AG1D0TNH_blog.html

  110. Cockburn, Patrick. “Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war.” Independent. 24 Jun 2011. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

  111. Ibid.

  112. Amnesty International. “Inside a Syrian Torture Prison.” Online multimedia presentation. https://saydnaya.amnesty.org/

  113. NARA Record Number: 104-10225-10027. archives.gov. Page 13. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10225-10027.pdf#page=13

  114. British Broadcasting Corporation. “Chile recognises 9,800 more victims of Pinochet’s rule.” 18 Aug 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-14584095

  115. Franklin, Jonathan. “Files show Chilean blood on U.S. hands.” The Guardian. 11 Oct 1999. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/11/pinochet.chile

  116. A quick note on CIA cryptonyms from the period—they are generally two letters followed by a word. The first two letters indicate the broader operation, and the following name applies to an individual or an organization. MK/ULTRA and JM/WAVE, for example, are some more well-known examples of this convention. BK/HERALD, seen below, was the cryptonym for the CIA itself.

  117. NARA Record Number: 104-10225-10027. archives.gov. Page 14. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10225-10027.pdf#page=14

  118. Ibid. Page 12.

  119. Giglio, David. Email to Dr. John Newman from Russ Baker on behalf of David Giglio. 22 Dec 2018.

  120. Ibid. Page 11.

  121. Wren, Christopher S. for The New York Times. “Dissident for Chilean Red: Russia OKs Prisoner Swap.” Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, AZ). 18 Dec 1976. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27041273/amnesty_international_chile_prisoner/ and Associated Press. “Chile Would Agree To Prisoner Swap?” The Tennessean (Nashville, TN). 27 Apr 1977. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/27041307/amnesty_international_chile_prisoner/

  122. Kutner, Luis. Letter to Hon. William Webster, U.S. Department of Justice. 26 Aug 1983. Released via Freedom of Information Act Request, FOI/PA# 1308978-0. Page 86. https://archive.org/details/LuisKutner/page/n86

  123. Kutner, Luis. “The New Panama Canal Treaties: A Potential Diplomatic Pearl Harbor.” Cited by Sen. Strom Thurmond (SC) in Panama Canal Treaties, United States Senate Debate, 3rd and Final Part. 1978. page 4904. https://archive.org/details/treat00unit/page/n1005

  124. Various News Services. “Swedes Reject Soviet Sub Skipper’s Account.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 03 Nov 1981. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26577060/kutner_soviet_submarine_sweden/

  125. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/05/world/noriega-s-surrender-the-case-us-aide-hints-at-a-deal-if-the-general-tells-all.html

  126. Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (Kerry Committee). “Drugs, Law Enforcement, and Foreign Policy.” 1988. Page 97. https://archive.org/stream/KerryCommitteeReport/Kerry%20Committee%20Report#page/n105/mode/2up

  127. NARA Record Number: 1993.07.30.15:01:11:370034. Mary Ferrell Foundation. Page 2. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=64395

  128. Giglio, David. Email from Kyle Burke. 15 Jan 2019.

  129. Saxon, Wolfgang. “Luis Kutner, Lawyer Who Fought For Human Rights, Is Dead at 84.” The New York Times. 04 Mar 1993. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/04/us/luis-kutner-lawyer-who-fought-for-human-rights-is-dead-at-84.html

Written by David Giglio on Sunday April 28, 2019

Permalink -

Recent pages
  • No recent pages.

pages overview »

Recent entries
  • 'Operation Carlota' by Gabriel García Márquez (1977)
  • JFK Assassination-era Dallas, JD Tippit, and George HW Bush and the CIA
    with Joseph McBride

    'Our Hidden History' Interview
  • The Real Iran-Contra Scandal with Rev. Bill Davis of the Christic Institute (1990)
  • Mort Sahl: JFK, Jim Garrison, and Hollywood Blacklisting with Elliot Mintz (1968)
  • CIA/Contra Drugs, Intelligence Reform, and Oliver North with Senate Investigator Jack Blum (1996)
  • Uncovering the CIA - Philip Agee interviewed by Author John Marks (1976)
  • Lou Wolf of CovertActionMagazine.com and Covert Action Information Bulletin
    'Our Hidden History' Interview
  • James DiEugenio: The J.D. Tippit Murder Case in the New Millennium
    'Our Hidden History' Interview
  • Lisa Pease on James Jesus Angleton and the Assassination of President Kennedy
    'Our Hidden History' Interview
  • James DiEugenio on The Pentagon Papers and The Post
    'Our Hidden History' Interview
  • Gary Webb Speaks on CIA Connections to Contra Drug Trafficking (1997)
  • The Vietnam War and the Destruction of JFK’s Foreign Policy
    'Our Hidden History' Interview with James DiEugenio
  • Retroceso: El Reclutamiento de Nazis por Parte de los Estados Unidos y su Efecto en la Guerra Fría
  • Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi Discuss Problems with the Warren Commission Report, Philadelphia (1966)
  • Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effect on the Cold War
    Christopher Simpson on KPFK, 1988
  • entries overview »

     

     Don't forget to sign up for our FREE bulletin. Get The Greanville Post in your mailbox every few days. 


    Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


     





     
     CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
    Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

    black-horizontal

    Since the overpaid presstitutes will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality. In this ridiculously uneven struggle between people’s voices like Caitlin Johnstone, Jonathan Cook, Jimmy Dore, Lee Camp, Glenn Greenwald, Abby Martin, Jeff Brown, Godfree Roberts, the Grayzone team, the folks at Consortium News, and others of equally impressive merit, and the capitalist system’s Orwellian media machine, our role must always be to help distribute far and wide what these journalists produce—to act as “influence multipliers”. There’s power in numbers, power that the enemy cannot hope to match.  Put it to use by becoming an influence multiplier. Repost this material anywhere you can. Send it to your friends and kin. Discuss it with your workmates. Liberation from this infernal and mendacious system is in your hands.
    —The Editor
    —The Editor
     



    Truth About the Kronstadt Mutiny (1921)

    Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


    Help us break the corporate media monopoly before it kills us all. The global oligarchy depends on its disinformation machine to maintain its power. Now the malicious fog of Western propaganda has created an ocean of confusion in which even independent minds can drown. Please push back against this colossal apparatus of deception. Consider a donation today!


    The Finnish Bolshevik



    The Truth About the Kronstadt Mutiny (1921)
    After one hundred years of controversy, the Kronstadt rebellion continues to cause controversy and divide the left, proof of its confusing and largely falsified history, much of it intentional, notes The Finnish Bolshevik, and we agree.

    Truth About the Kronstadt Mutiny
    THE KRONSTADT MUTINY

    In March 1921 there was a mutiny against the Soviet government among soldiers in the fortress town of Kronstadt. The mutiny went on for two weeks, until it was suppressed by the Bolshevik government. The Kronstadt mutiny is one of those topics which is always debated: was it a heroic uprising against the ‘tyrannical bolsheviks’? Or was it an attempt at counter-revolution? Before I started researching this topic I thought that the Kronstadt mutiny was just a silly anarchist action – but it's actually much worse than that.

    THE LASTING MYTH OF KRONSTADT

    The Red Army attacking the Kronstadt fortress on the ice. Machine gun fire withered their ranks, while cannon and grenades broke the thin ice in many places, causing significant losses by drowning. It was a heroic feat by men who would rather die than see Russia go back to the capitalist/feudal regime they had just toppled.


    The Kronstadt mutiny has remained a topic of discussion to this day. That is because it is always used as an example of supposed ‘communist tyranny’ by anarchists and revisionists, but also by capitalists and imperialists. They all claim that since the communists had to suppress a mutiny, therefore it proves they were anti-worker, oppressive and that they had turned against the revolution. Of course, this is simplistic and childish thinking and pure demagogy. Of course, there were other revolts and plots against the bolsheviks too, but the Kronstadt mutiny works much better for anarchist and capitalist propaganda purposes because at least on the surface it was done by soldiers of mostly peasant origin (and not by the rich) and because at least on the surface it had a left-wing agenda – however, the surface appearance doesn’t necessarily reflect the whole truth.

