Nobody knows that Zionism appeared as a Marxist movement, a socialist one Zionism is actually a revolution

The fact that the Bolshevik criminals gained a stable base in Russia meant bad news for the rest of the world, since it worsened the quality of life everywhere. The Communists' goal was to use mass terror to scare all their subjects into total submission. How the mass terror began is more closely described in the next chapter.

THROUGH THE LABYRINTH OF MURDER

It was the morning of the 30th of August 1918. A cyclist turned up in Petrograd's Palace Square at around nine o'clock. He stopped at house number 6, the headquarters of the Commune Commissariat for Internal Affairs and the Extra-Ordinary Commission, the Cheka. This terror organisation had been founded on December 7th, 1917, but officially it did not exist. Only on the 18th December 1927 did Pravda publish the decree officially establishing the Cheka. The cyclist was a young man wearing a leather jacket and an officer's cap. He left his bicycle by the door and entered.

It was reception day at the Commissariat for Internal Affairs. The visitors were waiting in the hall and did not notice the young man who sat down near the outer door.

Moisei Uritsky (actually Boretsky) arrived in his car at around ten o'clock. He was the chairman of the Petrograd Cheka. Uritsky became infamous as the "Butcher of Petrograd". He threatened to kill all Russians who spoke their native language well. He claimed there was no greater pleasure than watching monarchists die, according to Igor Bunich ("The Party's Gold", St. Petersburg, 1992) and Oleg Platonov ("The History of the Russian People in the Twentieth Century", Moscow, 1997, p. 613). Uritsky had executed 5000 officers with his own hands. Now he quickly walked towards the lift door. Suddenly several shots were heard. It was the young man in the leather jacket who had approached Uritsky and shot him in his head and body. Uritsky collapsed. The murderer ran out into the street, jumped on his bicycle and began pedalling as fast as he could.

When they began to chase him by car, he threw away his bicycle and ran into the British Representation. He left the representation after having donned a longcoat. When he saw Red Guards, he opened fire but was quickly overpowered.

This was the official description of Moisei Uritsky's murder. The suspect was a 22-year-old Jewish student of technology, Leonid Kanne-

gisser. This cock-and-bull story was published in 1975 in the book "The Elimination of the Anti-Soviet Subversive Movement" by D. Golinkov, who used to investigate especially important cases at the office of the Public Prosecutor of the Soviet Union.

The doctor of history, P. Sofinov, described the same event in a very different manner in 1960, in his book about the history of the Cheka. On the morning of the 30th of August, the Social Revolutionary Kennigisser, who was the freemason Savinkov's agent as well as a spy for the British and the French, murdered the chief of the Cheka in Petrograd, Moisei Uritsky, in his office. Felix Dzerzhinsky (actually Rufin) gave orders to search the British Embassy on the 31st of August.

The Social Revolutionary Kennigisser had become the student Kanne- gisser in the meantime, and now he had murdered Uritsky in the hallway of the Cheka instead of in Uritsky's office. Sofinov's version probably seemed too contrived to be credible.

Grigori Nilov's (Alexander Kravtsov's) book "The Grammar of Leni- nism" was published in London in 1990. In this book the author gave neither theory credibility. Instead he claimed that the Bolshevik party and the central organisation of the Cheka with Lenin and Dzerzhinsky at the head were behind Uritsky's murder.

The book "The Parly's Gold" by the historian Igor Bunich was published in St. Petersburg in 1992. Igor Bunich reveals that the murder of Uritsky was organised by Dzerzhinsky's protege Gleb Boky who later became Dzerzhinsky's successor. The Jewish Chekist, Boky, used to feed the flesh of the executed to the animals in the zoo. Igor Bunich demonstrated that Lenin personally gave the order to murder Uritsky and also to stage an attempt on his own life to give himself a reason to immediately begin the mass terror against the Russian population. The murder was also Uritsky's punishment for stealing some of the confiscated riches from behind Lenin's back, together with V. Volodarsky (actually Moisei Goldstein) and the freemason Andronnikov (who was chief of the Cheka in Kronstadt). Everything was sold via certain Scandinavian banks

- but more about that later.

The murder of Sergei Kirov (actually Kostrikov) on December 1, 1934 was in many ways similar to Uritsky's murder. Kirov was officially murdered by Leonid Nikolaiev. Both of those high party functionaries had been murdered professionally and without obstacles. Both were warned in

251
advance. Both murderers could freely gain entrance to the respective buildings.