    The disgraceful traitor and political prostitute to the West Boris Yeltsin.


    The first capitalist president of Russia Boris Yeltsin (the most hated Russian leader in known history) praised the Kronstadt mutiny and opened the archives on Kronstadt for researchers, so that they could prove how heroic the mutiny was and how evil the bolsheviks were. Unfortunately it backfired, since the primary source evidence doesn’t support his conclusion at all. The opened archives contain more then 1000 documents which include firsthand accounts by mutineers, secret White Guard reports, articles, memoirs etc. collected from a range of Soviet, White Guard, Menshevik, anarchist and western capitalist sources.

    When the mutiny broke out it was immediately praised and supported in the capitalist media – actually, it was already praised and supported in the capitalist media two weeks before it had even broken out. This already shows that the mutiny was organized, or at least sponsored and supported by capitalists and western imperialist countries.

    LEADER OF THE MUTINY PETRICHENKO

    The leader of the mutiny was a political adventurer named Stepan Petrichenko. He had been in the Red Army, but considered himself an anarcho-syndicalist. He was also a Ukrainian nationalist. Petrichenko apparently remained an anarcho-syndicalist at least on the surface for most of his life, but one year before the Kronstadt mutiny he had tried to join the White Army. Anarchist historian Avrich writes:

    “Petrichenko returned to his native village in April 1920 and apparently remained until September or October… The authorities, he later told an American journalist, had arrested him more than once on suspicion of counterrevolutionary activity. He had even tried to join the Whites…” (Avrich, Kronstadt, p. 95)
    PG

    Avrich also discovered a secret White Guard Memorandum On Organizing An Uprising In Kronstadt.

    Already pretty quickly after the events in Kronstadt we had absolutely solid proof the leaders and organizers of the mutiny were White Guardists or were working with White Guardists. And now with the archival materials, we have absolutely mountains of further evidence. If anyone says otherwise, they are wilfully ignorant or lying.

    HOW THE MUTINY WAS ORGANIZED

    In 1921 the country was in ruins after years of WWI and civil war. Fuel and food were always extremely scarce. As long as the civil war lasted, the population tolerated all these hardships. They understood it was inevitable in the war. However, in 1921 the war was coming to an end. Massive amounts of soldiers were sent home from the Red Army or at least taken away from battle. This created disturbances as people were no longer focused on fighting the White Army, and there were lots of badly adjusted jobless soldiers wandering around. Peasants also began opposing the war-time policy of grain requisition at fixed prices ("war communism"). Most soldiers themselves were peasants. This all combined together, to create some spontaneous disturbances. The policy of the government, was to evaluate the situation, change from war policies to peace time policies, and organize the reconstruction of the country and revitalization of the economy. However, that was an extremely difficult task which couldn’t be completed in one day.

    There was unrest in Petrograd after several factories were temporarily closed due to fuel shortages. Some menshevik counter-revolutionaries were arrested without bloodshed. False rumors of workers being shot and factories even being bombarded, were spread in the fortress town of Kronstadt. Reactionaries took full advantage of these rumors and spread them.
     
    “Mingled with the initial reports was an assortment of bogus rumors which quickly roused the passions of the sailors. It was said, for example, that government troops had fired on the Vasili Island demonstrators and that strike leaders were being shot in the cellars of the Cheka.” (Avrich, p. 71)


    “the Petrograd strikes were on the wane… But the rumors of shootings and full-scale rioting had already aroused the sailors, and on March 2, at a time when the disturbances had all but ceased, they were drafting the erroneous announcement (for publication the following day ) that the city was in the throes of a “general insurrection.”” (Avrich, p. 83)

    This was the necessary ideological preparation for the mutiny.

    A mass meeting was held in Kronstadt on March 1 where anti-Communist statements and lies were spread. The meeting was orchestrated in such a way that Communists were not allowed to speak. The topic was raised that new elections to the Soviet should be carried out.
     
    A delegate meeting of soldiers was held the next day on March 2. In this meeting it was proposed that all Communists be arrested. The delegates were amazed. However, the organizers of the mutiny made the completely baseless and hysterical claim that armed Communist detachments were about to surround the meeting and arrest everyone, therefore it was supposedly justified and necessary to begin rounding up and arresting Communists. This type of fear propaganda was cleverly used by the mutineers. Delegates had no time to think, they had no access to information, and Communists had no chance to speak. Thus the reactionaries could basically push through their anti-Communist policy.

    “the Bolshevik commissar barely had time to object to the irregular proceedings before being cut off by the “military specialist” in charge of artillery, a former tsarist general named Kozlovsky… “Your time is past,” Kozlovsky declared.” (Avrich, p. 81)
    The adventurer, anarcho-syndicalist and would-be White Guardist Petrichenko declared that a so-called ‘Provisional Revolutionary Committee’ or PRC had been elected. This PRC would now take over.

    “[T]he chair of the meeting, Petrichenko, quieting down the meeting, announced that ‘The Revolutionary Committee… declares: “All Communists present are to be seized and not to be released until the situation is clarified” (Introduction to Kronstadt Tragedy)
    “suddenly… a voice from the floor… shouted that 15 truckloads of Communists armed with rifles and machine guns were on their way to break up the meeting. The news had the effect of a bombshell, throwing the delegates into alarm and confusion… it was the bogus report that Communists were preparing to attack the meeting that actually precipitated the formation of the Provisional Revolutionary Committee… Petrichenko himself took up the rumor and announced that a detachment of 2,000 Communists were indeed on their way to disperse the meeting. Once again pandemonium broke loose, and the delegates left the hall in great excitement.” (Avrich, p. 84)

    Using skillful propaganda and deception Petrichenko claimed that the ‘Provisional Revolutionary Committee’ was elected by soldier delegates. However, this was simply a lie. No elections had been carried out. But the masses did not know that – after all, maybe their delegates in their meeting had elected such a committee? Who could say? This is a good example of how such a reactionary coup can happen.

    The Provisional Revolutionary Committee or PRC was never elected, its members had already been chosen beforehand. In fact the committee was already sending orders and messages, one day before it had supposedly been elected. The committee stated:

    “[T]he Communist Party is removed from power. The Provisional Revolutionary Committee is in charge. We ask that non-[Communist] party comrades take control into their hands” (“To All Posts of Kronstadt,”, reprinted in Kronstadt Tragedy.)
    Avrich also mentions how the PRC was never elected, though he claims it was merely “for lack of time to hold proper elections” (Avrich, p. 84)
     
    This “Provisional Revolutionary Committee” actually consisted of opportunists, capitalists and counter-revolutionaries. Two members of this committee were Mensheviks who had opposed the October Revolution. Mensheviks and their foreign supporters believed Russia needed capitalism and wasn’t ready for a workers’ revolution. Ivan Oreshin, another member in the committee was part of the capitalist Kadet party, one of the leading parties under the Tsar. The head of the Committee was the would-be White Guardist Petrichenko. The chief editor of the Kronstadt mutiny’s newspaper, Sergei Putilin was also a supporter of the capitalist Kadets. Thus both the political leadership of the Kronstadt mutiny, and the mutiny’s propaganda outlets were under the control of counter-revolutionaries.
     
    A genuine revolution is not led by anti-revolutionary Mensheviks or by capitalists. Already from its very inception, the Kronstadt mutiny was basically counter-revolutionary. However, that was just the beginning.

    Other members of the PRC were a black-market speculator Vershinin, former police detective Pavlov, two ex-capitalists or property holders Baikov and Tukin “who had once owned no less than six houses and three shops in Petrograd. Another committee member, Kilgast, had reportedly been convicted of embezzling government funds in the Kronstadt transportation department but had been released in a general amnesty on the third anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution.” (Avrich, pp. 93-94)

    “Perepelkin may have been the only reputed anarchist among the rebel leaders, but… he was in a good position to propagate his libertarian views… [however] the sailors, for their part, never called for the complete elimination of the state, a central plank in any anarchist platform.” (Avrich, p. 170)
    It was important for the leaders of the Kronstadt mutiny to appear like they were some kind of revolutionaries. They needed to gauge the mood of the soldiers, and try to fool them. Leader of the Kronstadt mutiny, would be-White Guardist Petrichenko made the proposal to allow full freedom for “all socialist parties” in the public meeting of March 1. Immediately he was attacked by angry shouts by soldiers: “That’s freedom for the right SRs and Mensheviks! No! No way! …We know all about their Constituent Assemblies! We don’t need that!” (Kuzmin Report, Stenographic Report of Petrograd Soviet, 25 March 1921, quoted in Kronstadt Tragedy)

    Petrichenko needed to be careful to not alienate his crowd. The Kadet Ivan Oreshin who was part of the PRC wrote:
     
    “The Kronstadt uprising broke out under the pretext of replacing the old Soviet… with a new one… The question of… extending the vote also to the bourgeoisie, was carefully avoided by the orators… They did not want to evoke opposition among the insurgents… They did not speak of the Constituent Assembly, but the assumption was that it could be arrived at gradually…” (Oreshin in Volia Rossii(April-May 1921), quoted in Shchetinov Kronstadt Tragedy)
    The mutiny leaders understood that the soldiers didn’t actually support their goals, so they needed to keep their true goals secret. They could be achieved “gradually” by sneaky secret maneuvering.

    During all these operations the reactionary organizers of the mutiny still carefully tried to use a cover of revolutionary and pro-worker language. They called each other ‘comrades’ and ‘the revolutionary committee’. However, they were adamant that Communists must be crushed. The vaguely anarchistic ideology, most likely influenced by Petrichenko, suited their purposes. All kinds of demagogical slogans were made about “freedom against bolshevik tyranny”, “soviets without communism” etc.

    However, even if we didn’t know that Petrichenko had wanted to be a White Guardist it was still completely obvious that the Kronstadt mutineers were not following anarchist theory in any typical sense. They were not establishing a stateless society but an anti-Communist military dictatorship. 300 Communists were rounded up and thrown into prisons, but hundreds of Communists also managed to run away.

    “The repression carried out by the PRC against those Communists who remained faithful to the communist revolution fully refutes the supposedly peaceful intentions of the rebels. Virtually all the minutes of the PRC sessions indicate that the struggle against the Communists still at large and against those still in prison, remained an unrelenting focus of their attention. At the last phase they even resorted to threats of field courts martial in spite of their declared repeal of the death penalty.” (Agranov, April 1921, quoted in Kronstadt Tragedy)
    An anarchist thug named Shustov, was the commandant of the prison. Imagine being an anarchist and advocating the abolition of all prisons, but at the same time you’re literally a prison warden, and you keep arresting hundreds of Communists! Shustov was chosen as the executioner who would shoot the leading local Communists. There was a plan to carry out a mass execution:

    “Early on the morning of March 18, Shustov set up a machine gun outside the cell, which contained 23 prisoners. He was prevented from slaughtering the Communists only by the advance of the Red Army across the ice.” (Kronstadt 1921: Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution)

    THE KRONSTADT DEMANDS
     

    The demands were calculated to be rejected by Lenin, as totally unacceptable, since they spelled out a complete rollback of revolutionary power.

    Lenin pointed out that the Kronstadt demands were quite vague and unclear. This was inevitable because they were not realistic policy proposals but a combination of utopianism, spontaneity and demagogic propaganda intended to gather enough support until the White Guard could take power and crush the Communists and all other opposition.

    The essential demands were: (Source: March 1 Resolution, quoted in Kronstadt Tragedy)

    1. New elections to the Soviets. In Kronstadt Communists were arrested and thus would not be allowed to run in elections. Instead the Soviets would be filled with mensheviks, white guards, anarchists and opponents of the October Revolution such as the SR kerensky types. Of course the reactionaries also hoped this could spread elsewhere and help destabilize the Soviet government. Needless to say this was not an anarchistic “stateless” order.

    2. Full freedom of action for anti-Communist parties including the left-SR terrorists who tried to assassinate Lenin in 1918. The terrorist’s bullet hit Lenin in the neck but he survived. These anti-Communist forces would receive full freedom of action, but of course in Kronstadt the Communists would be repressed and prevented from all activitism. Again, the reactionaries hoped this would spread to other areas too.

    3. There should be no government regulation of trade-unions. Of course, in practice this simply meant that unions should denounce the Soviet government, sever their ties with the Soviet government and not follow instructions from it. If this demand was implemented it would lead to chaos because the unions were the government’s main instrument of economic management and workplace democracy. The demand for unions which did not collaborate with the workers’ government was also an essentially anti-socialist demand. Unions working with a proletarian state are an important part of planned economy and socialist construction.

    4. Anti-Communist rebels like menshevik saboteurs, SR terrorists and those organizing revolts should be freed from jail.

    5. The mutineers demanded bigger rations. Of course everybody wanted higher wages and bigger rations, but this was just a cheap attempt to garner popularity. Also, the bolshevik government was being basically forced to pay somewhat higher salaries and better rations for skilled experts, bourgeois officials and workers in strategic branches. They did not want to do this, but they had to. Those experts and officials could not be replaced right away, and if they didn’t collaborate the government would have huge problems. Therefore the bolsheviks simply had to accommodate those people until Red Experts could be trained to replace them. It may seem unfair, but failing to recognize this necessity is just another example of utopian stupidity.

    6. The abolition of “war communism” or grain requisition. Again, this demand could gain some popularity. The peasants never particularly liked the system of war communism, though it was necessary for the war effort. The mutineers more broadly demanded that peasants should be able to use their land and property exactly how they see fit. They did not want collective agriculture or socialist planned economy, but instead who ever was lucky enough to have land should use it to the best of their ability and compete on the market. Landless would remain landless, and big peasants would get bigger.

    7. The mutineers demanded the purging of Communists from the military and factory management, and abolition of Communist political departments from the army. The army at this point still had very large numbers of professional officers and soldiers from the times of the Tsar and Kerensky. These officers were needed and used by the Communists because of their skills and professional military training. However, because those officers and soldiers were not communists or workers, and were generally untrustworthy the Bolsheviks invented ‘political commissars’ to supervise the officers.

    “former imperial officers were… [used] as “military specialists” ( voenspetsy ) under the watchful supervision of political commissars. In this way, badly needed command experience and technical knowledge were provided until a new corps of Red Commanders could be trained.” (Avrich, p. 66)
    The Kronstadt mutineers demanded that this system be abolished. Such a demand might appeal to some anarchists, but one can only imagine what the result would be. The non-Communist officers inside the Red Army would no longer follow socialist instructions and the Red Army would stop being a proletarian army at all. In fact, this quickly happened and the old Tsarist officers Kozlovsky, Vilken and others were soon walking around like they were masters of the situation. In fact, they were masters during the mutiny.

    According to the SRs the White Guard general Kozlovsky was ‘elected’ to the defence council of the Kronstadt mutiny, but it seems unlikely he could get elected. It's more likely he was simply chosen by the counter-revolutionaries for that post. The Menshevik newspaper Sotsialisticheski Vestnik published in Germany wrote that Kozlovsky and the other Whites tried to convince the Mensheviks and SRs to begin a general military assault against the Soviet government, but they were unable to convince them. The Mensheviks wrote: “The political leaders of the insurrection would not agree to take the offensive and the opportunity was let slip.“

    WHITE GUARDS AND CAPITALISTS IN KRONSTADT

    White emigres immediately began making plans to join the Kronstadt mutineers. A former associate of White General Dennikin, N. N. Chebyshev wrote about those times: “White officers roused themselves and started seeking ways to get to the fight in Kronstadt… The spark flew among the emigres. Everybody’s spirit was lifted by it” (quoted in Shchetinov, Introduction to Kronstadt Tragedy)

    Imperialist France and Britain encouraged capitalist states on the Russian border to assist the Kronstadt mutiny. British foreign minister Lord Curzon sent a secret message to Finland On March 11 stating: “His Majesty’s Government are not prepared themselves to intervene… Very confidential: There is no reason, however, why you should advise the Finnish Government to take a similar course or to prevent any private societies or individuals from helping [the mutiny]” (Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939).
     