It is clear today that Stalin was behind the murder of Kirov, despite the fact that there are no documents about this. There is no lack of evidence and logical arguments. Kirov's bodyguard was prevented from accom- panying him, so that the real murderer could shoot the Leningrad Party Secretary at exactly 4:30 in the afternoon. That event provided a good reason for Stalin to begin his campaign of mass terror. At least 7 million people were killed during that campaign and 18 million were imprisoned. 97 per cent of the participants at the 1934 Party Congress were liquidated.

Kravtsov presented some suspect circumstances in connection with the murder of Uritsky, who was also a member of the Central Committee. No analysis was made of Kannegisser's revolver and ammunition. The Cheka did not seem to want the truth to come out. Kannegisser was never taken to trial, but was illegally killed. If Kannegisser had really been a Social Revolutionary, then a trial would have been a propaganda triumph for the regime. It would have been publicly announced who planned the murder. But not even the motive for Uritsky's murder was ever revealed.

In contrast, it is known now that Lenin became furious when he received reports from Alexander Parvus in Berlin in which it was revealed that someone in Petrograd had stolen from Lenin. Just before Dzerzhinsky had travelled to Switzerland to investigate the situation. It turned out that not all the cargoes had reached Berlin; not all the money had ended up in the Swiss bank accounts of Lenin and his approved comrades. Some cargoes of "nationalised" goods had been sent to Sweden, including many valuable icons (some of these are still on display in the National Museum in Stockholm), the money had gone into the hands of other people than Trotsky and Lenin.

Stalin transferred Lenin's foreign money deposits to Moscow in the 1930s. In 1998, an account was found in Switzerland, which belonged to Vladimir Ulyanov. No one had touched it since 1945. There was slightly less than one hundred Swiss francs left (50 USD).

The guilty parties were soon found, in June 1918. The main suspects were Uritsky, Volodarsky and Andronnikov (the chief of the Cheka in Kronstadt). They had stolen whole cargoes and sold everything through different Scandinavian banks. 78 million roubles in gold had vanished in this way. (Igor Bunich, "The Party's Gold", St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 41.)
The thieves (others were also involved) had stolen goods worth a total of 2.5 billion roubles in gold. At various auctions in Stockholm in the autumn of 1995, Russia began buying back valuable antique furniture, which had been illicitly transported to Sweden.

This came as an unpleasant surprise for Parvus, since Uritsky and Volo- darsky had been his favourite disciples. Parvus had founded a Yiddish newspaper, Arbaiter Stimme (Worker's Voice) for Uritsky in Copenhagen, on which Grigori Chudnovsky and Nikolai Gordon (Leiba Alie Hael Gordon) had also worked. The latter was a Latvian Jew and a close collaborator with Grigori Zinoviev (Ovsei Radomyslsky).

In Moscow, Lenin promised to solve the problem. And indeed, Volo- darsky was murdered in the same month. Uritsky led the investigation and learned the truth, upon which he also was murdered.

Kannegisser declared that he had acted alone. The Social Revolutio- naries denied all knowledge of Kannegisser. He had never been a member of their party.

Even the circumstance that Kannegisser was wearing an officer's cap was peculiar when others had hidden their caps to avoid being executed. It seems he wanted to draw attention to himself. The fact that he ran into the British Embassy to change was also surprising. He only took off his leather jacket and put on a longcoat. Why, then, did he run away from the site of the murder at all?

It was also very odd that he managed to approach Uritsky unhindered and that he was able to escape with the same ease after shooting him. It was impossible to enter without a special permit, since there were armed guards at the door. Unknown persons could not even speak to Uritsky on the telephone. Mikhail Aldanov has confirmed this. Why did no one react? They saw and heard everything!

Mikhail Aldanov demonstrated in his study that Kannegisser could not shoot. Aldanov knew both him and his family well. How then, could Kannegisser hit Uritsky in his head like a sharpshooter when the latter was walking quickly towards the lift? It appears that Kannegisser was used as a shadow-man, just as Leonid Nikolaiev was later used in Kirov's murder.

Moreover, Lenin, on the afternoon of the 30th of August 1918, sent Dzerzhinsky a short letter, where two people who had shot Uritsky were named. Why has nothing been mentioned about these two later? Who were they?