    Food and money came from rich capitalists and White emigres to support the Kronstadt mutineers. Tsarist Baron P. Y. Vilken, the former commander of Sevastopol, used his spy contacts to deliver the money. His telegrams discuss sending the funds through Helsinki “which needs the money in the beginning of March” (Russkaia voennaia emigratsiaa 20-x—40-x godov).
     
    “The Russian banks, with the former Tsarist minister of finance Kokovtsev at their head, began to collect money for Kronstadt. Goutchkov, the head of the Russian imperialist party, got in contact with the English and American governments to obtain food supplies.” (Radek, The Kronstadt Uprising, 1921)
     
    “The Whiteguard emigres in Paris organized collection of money and provisions for the mutineers, and the American Red Cross sent food supplies to Kronstadt under its flag.“ (A History of the USSR, volume 3, p. 307)

    “the Russian Union of Commerce and Industry in Paris declared its intention to send food and other supplies to Kronstadt… an initial sum of two million Finnish marks had already been pledged to aid Kronstadt in “the sacred cause of liberating Russia” (Avrich, p. 116)
    “the Russian-Asiatic Bank contributed 225,000 francs. Additional funds were donated by other Russian banks, insurance companies, and financial concerns throughout Europe, and by the Russian Red Cross, which funneled all collections to Tseidler, its representative in Finland. By March 16 Kokovtsov was able to inform the Committee of Russian Banks in Paris that deposits for Kronstadt already exceeded 775,000 francs…” (Avrich, p. 117)
    The leaders of the Kronstadt mutiny published an article on March 6 where they claimed to oppose the Whites. However, this was more deception as Petrichenko and many of his associates were White Guardists. Two days later on March 8 they welcomed a secret delegation of allies, which included a courier from the SR Administrative Center, an agent of Finnish State Security, two representatives of the monarchist Petrograd Combat Organization and four White Guard officers, including Baron Vilken.
     
    The Whites were disguised as a “Red Cross” delegation sent from Finland. According to a detailed report by White Guardist Tseidler to his HQ, the delegation was immediately invited to a joint session of the PRC and the general staff officers. A plan was reached to use the Red Cross as a cover to organizing sending food, supplies and funds to Kronstadt. (Source: Tseidler, Red Cross Activity in Organizing Provisions Aid to Kronstadt, 25 April 1921).
     
    White emigre and former member of the Kronstadt leadership Kupolov wrote later that some of the Kronstadt leaders (probably mensheviks and anarchists) were not too happy about the monarchist and White Guard plots. However, Petrichenko was simply using them and planned to eventually get rid of them too. Kupolov writes:

    “The PRC, seeing that Kronstadt was filling up with agents of a monarchist organization, issued a declaration that it would not enter into negotiations with, nor accept any aid from, any non-socialist parties… But… Petrichenko and the General Staff secretly worked in connection with the monarchists and prepared the ground for an overthrow of the committee…” (Kupolov, “Kronstadt and the Russian Counterrevolutionaries in Finland: From the Notes of a Former Member of the PRC”)
    This is exactly why the Bolsheviks stated that while many of the Kronstadt mutineers were not White Guards or members of the capitalist class, their action still furthered the goals of the White Guard counter-revolution and of capitalist restoration. The White Guards were simply using these mensheviks and hapless opportunists.
     
    The PCR claimed:
     
    “In Kronstadt, total power is in the hands only of the revolutionary sailors… not of the White Guards headed by some General Kozlovsky, as the slanderous Moscow radio proclaims.” “We have only one general here… commissar of the Baltic Fleet Kuzmin. And he has been arrested.”” (Avrich, p. 99)
    In exile Petrichenko stated:

    “Cut off from the outside world, we could receive no aid from foreign sources even if we had wanted it. We served as agents of no external group: neither capitalists, Mensheviks, nor SR’s.” (Avrich, p. 113)
    These days we know that he was lying.

    Anarchist sailor Perepelkin, who was there in Kronstadt stated:

    “And here I saw the former commander or the Sevastopol, Baron Vilken with whom I had earlier sailed. And it is he who is now acknowledged by the PRC to be the representative of the delegation that is offering us aid. I was outraged by this. I… said, so that’s the situation we’re in, that’s who we’re forced to talk to. Petrichenko and the others jumped on me… There was no other way out: they said. I stopped arguing and said I would accept the proposal. And on the second day we received 400 poods of food and cigarettes. Those who agreed to mutual friendship with the White Guard baron yesterday shouted that they were for Soviet power.” (Komarov Report, 25 March 1921)


    “Any doubts about Vilken’s motives (his officer background was known to the rebel leaders) were brushed aside, and the Revolutionary Committee accepted his offer.” (Avrich, p. 122)
    This has of course continued to this very day. The pseudo-Anarchists in Rojava made the same exact arguments. They said, they needed to collaborate with American imperialists because American imperialists were giving them funding, training, military support and weaponry. And were they really expected to win all on their own without such support? But such opportunistic logic merely reduces any movement into helpless puppets of capitalists and imperialists.

    Wrangel’s right hand man, White General General Von Lampe literally laughed at the anarchists, mensheviks and SRs. He wrote in his diary that their propaganda was “full of justifications to dispel the thought, God forbid, that the sailors were under the influence of [White Monarchist] officers… The SRs don’t understand that in such a struggle, what are needed are severe and determined measures.” (Quoted in Kronstadt Tragedy)

    An editor for the mutineer newspaper Lamanov stated:

    “Up until the seizure of Kronstadt by Soviet troops I thought the movement had heen organized by the Left SRs. After I became convinced that the movement was not spontaneous, I no longer sympathized with it… Now I am firmly convinced, that, without a doubt, White Guards, both Russian and foreign, took part in the movement. The escape to Finland convinced me of this. Now I consider my participation in this movement to have heen an unforgivable stupid mistake.” (Minutes of Cheka Interrogation of Anatoly Lamanov)
    On March 15 the Kronstadt mutineers secretly sent two of their leaders to Finland, to ask for support. At this time Finland was ruled by the ferocious White Guard government of Mannerheim and co. which was launching invasions into Soviet-Karelia and supporting the Russian White Generals. When the mutiny was being defeated, on March 17 Petrichenko and the leaders ordered the crews of ships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol to blow up the ships and flee to Anti-Communist Finland. However, at this point the soldiers had already begun to think their leaders must be reactionaries and did not follow orders. They rose up, saved the ships and arrested all the officers and Provisional Committee members they could get their hands on.

    After the Kronstadt mutiny had failed and its leaders had fled to Finland, they agreed to join the White Army of Wrangel:

    “In May 1921 Petrichenko and several of his fellow refugees at the Fort Ino camp decided to volunteer their services to General Wrangel… in a new campaign to unseat the Bolsheviks and restore “the gains of the February 1917 Revolution.”” (Avrich, p. 127) 
    It is very significant that at this point they were no longer in Kronstadt, and thus didn’t need to pretend they supported the October Revolution. Hence they now began to only praise the February revolution of Kerensky!

    The Petrichenko gang and the Whites forces of Wrangel agreed to “the retention of their slogan “all power to the soviets but not the parties.”… the slogan was to be retained only as a “convenient political maneuver” until the Communists had been overthrown. Once victory was in hand, the slogan would be shelved and a temporary military dictatorship installed…” (Avrich, pp. 127-128)
    THE REACTIONARY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN

    The Kronstadt mutineers and their capitalist allies carried out a massive propaganda campaign to support the mutiny. They published lies claiming that supposedly the Bolsheviks were carrying out atrocities and supposedly everybody was rising up against them. In fact, nothing of the kind happened.

    The Kronstadt newspaper wrote on March 7: “Last Minute News From Petrograd” – ”Mass arrests and executions of workers and sailors continue.”

    On March 8 a Finnish capitalist newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet published the following lies, provided to them by Mensheviks: “Petrograd workers are striking… crowds bearing red banners demand a change of government – the overthrow of the Communists.”
     

    Red Army batteries on the edge of the frozen gulf.

    On March 11 the Kronstadt newspaper wrote: “The [bolshevik] Government In Panic.” “Our cry has been heard. Revolutionary sailors, Red Army men and workers in Petrograd are already coming to our assistance … The Bolshevik power feels the ground slipping from under its feet and has issued orders in Petrograd to open fire at any group of five or more people gathering in the streets …”

    “Moscow Rising Reported. Petrograd Fighting.” (London Times, March 2, 1921)

    “Petrograd et Moscou Seraient aux Maine des Insurgés qui ont Formé un Gouvernement Provisoire.” [“Petrograd and Moscow will be in the hands of the insurgents who have formed a provisional government”] (Matin, March 7)
    “Les Marins Revoltés Débarquent à Petrograd.” [“Rebelling sailors land in Petrograd”] (Matin, March 8)

    “Der Aufstand in Russland.” [“The uprising in Russia”] (Vossische Zeitung, March 10)

    “In Petrograd the remnants of the SRs, Mensheviks and various anarchists banded together… [and] collaborated with the newly formed monarchist Petrograd Combat Organization (PCO), as the PCO itself asserted (PCO Report to Helsinki Department of National Center, no earlier than 28 March 1921; reprinted in Kronstadt Tragedy). The [monarchist-capitalist] PCO even printed the Mensheviks’ leaflets! On March 14… [they] issued a leaflet in solidarity with Kronstadt that said not one word about socialism or soviets, but instead called for an uprising against “the bloody communist regime” in the name of “all power to the people” (“Appeal to All Citizens, Workers, Red Army Soldiers and Sailors,” 14 March 1921; reprinted in Kronstadt Tragedy).” (Kronstadt 1921: Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution)

    “Savinkov, aide to Kerensky… in his Warsaw newspaper Svoboda, printed on Polish [capitalist] government money, boasts (24th February) “I fight against the Bolsheviks, I fight alongside those who have already struggled with Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel and even Petlioura [Petrichenko], strange as that may seem.” (Radek, The Kronstadt Uprising, 1921)

    Savinkov wrote that the sailors of Kronstadt had captured the battleship Aurora and fired its cannons on Petrograd. This never actually happened. He wrote: “when the cruiser Aurora fired on Petrograd it was an expression of repentance for the sin committed on the 25th of October 1917 with the bombardment of the Winter Palace, the seat of Kerensky’s ministry.”
    “The Roul of Berlin, the organ of the right wing of the Cadet Party, wrote “The uprising of Kronstadt is scared, because it is an uprising against the idea of the October revolution”. The Society of Russian Industrialists and Financiers of Paris, when they heard the news from Kronstadt, decided to not worry about the extremist demands or the primitive cause of the mutiny [“les revendications extremistes cause primitive de la mutinerie”] because its essential point was that “the sailors were for the overthrow of the Communist government” [Dernières Nouvelles de Paris, 8th March].” (Radek, The Kronstadt Uprising, 1921)

    The reactionary mutineers claimed that mass uprisings had broken out in Petrograd and Moscow to support the Kronstadt mutiny, but this was a total lie. Even Menshevik leader Dan admitted in his 1922 book that “the Kronstadt mutiny was not supported by the Petersburg workers in any way” (quoted in ‘The Mensheviks in the Kronstadt Mutiny,” Krasnaill Letopis’, 1931, No.2). This is easy to understand, because the mutiny was not based on genuine political organizing or a genuine program. It was a plot organized by White Guard reactionaries and political adventurers, by spreading false rumors, lies, and exploiting the temporary difficulties and confusion in Kronstadt at the time in order to carry out a military coup, repress the communists and prevent the workers and peasants from understand what was actually going on.

    It was enterily unlikely that workers would support the mutiny in other towns where they could not be simply tricked by plotters, and where they had their working class and Communist organizations. The Kronstadt mutiny used anarchists, left-SR terrorists and Mensheviks as their henchmen but even they were to a large extent simply fooled into it, as White Guardists were secretly trying to orchestrate many aspects of the mutiny for their own purposes.

    Its also worth pointing out that the best revolutionary elements in the left-SRs, left-Mensheviks and even anarchists had already seen the error in their ways and joined the Bolshevik Party either right before the October Revolution or soon after it. Only the worse elements like terrorists, utopians and right-wing Mensheviks now opposed the Bolsheviks. The anarcho-syndicalist “Worker Opposition” also supported the Bolsheviks in crushing the Kronstadt mutiny.

    “SOVIETS WITHOUT COMMUNISM! DOWN WITH COMMUNISM!” –IDEOLOGY OF THE KRONSTADT MUTINY

    Milliukov, one of the capitalist leaders of Russia who was ousted by the October Revolution, wrote in his newspaper which he published in Paris, that reactionaries need to support the Kronstadt mutiny. He therefore advocated the slogan “Down with the Bolsheviks’ Long live the Soviets!” (Poslednie Novosti. 11 March 1921). The first step was to get rid of the Bolshevik Communists, after that it would be easy to restore the power of the capitalists.

    “The [capitalist]… Milyukov, supplied the Kronstadt counter-revolutionaries with the watchword “Soviets without Communists””(A History of the USSR, volume 3, p. 307)
    Stalin said: “Soviets without Communists — such was then the watchword of the chief of the Russian counter-revolution, Milyukov…” (J. Stalin, Articles and Speeches, Moscow, 1934, , Russ, ed., p. 217)
    “But the class enemy was not dozing. He tried to exploit the distressing economic situation and the discontent of the peasants for his own purposes. Kulak revolts, engineered by Whiteguards and SRs, broke out in Siberia, the Ukraine and the Tambov province… All kinds of counter-revolutionary elements — Mensheviks, SRs, Anarchists, Whiteguards, bourgeois nationalists—became active again. The enemy adopted new tactics of struggle against the Soviet power. He began to borrow a Soviet garb, and his slogan was no longer the old bankrupt “Down with the Soviets!” but a new slogan: “For the Soviets, but without Communists!”
     
    A glaring instance of the new tactics of the class enemy was the counter-revolutionary mutiny in Kronstadt… White guards, in complicity with SRs, Mensheviks and representatives of foreign states, assumed the lead of the mutiny. The mutineers at first used a “Soviet” signboard to camouflage their purpose of restoring the power and property of the capitalists and landlords. They raised the cry: “Soviets without Communists!” The counter-revolutionaries tried to exploit the discontent of the petty bourgeois masses in order to overthrow the power of the Soviets under a pseudo-Soviet slogan.
     