253

The fact that Kannegisser admitted to the crime is irrelevant, since the Chekist torturers could make anyone admit to anything. In this case, the opportunity was taken to accuse the right wing of the Social Revo- lutionaries of the murder.

It has now been confirmed that the central organisation of the Cheka, headed by the freemason Gleb Boky, was behind Uritsky's murder. (Igor Bunich, "The Party's Gold", St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 47.)

So the motive was to exact revenge on Uritsky for his thefts. The main purpose was to be given a reason to begin the mass terror. The murder of Kirov had the same motive. But was there not also another reason to dispose of Uritsky now that he had solved the mystery of another murder?

V. Volodarsky (Moisei Goldstein) had been murdered under puzzling circumstances on June 20, 1918. He was the people's commissary for press, propaganda and agitation. His murderer was at once stamped as a right wing Social Revolutionary, despite the fact that he was never caught.

The Bolshevik leadership in Moscow wanted to begin the massacre immediately. Moisei Uritsky, who investigated the murder of Volodarsky, refused to agree to this. He suspected the hand of the central leadership behind this murder. That was why it was impossible to use this murder as a pretext. Lenin was beside himself with rage. This is clear from Lenin's angry telegrams, sent on the 26th of June 1918 to Grigori Zinoviev, the chairman of the Petrograd Party Committee. Lenin wrote, among other things: "We in the Central Committee heard today that Piter's workers want to respond to Volodarsky's murder with terror but you (not you personally, but Piter's civil servants) held back. I protest strongly!"

The only one who could ignore the demands to begin the terror was Petrograd's 45-year-old chief Chekist, Moisei Uritsky. According to Alexander Kravtsov, this telegram clearly shows that the murder of Volo- darsky was planned and organised by the Cheka under orders from Lenin. The historian Igor Bunich confirmed this.

Volodarsky and Uritsky belonged to the 275 Menshevik conspirators who, together with Trotsky, had boarded the Kristianiafjord in New York harbour on March 27, 1917 to travel to Petrograd, where they all joined with the Bolshevik leader, Lenin. Volodarsky had lived in the United States since 1913.

Several strange circumstances put Uritsky on the track of Volodarsky's murderers. The car in which Volodarsky had been travelling had suddenly

stopped in a street in Petrograd on the 20th of June 1918. Out of petrol, it was claimed. Volodarsky stepped out of the car together with three com- rades to walk to the District Soviet, which was nearby. Suddenly a terrorist appeared and shot him three times at close range before escaping.

Volodarsky died immediately: one of the bullets hit his heart. The terrorist threw a bomb to halt his pursuers. There is no information as to whether or not the bomb exploded.

Uritsky was most surprised by the fact that Lenin, on the following day, accused the right wing of the Social Revolutionaries. And abracadabra! During the terror of 1922, a Social Revolutionary, Sergeiev, admitted to Volodarsky's murder.

Uritsky knew it was no accident that the car had stopped at the exact spot where the terrorist was waiting. You don't carry bombs around with you just for self-protection! How could the murderer have known that the petrol would run out in this very street? Uritsky could draw only one logical conclusion - the murder had been organised by the Moscow Cheka and could only have been approved by Lenin. Lenin and Dzerzhinsky of course knew that Uritsky had worked out the truth about the murder, since he sabotaged the demands for mass terror.

V. Volodarsky and Moisei Uritsky.

No other functionary was able to counter such a demand. That was another reason why he was regarded as an especially suitable victim, who was later presented as an innocent martyr. That happened with Volodarsky and also with Kirov, Frunze and many others. It was the best way to get rid of undesirable comrades.

Lenin had another devilish plan in reserve. He had chosen the same day - the 30th of August 1918. Through this plan Lenin wanted to be certain to legalise the mass terror, which had already begun in the Penza district, and to spread it to other areas as well.

Thus on the 30th of August, at about ten in the evening, Lenin spoke at an agitation rally at Michelson's factory in Moscow. After the meeting, the Communist leader went out into the yard where he began to converse with the workers by his car. Suddenly three pistol shots were heard, upon which the workers jumped back and Lenin fell to the ground. Two bullets had wounded him. The third slightly wounded the matron M. Popova from the Petropavlovsk hospital. Lenin's Jewish chauffeur, Stepan Gil, who was sitting in the car, claimed that a woman with a handgun was standing just three paces away from Lenin. Gil rushed out of the car, but the woman threw the pistol at his feet and vanished into the crowd. The wounded Lenin was helped into the car and was driven to the hospital. S. Batulin, vice commissar of the fifth infantry division in Moscow, was also present at the meeting. He immediately chased after the woman.