    Two circumstances facilitated the outbreak of the Kronstadt mutiny: the deterioration in the composition of the ships’ crews, and the weakness of the Bolshevik organization in Kronstadt. Nearly all the old [revolutionary, communist Kronstadt] sailors… [had been sent away to the] front, heroically fighting in the ranks of the Red Army. The naval replenishments [sent to Kronstadt to replace them] consisted of new men, who had not been schooled in the revolution. These were a perfectly raw peasant mass who gave expression to the peasantry’s discontent with the [grain requisition system and war communism]. As for the Bolshevik organization in Kronstadt, it had been greatly weakened by a series of mobilizations for the front.” (History of the CPSU(B) short course)

    Anarchist historian Avrich writes that the bulk of Kronstadt sailors had fought in anti-Communist forces before: “…we have it from Petrichenko himself that “three-quarters” of the Kronstadt garrison were natives of the Ukraine, some of whom had served with the anti-Bolshevik forces in the south before entering the Soviet navy.” (Avrich, p. 93)
    “Throughout the Civil War of 1918-1920, the sailors of Kronstadt… More than 40,000… replenished the ranks of the Red Army on every front.” (Avrich, p. 62)
    “There can be little doubt that during the Civil War years a large turnover had indeed taken place within the Baltic Fleet… old-timers had been replaced by conscripts from the rural districts… By 1921… more than three-quarters of the sailors were of peasant origin, a substantially higher proportion than in 1917, when industrial workers from the Petrograd area made up a sizable part of the fleet.” (Avrich, p. 89)
    The temporary weakness of the local Communist organization in Kronstadt, the mass influx of politically uneducated people from the countryside, who were even anti-communists, and the sending of politically educated, experienced proletarians away to the frontlines during the war – these factors allows the SR utopians, terrorists, anarchists, mensheviks and outright capitalists, monarchists and White Guards to gain a temporary foothold in Kronstadt.

    One of the reasons for the relative weakness of the Kronstadt Bolshevik party organization, was that Trotskyists and Zinovievites were in a strong position there:

    “The work of political education was at that time badly organized in the Baltic Fleet, and the Trotskyites… managed to get into leading positions…” (A History of the USSR, volume 3, p. 307)

    A power struggle began between the opportunist factions of Trotsky and Zinoviev. At this time Lenin had been waging ideological struggle against Trotsky’s bureaucratic position on the questions of war-communism and role of the trade-unions. Zinoviev took advantage of this to strengthen his own opportunist faction. Trotskyists themselves admit this:

    “Seizing on Trotsky’s wrong-headedness, Zinoviev mobilized his own base in the Petrograd-Kronstadt area against Trotsky… Zinoviev opened the floodgates of the Kronstadt party organization to backward recruits while encouraging a poisonous atmosphere in the inner-party dispute. The rot in the Kronstadt Communist Party organization was a critical factor in allowing the mutiny to proceed” (“Kronstadt 1921…”, Spartacist, Spring 2006 #59,) 
    There is no honor amount scoundrels! A few years after this the renegade cliques of Trotsky and Zinoviev would unite their forces against the Bolshevik party.

    “The authority of the party was further undermined by a struggle for political control in the fleet, which pitted Trotsky, the War Commissar, against Zinoviev… As a result of this dispute, the commissars and other party administrators lost much of their hold over the rank and file.” (Avrich, p. 70)
    ANTI-SEMITISM

    Another piece of information, indicating that the Kronstadt mutineers did not represent the best revolutionary elements, but actually some of the most political backward elements, was their rampant anti-semitism. Anti-semitism of course was quite common in Russia at that time, but it was not tolerated among the Communists. It was more common among peasants than workers.

    “feelings against the Jews ran high among the [Kronstadt] sailors, many of whom came from the Ukraine and the western borderlands, the classic regions of virulent anti-Semitism in Russia” (Avrich, p. 179)
    One of the Kronstadt newspaper editors Lamanov, said that people constantly wrote anti-semitic articles about Jews having “murdered Russia” but he usually succeeded in preventing them from being published. (Source: Further Minutes of Questioning of Anatoly Lamanov, 25 March 1921)

    “Vershinin… [member of the PRC] shouted an appeal for joint action against the Jewish and Communist oppressors…” (Avrich, p. 155)
    “Jews were a customary scapegoat in times of hardship and distress… In a particularly vicious passage [one sailor] attacks the Bolshevik regime as the “first Jewish Republic”… he labels the Jews a new “privileged class,”… calling the government ultimatum to Kronstadt “the ultimatum of the Jew Trotsky.” These sentiments, he asserts were widely shared by his fellow sailors… Witness the appeal of Vershinin, a member of the Revolutionary Committee… on March 8… “Enough of your ‘hoorahs,’ and join with us to beat the Jews. It’s their cursed domination that we workers and peasants have had to endure.” (Avrich, pp. 179-180)

    WHY DIDN’T THE BOLSHEVIKS NEGOTIATE A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT?

    Anarchists usually claim that the Bolsheviks saw the Kronstadt mutiny as some great threat to their power. That supposedly the “heroic struggle” of the mutineers could’ve inspired everyone to overthrow the Bolsheviks. However, this is completely false.

    Lenin wrote:

    “This Kronstadt affair in itself is a very petty incident. It no more threatens to break up the Soviet state than the Irish disorders are threatening to break up the British Empire.” (Lenin, On the Kronstadt revolt)
    The Menshevik leader Dan admitted in his 1922 book that “the Kronstadt mutiny was not supported by the Petersburg workers in any way” (quoted in ‘The Mensheviks in the Kronstadt Mutiny,” Krasnaill Letopis’, 1931, No.2)
     
    The Bolshevik government suppressed the mutiny because the Whites still tried to use it as a springboard for restarting the civil war with foreign imperialist backing.

    “What the authorities feared, in other words, was not so much the rebellion itself…” (Avrich, p. 134)
    “Of greater concern to the Bolsheviks was the determination of the [white] emigres to gain access to Kronstadt and use it as a base for a landing on the mainland. This would have meant nothing less than a resumption of the Civil War…” (Avrich, p. 134)
    The ice was quickly melting so time was of the essence. Kronstadt had an extremely strong fortress and heavy weaponry. It would be very difficult to attack, and if the ice melted the only way to get there would be on battleships. Kronstadt itself also had two battleships. Therefore if the Bolsheviks waited and didn’t attack and take the Fort right away, the resulting battle might be catastrophic in its casualties and material damages. The mutineers also felt that they had gone too far, and there was no turning back. They felt they couldn’t negotiate their way out of this and simply had to fight as long as possible.

    Zinoviev carried out pointless negotiations with the mutineers, which achieved nothing and only allowed the counter-revolutionaries to fortify their defenses.

    “Zinoviev negotiated with the traitors for seven whole days, thereby giving them time to fortify themselves.” (A History of the USSR, volume 3, p. 307)

    TROTSKY’S ROLE

    It is often stated that Trotsky led the suppression of the Kronstadt mutiny, and that under Trotsky’s leadership the soldiers committed atrocities. However, both of these claims are false. The military defeat of the mutiny was entirely led by Voroshilov. Trotsky himself wrote later:

    “The truth of the matter is that I personally did not participate in the least in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion” (Trotsky, More on the Suppression of Kronstadt)
    The soldiers, 300 of whom had been delegates to the 10th Bolshevik Part Congress, acted heroicially but Zinoviev who was in a power struggle with Trotsky at the time, spread all kinds of lies about the military operation, saying that it was organized by Trotsky and that all kinds of mistakes and wrong-doings supposedly occurred. But the bureaucratic mistakes of Trotsky, neglecting ideological education in the army and navy, and the further sabotage of Zinoviev contributed to the outbreak of the mutiny.