In Serpukhovka, he noticed a strange woman who was carrying a document briefcase and an umbrella. She looked like she was seeking to avoid the pursuers. Batulin asked why she was standing under the tree. The woman answered: "Why do you want to know?" Batulin searched her pockets, took her briefcase and umbrella and ordered her to follow him.

On the way, Batulin asked why she had tried to shoot Lenin. The woman again answered: "Why do you want to know?" Then Batulin asked her directly: "Was it you who tried to shoot Lenin?" She replied in the affirmative.

The chairman of the factory committee, Ivanov, recognised the woman. He had seen her before Lenin's arrival. She was then handed over to the organ of preliminary investigatory.

The vice-chairman of the Cheka, Yakov Peters, who was also the chairman of the Revolutionary Tribunal, and D. Kursky, the people's commissary for judicial affairs, the Estonian Viktor Kingissepp and other
Chekists were among the investigators of the attempt (Stalin had the Latvian Jew Yakov Peters executed in 1942).

The 28-year-old Fanny Kaplan (actually Feiga Roydman) supposedly explained that her attempt on Lenin's life was a personal political action, but the doctor of history P. Sofinov has described the chain of events quite differently in his book about the history of the Cheka (published in 1960). I shall give a brief outline of his version.

After the meeting at Michelson's factory, Lenin left the shell workshop together with the workers and walked towards the car. Suddenly a shot was fired, then another and also a third. Lenin was wounded by two bullets and collapsed just a few paces away from the car. The bullets were poisoned. The female terrorist did not manage to escape, since some children who had been standing nearby pointed out Fanny Kaplan to some workers who apprehended her and took her to the Cheka.

Fanny Kaplan was a Social Revolutionary who organised terrorist actions against the Bolsheviks and the Soviet leadership under orders from the British-French imperialists. Despite the fact that Lenin was badly wounded, his iron physique managed to survive both the wounds and the poison. That was the way in which the "historian" P. Sofinov described the attempt in 1960.

In 1924, Dr Weisbrod confirmed in Yaroslavsky's book that Lenin recovered quickly. Did the poison have no effect at all then? It was officially explained that the poison of the Social Revolutionaries was of inferior quality and had no effect. Dr Weisbrod never mentioned any poison. This story was invented later.

In 1938 the Stalinist propaganda asserted that it was Nikolai Bukharin (Dolgolevsky), member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, also called the "party's darling", who had organised the attempt on Lenin together with the Social Revolutionaries. Kaplan had been his minion. He was also accused of organising the murder of Kirov and was supposed to have made plans to murder Joseph Stalin too. Bukharin was also accused of the murders of Menzhinsky, Kuibyshev and Gorky. Finally, he was supposed to have tried to poison Yezhov, chief of the secret police.

There is actually another version, from the 30th of August 1918. That was an open message written by Yakov Sverdlov (actually Yankel-Aaron Movshevich Solomon). He maintained that two people were arrested for this attempt. Sverdlov claimed that they were definitely right wing Social

Revolutionaries acting for the British and the French. This document was even displayed in the Lenin Museum. It was said that Protopopov, one of the most violent enemies of the Soviet Union, had worked together with Kaplan and also helped her escape. Protopopov had been executed immediately, it was claimed. This version was never again mentioned after the 3rd of December 1918. Neither did the history professor Sofinov appear to know anything about it. But Lenin's first question after he had been hit was: "Did you catch him?" So it was a man who fired the shots!

Professor A. Litvinov later managed to prove that it was the Chekist Protopopov who fired the shots at Lenin. The agent was arrested and killed on the same, or the following, day. Kaplan did not know what had happened and stubbornly kept to her version. (Dmitry Volkogonov, "Lenin", Moscow, 1994,1, p. 397.)

A longcoat and blazer, which the Bolshevik leader had been wearing at the time of the attempt, were also exhibited in the Lenin Museum in Moscow. Four holes had been marked - two red ones, to show which bullets had hit the body, and two white ones where the bullets had passed through without damaging Lenin. All four shots had been fired at his back. The official version claims that only three shots were fired. The bullet, which wounded Popova appears to have been one of those which passed through Lenin's clothes.

Yakov (Yankel) Yurovsky, who had earlier organised the murder of the Tsar and his family, was only allowed to search the site of the attempt some three days later. He found four (!) cartridges. But only three shots had been fired! (Ibid, p. 398.)

There were also some other inexplicable factors involved. If the party leadership had not planned Uritsky's murder, Lenin would surely have cancelled his meeting on the same evening or at least taken certain precautions. This is the opinion of Grigori Nilov (Alexander Kravtsov) in his book "The Grammar of Leninism". He pointed out the following ambiguities in the official description.

Was Fanny Kaplan really holding a briefcase and an umbrella in her hands while firing the shots? Did she really remain under the tree and wait for her pursuers to see the briefcase and umbrella? Why did she only throw away the gun and not the briefcase and umbrella? Alexander Kravtsov was of the opinion that such political terrorists usually do not flee, but remain by their victims. It is especially puzzling that, in the

official version, the workers allowed her to escape. And where were the bodyguards? The chauffeur Gil wrote in his memoirs that Lenin did not have a single bodyguard with him. Neither did the party committee of the factory receive him!

It was most peculiar that Lenin did not have any bodyguards with him on this particular occasion. The Bolsheviks took particular care to protect themselves against all possible enemies just after the seizure of power. In the beginning they used only Chinese and German bodyguards.

When the Soviet government moved from Petrograd to Moscow on 10- 12 March 1918, extraordinary precautionary measures were taken and masquerade tricks were used to confuse the "enemies of the people". At this point, the Bolsheviks were close to being overthrown. The train which was to bring the Bolshevik leaders and their "government" (Sovnarkom) from Petrograd to Moscow was stopped by around 600 Russian sailors and soldiers who attacked with the war-cry: "Destroy the Jewish government that has sold Russia to the Germans!" An even stronger force of bodyguards who had accompanied the train unfortunately fought the crowd back. (Platonov, "The History of the Russian People in the 20th Century", part I, Moscow, 1997, p. 536.)

It appears from the information in Ryabchikov's book "Behind the Horizon Lies a Horizon" that Lenin was guarded by sailors armed with machine guns and armoured vehicles in March 1918.

Lenin usually had bodyguards with him at all times, according to the Chekist Alexander Orlov. There was only one officer at Michelson's factory on the 30th of August 1918 - Batulin. Lenin and Krupskaya were photographed together with bodyguards on August 28th, just two days before the attempt. Why did Lenin not wish to have any bodyguards with him on August 30th?

There was never any explanation why no investigation was made of the pistol, which was found at the feet of the chauffeur, Gil. Did the assassin really use the weapon, which was found? Another revolver was found later. During the investigation, no one was interested in how Kaplan held the revolver, briefcase and umbrella. This is why there is reason to believe that another weapon was used in the "attempt on Lenin's life".

Now the most puzzling circumstance of all: Fanny Kaplan was actually half-blind. It was dark at around eleven o'clock on the evening of August 30th when the attack took place. She could hardly see anything at all in

semi-darkness. Her acquaintances explained that she usually looked frightened and confused on such occasions. Her eyesight had been damaged in a bomb explosion. In Tsarist times, she was sentenced to death as a Social Revolutionary terrorist, but since she was under-age at the time, the sentence was changed on the 8th of January 1907 to penal servitude for life. She was periodically completely blind and suffered from headaches. She was released in connection with the Bolsheviks' take-over. So it was quite impossible for this half-blind woman to have shot Lenin in semi-darkness. It must be presumed that the other person, whom Yakov Sverdlov mentioned, had a steady hand and good eyesight in order not to kill Lenin but just to wound him slightly. Only the Chekist Protopopov could have done this.

It would have been simple to murder Lenin in the factory yard if this had been the "assassin's" intention. There were no bodyguards there. For this reason, Russia's Ministry of Security decided to begin an investigation into the affair on the 19th of June 1992. The case was later taken over by the Russian Office of the Public Prosecutor. That was a sensible decision, since they found information suggesting that Fanny Kaplan had not been at the Michelson factory at all that particular evening (Istochnik, No. 2, 1993). The new investigation could not certify that either of the two bullets was fired from the Browning Kaplan was supposed to have used. It is known that a factory worker turned up three days later with a Browning pistol. It was never clarified then whether this was the same weapon or not.