    DEFEATING THE MUTINY

    “The mutineers gained possession of a first-class fortress, the fleet, and a vast quantity of arms and ammunition… Against the Kronstadt mutineers the Party sent its finest sons—delegates to the Tenth Congress, headed by Comrade Voroshilov. The Red Army men advanced on Kronstadt across a thin sheet of ice; it broke in places and many were drowned. The almost impregnable forts of Kronstadt had to be taken by storm…” (History of the CPSU(B) short course)

    “Picked units of the Red Army were sent to crush the Kronstadt counter-revolution. The Tenth Congress of the Party, which was in session at that time, sent 300 of its delegates, headed by K. E. Voroshilov, to reinforce them. On March 16, the revolutionary soldiers… commenced an assault upon the main forts of Kronstadt, rushing forward in spite of continuous machine-gun fire and the bursting shells which broke the already fragile ice over which they were advancing. In the front ranks of the assault columns was Voroshilov, setting an example of Bolshevik courage and valour.” (A History of the USSR, volume 3, pp. 307-308)

    APPENDIX. LENIN ON KRONSTADT:

    “What does it mean? It was an attempt to seize political power from the Bolsheviks by a motley crowd or alliance of ill-assorted elements, apparently just to the right of the Bolsheviks, or perhaps even to their “left”—you can’t really tell, so amorphous is the combination of political groupings that has tried to take power in Kronstadt. You all know, undoubtedly, that at the same time whiteguard generals were very active over there. There is ample proof of this. A fortnight before the Kronstadt events., the Paris newspapers reported a mutiny at Kronstadt. It is quite clear that it is the work of SRs and whiteguard émigrés, and at the same time the movement was reduced to a petty-bourgeois counter-revolution and petty-bourgeois anarchism. That is something quite new. This circumstance, in the context of all the crises, must be given careful political consideration and must be very thoroughly analysed… There is evidence here of the activity of petty-bourgeois anarchist elements with their slogans of unrestricted trade and invariable hostility to the dictatorship of the proletariat… they wanted to correct the Bolsheviks in regard to restrictions in trade—and this looks like a small shift, which leaves the same slogans of “Soviet power” with ever so slight a change or correction. Yet, in actual fact the whiteguards only used the non-Party elements as a stepping stone to get in. This is politically inevitable. We saw the petty-bourgeois, anarchist elements in the Russian revolution, and we have been fighting them for decades. We have seen them in action since February 1917, during the great revolution, and their parties’ attempts to prove that their programme differed little from that of the Bolsheviks, but that only their methods in carrying it through were different. We know this not only from the experience of the October Revolution, but also of the outlying regions and various areas within the former Russian Empire where the Soviet power was temporarily replaced by other regimes. Let us recall the Democratic Committee in Samara. They all came in demanding equality, freedom, and a constituent assembly, and every time they proved to be nothing but a conduit for whiteguard rule. Because the Soviet power is being shaken by the economic situation, we must consider all this experience and draw the theoretical conclusions a Marxist cannot escape… We must take a hard look at this petty-bourgeois counter-revolution with its calls for freedom to trade. Unrestricted trade—even if it is not as bound up initially with the whiteguards as Kronstadt was—is still only the thin end of the wedge for the whiteguard element, a victory for capital and its complete restoration. We must, I repeat, have a keen sense of this political danger.” 
    (Lenin, Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.))

    “I emphasised the danger of Kronstadt because it lies precisely in the fact that the change demanded was apparently very slight: “The Bolsheviks must go . . . we will correct the regime a little.” That is what the Kronstadt rebels are demanding. But what actually happened was that Savinkov arrived in Revel, the Paris newspapers reported the events a fortnight before they actually occurred, and a whiteguard general appeared on the scene. That is what actually happened.” (Lenin, Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.))

    “The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from a thoroughly consistent communist line was perhaps most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and whiteguards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the SRs and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of the Soviet power. These facts fully prove that the whiteguards strive, and are able, to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as the most Left-wing Communists, solely for the purpose of weakening and destroying the bulwark of the proletarian revolution in Russia.“ (Lenin, Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.))

    “The vacillation of the petty-bourgeois element was the most characteristic feature of the Kronstadt events. There was very little that was clear, definite and fully shaped. We heard nebulous slogans about “freedom”, “freedom of trade”, “emancipation”, “Soviets without the Bolsheviks”, or new elections to the Soviets, or relief from “Party dictatorship”, and so on and so forth. Both the Mensheviks and the SRs declared the Kronstadt movement to be “their own”. [Menshevik] Victor Chernov sent a messenger to Kronstadt. On the latter’s proposal, the Menshevik Valk, one of the Kronstadt leaders, voted for the Constituent Assembly. In a flash, with lightning speed, you might say, the whiteguards mobilised all their forces “for Kronstadt“. Their military experts in Kronstadt, a number of experts, and not Kozlovsky alone, drew up a plan for a landing at Oranienbaum, which scared the vacillating mass of Mensheviks, SRs and non-party elements. More than fifty Russian whiteguard newspapers published abroad conducted a rabid campaign “for Kronstadt”. The big banks, all the forces of finance capital, collected funds to assist Kronstadt. That shrewd leader of the bourgeoisie and the landowners, the Cadet Milyukov, patiently explained to the simpleton [Menshevik] Chernov… and to the Mensheviks Dan and Rozhkov, who are in jail in Petrograd for their connection with the Kronstadt events… that there is no need to hurry with the Constituent Assembly, and that Soviet power can and must be supported—only without the Bolsheviks.

    Of course, it is easy to be cleverer than conceited simpletons like Chernov, the petty-bourgeois phrase-monger, or like Martov, the knight of philistine reformism doctored to pass for Marxism. Properly speaking, the point is not that Milyukov, as an individual, has more brains, but that, because of his class position, the party leader of the big bourgeoisie sees and understands the class essence and political interaction of things more clearly than the leaders of the petty bourgeoisie, the Chernovs and Martovs. For the bourgeoisie is really a class force which, under capitalism… and which also inevitably enjoys the support of the world bourgeoisie. But the petty bourgeoisie, i.e. … cannot… be anything else than the expression of class impotence; hence the vacillation, phrase-mongering and helplessness…

    (Lenin, The Tax in Kind)

    “You must have noticed that these extracts from the whiteguard newspapers published abroad appeared side by side with extracts from British and French newspapers. They are one chorus, one orchestra… They have admitted that if the slogan becomes “Soviet power without the Bolsheviks” they will all accept it. Milyukov explains this with particular clarity… He says he is prepared to accept the “Soviet power without the Bolsheviks” slogan. He cannot see from over there in Paris whether this is to be a slight shift to the right or to the left, towards the anarchists. From over there, he cannot see what is going on in Kronstadt, but asks the monarchists not to rush and spoil things by shouting about it. He declares that even if the shift is to be to the left, he is prepared to back the Soviet power against the Bolsheviks…” 
    (Lenin, The All-Russia Congress Of Transport Workers)

    SOURCES:

    Paul Avrich, Kronstadt: The 1921 Uprizing of Sailors in the Context of the Political Development of the New Soviet State

    [Avrich provides a lot of useful factual information, however he is pro-anarchist. He sees the Kronstadt mutiny as a tragedy which could never have succeeded but he sympathizes with it. Despite everything he tries to deny that the mutiny was orchestrated by the Whites. He admits that the Kronstadt mutineers collaborated with Whites, Monarchists, Capitalists, foreign powers, Mensheviks and SRs but basically claims “that doesn’t matter”. His book is from 1970 when the archives were still closed. For that reason he relies quite heavily on dishonest Menshevik and Anarchist sources which have nothing to support their claims, and often he takes Petrichenko’s words at face value. He also doesn’t understand Marxism and therefore distorts it. Perhaps it was impossible to publish in American academia unless one reached an anti-bolshevik conclusion? Still he deserves credit for his discoveries.]

    White Guard Memorandum On Organizing An Uprising In Kronstadt, reprinted in Avrich

    Primary source documents printed in “Kronshtadtskaia tragediia 1921 goda, dokumenty v dvukh knigakh” (“Kronstadt Tragedy”):
    -Kuzmin Report, 25 March 1921
    -Agranov Report, April 1921
    -“To All Posts of Kronstadt,” Kronstadt Izvestia
    -Ivan Oreshin, Volia Rossii (April-May 1921)
    -Kronstadt March 1 Resolution
    -Tseidler, Red Cross Activity in Organizing Provisions Aid to Kronstadt, 25 April 1921.
    -Kupolov, “Kronstadt and the Russian Counterrevolutionaries in Finland: From the Notes of a Former Member of the PRC”
    -Komarov Report, 25 March 1921
    -Von Lampe’s Diary entry
    -Minutes of Cheka Interrogation of Anatoly Lamanov

    Kronstadt 1921: Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution, Spartacist #6 Spring 2006
    [Very good article, which brought many primary source documents to my attention. The article propagates erroneous Trotskyist views but luckily they have practically nothing to do with the topic of Kronstadt and can thus be ignored.]

    Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939

    Russkaia voennaia emigratsiaa 20-x—40-x godov
    Radek, The Kronstadt Uprising, 1921
    History of the USSR volume 3

    Stalin, Articles and Speeches, Moscow, 1934, Russ. ed., p. 217, quoted in History of the USSR vol. 3

    Hufvudstadsbladet, March 8, quoted in “The Truth about Kronstadt” by Wright

    Sotsialisticheski Vestnik April 5, 1921, quoted in Wright
    “Petrograd et Moscou Seraient aux Maine des Insurgés qui ont Formé un Gouvernement Provisoire.”, Matin, March 7, quoted in Wright
    “Der Aufstand in Russland.”, Vossische Zeitung, March 10, quoted in Wright

    The Mensheviks in the Kronstadt Mutiny,” Krasnaill Letopis’, 1931, No.2

    Dernières Nouvelles de Paris, 8th March quoted in Radek

    Trotsky, More on the Suppression of Kronstadt

    History of the CPSU(B) short course

    Lenin, Once Again On The Trade Unions, The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Buhkarin

    Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation And Trotsky’s Mistakes
    Lenin, The All-Russia Congress Of Transport Workers
    Lenin, Third Congress Of The Communist International https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm

    Lenin, The Tax in Kind

    [premium_newsticker id="211406"]


    The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post



    All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
    YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
    VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

    black-horizontal

     

    black-horizontal




    Who are the New York Watchmen?

    Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.



    Alex Findijs
    WSWS.ORG


     

    The New York Watchmen are a recently formed right-wing militia based in Western New York. They have chapters in Buffalo and Rochester and have reported interest as far away as Westchester County.

    The New York section is part of a larger organization headquartered in North Carolina. It is unclear how large the national organization is, but the New York Watchmen are reporting around 200 members with the aim to reach 500 by election day. While they publicly claim to not be a militia, they have been organizing pistol permits and training, and have set up a GoFundMe page to fund the purchase of weapons, equipment and medical supplies.

    The Watchmen hold a pro-government and pro-police stance, describing their main missions as supporting the police and protecting property and “innocents.” While Charles Pellien, the founder and director of the group has claimed that they are not partisan, he and other leading members of the group have publicly expressed their support for President Trump on social media.

    The leaders of the Watchmen have organized appearances at Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests. They have also organized marches in support of the police that Republican government officials have attended. New York Assemblyman David DiPietro has attended their rallies, as well as Assistant Director of Health and Human Services Michael Caputo, who worked for the Reagan administration with Oliver North to pursue the interests of US imperialism in Central America.

    Caputo is a close friend of Charles Pellien. In a rant posted on Facebook, Caputo called on New Yorkers to stock up on ammunition and to contact his “friend Charlie” and join the Watchmen. He has also given him “words of wisdom from the Roger Stone tree of coaching” according to Pellien.

    They worked together in 2014 to organize 12th Man Thunder, a fan group of the Buffalo Bills football team that worked to block Jon Bon Jovi’s attempts to purchase the team. It was revealed in 2017 that Donald Trump was behind the organization as part of his own attempt to buy the Bills.

    The extent of the New York Watchmen’s connections to Caputo and Trump are not known. Pellien has stated that Caputo is not a member, but their close relationship and Caputo’s connections to the Trump administration raise questions about what influence the President or his close affiliates may have in such an organization.

    Rightwing militia members being arrested in New Mexico by police, on suspicion of homicide. This type of image may soon become a thing of the past as the police simply stops policing the militia subculture in the US.

    What is more clearly understood is the political orientation of the New York Watchmen and its leading members.

    Charles Pellien is a former police and corrections officer who formed the New York Watchmen in August of 2020 in response to the wave of protests against police violence that have swept across the country.

    By September 10, he claimed that they had organized “80 former Law Enforcement Officers, Corrections Officers, Special ops Veterans, Marines, Martial Arts Black Belts, Body Builders, Bikers, Patriots, and some very tough women all ready to Back the Blue if needed.”

    By “Back the Blue” he means intimidate protesters as an auxiliary wing of the police department. On October 9, after the Watchmen organized an appearance at a protest in Tonawanda, a suburb of Buffalo, he stated on his Facebook page that “this was only a dress rehearsal, a dry run, and a learning experience. And everyone better realize that we are not going to tolerate this [rioting] in our communities. We promise you that.”

    He proceeded to then direct a post at the Tonawanda police, who did not respond to the protests as aggressively as the Watchmen would prefer, stating that they must “Do your fucking job or we will do it for you!”

    It is clear that the Watchmen wanted a confrontation with the protesters. Pellien claimed that the Tonawanda police were “holding us back so Antifa can terrorize the town with no resistance.” In this sense, the group serves to mobilize fascists within the police to violate orders from elected officials in the Democratic Party-run city.

    The most aggressive expression of this comes from Pete Harding, a leading organizer for the Watchmen and several other right-wing and anti-mask groups.

    Harding has taken to posting regular Facebook livestreams in which he rants against the “Marxist radicals” that he believes have infiltrated the state and are sponsoring terrorism. He frequently refers to BLM and Antifa as “terrorist organizations” and has argued that “any business that donates to Black Lives Matter should be arrested and criminally charged because they are supporting a terrorist organization at this point.”


    In an unhinged rant, Harding accused the town of Tonawanda supervisor and police chief of being BLM and Antifa sympathizers who should be “locked up.” This came as a correction to his prior call for the town supervisor to be lynched. He quickly backtracked, saying it was not the right word, but the word “lynch” is not one that is used accidentally.

    Harding’s hostile attitude towards Democratic politicians is a common thread in his social media posts. On October 8, following the revelations of the plot to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Harding posted the following on Facebook:

    So let me see if I understand this right. If you murder thousands of the people in your state that you govern, if you destroy the lives of millions in your state with treasonous and unconstitutional decisions, if you bring your state down to its knees with you [sic] terrorism and terrorist decisions, if you invite violent terrorists into your state and cities who destroy those cities and you do nothing about it to arrest, charge or try those terrorists, law enforcement will do nothing to you.

    If you are an actual terrorist burning, destroying, occupying, assaulting, murdering property and people in Michigan, you are protected and you will not be charged arrested or prosecuted. If you commit acts of hate, terror and violence and hold cities hostage for weeks, nothing will happen to you.

    If you plot to unseat these terrorists and hold them accountable for their actions, you will be arrested and face up to life in prison.

    Harding’s support for the coup plot of 14 fascist militiamen to kidnap and murder a government official is telling and raises concerns about how many people with possible ties to the Trump administration share his views. He has accused Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters of being “psychopaths who are inciting riots,” further stating that “I don’t know why that isn’t treason, I don’t know why they aren’t being arrested.”

    Harding has directed his vitriol towards protesters as well. He has claimed to have informants in protest groups that allow the Watchmen to “show up to events even before they do.” In a Facebook video posted on October 16 he began reading out the names of protesters to his audience before informing them that they “better put that helmet on. .. because we know who you are.. . I’m not giving your last names guys, but we got ‘em.”

    The possibility of the New York Watchmen violently clashing with protesters is not out of the question. Neither is the possibility that their connections to the Trump administration go beyond cordial relations with Michael Caputo.

    The working class must be wary of groups like the New York Watchmen. As they grow and as the political crisis deepens, they may very well be welcomed by police to join in violent clashes with protesters and striking workers.

    Alex Findijs writes for wsws.org, a Marxian publication



    [premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

    ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

    Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

    [google-translator]

    black-horizontal

    Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
    Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.