Next year marks the 100th birthday of one of the 20th century’s most admired figures: Raoul Wallenberg, who saved thousands of Jews from Nazi persecution in World War II Hungary only to be swallowed up himself in 1945 by Stalin’s Gulag. Although Soviet leaders claimed in 1957 that Wallenberg had died suddenly in the Lubyanka prison on July 17, 1947, the full circumstances of his fate in Soviet captivity have never been established.
In a recent interview with The Associated Press, the current chief of the Federal Security Service’s registration and archives directorate, Lieutenant General Vasily Khristoforov, emphasized that he, too, considers Wallenberg a hero and that FSB officials are doing everything to uncover more documentation. He strongly denied withholding any information that would shed light on the truth.
Yet it is indisputable that Russian officials for decades chose to mislead not only the general public but also an official Swedish-Russian Working Group that investigated the case from 1991-2001. This group included official Swedish representatives as well as Raoul Wallenberg’s brother, Guy von Dardel. Russia did not merely obscure inconsequential details of the case but also failed to provide documentation that goes to the very heart of the Wallenberg inquiry.
Chief among these are copies of the Lubyanka prison register from July 23, 1947. They show that a “Prisoner No. 7” was questioned on that day, six days after Wallenberg’s alleged death. Russian officials have since acknowledged that “Prisoner No. 7” almost certainly was Wallenberg. Researchers have yet to receive a copy of the full page of this Lubyanka interrogation register, in uncensored form, showing the complete list of interrogated prisoners and other details.Read More »The FSB Should Open Up the Wallenberg File
Now that researchers have shown in two proven instances that Russia for many decades has deliberately withheld key information in the Raoul Wallenberg case, where does that leave the investigation of his fate? For as yet unexplained reasons, Russian officials… Read More »If Russian Authorities Lied About Raoul Wallenberg, Then What?
1955 “Den 14 januari: Sedan Svenska Dagbladet infört en notis om att Sovjet ämnade inbjuda den svenska riksdagens ledamöter till ett besök i Ryssland, har Dagens Nyheter i en ledare framhållit, att ett sån’t besök borde inte äga rum om… Read More »F. v. Dardel dagboksanteckningar angående R. Wallenberg 1955-1957
By Dr Robert Rozett; published on Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:42:52 When Raoul Wallenberg arrived in Hungary in July 1944 a joint diplomatic and local Jewish effort to aid the persecuted Jews in Hungary was already underway. From early in the war,… Read More »R. Wallenberg in Budapest 1944: An Atmosphere of Rescue
In 1982, Carl Ivan Danielsson, formerly Swedish Minister in Budapest during World War II , was named as one of the Righteous by Yad Vashem. Recognition of his work in assisting the Jews of Hungary came two years after that of his junior colleague Per Anger and considerably after that of Raoul Wallenberg (1963) and of Valdemar and Nina Langlet (1965). Although the decision process of the Yad Vashem committee remains secret, it is perhaps not too hard to discern a reason for these dates. Wallenberg and the Langlets had after all been much more actively involved in the rescue attempts and there were many Jews still alive due to their exertions who could testify to their work at “the sharp end”. By contrast, Danielsson had remained very much Head of Mission. Nonetheless Danielsson loyally supported the activities of his juniors Anger and Wallenberg and was noteworthy in personally signing many of the protective documents issued. Nor would it be true to say that his contribution lay simply in his signature. Danielsson was personally involved for example in the case of the Eismann sisters. Finally, instead of moving from Budapest at the suggestion of the Hungarian authorities, Danielsson chose to stay in the capital bis zum bittern Ende thus providing important moral support for Wallenberg and his activities.
Despite these merits, there are still some puzzling features about the curious silence which surrounds Danielsson. As Göran Rydeberg has pointed out, the apparent lack of interest taken in Danielsson by UD contrasts with that shown in some of his junior colleagues. Whereas Lars Berg and Anger would give their accounts of what had happened in Budapest, there is a striking lacuna regarding the retrospective view of the Minister himself. 
At one level, the treatment of Danielsson might, at a pinch, be seen as an expression of human sympathy for the state he was in when he returned from Budapest. The minister was not a young man and the strain of the last period in Budapest had broken him physically and morally. That is one theory. Then again ,Danielsson had his critics, none more so than Valdemar Langlet who drew the attention of his friend Östen Undén, the Swedish postwar Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the numerous blunders which caused “the legation to be shown up in a bad light in the eyes of the prospective and later actual victor”. About all these blunders, Langlet had been silent in his memoir Verk och Dagar I Budapest. “A whole book” Langlet confided in Undén, “could in actual fact have been written about this”.
The fact that he had Undén’s ear may have meant that a highly negative picture of Danielsson was etched in Undén’s mind, thus ensuring perhaps that a blind eye was turned to the former Minister in Budapest for fear of dredging up other unpalatable facts, best forgotten. But the plain fact was that Danielsson had caused UD some embarrassment and discomfort, before his stint in Budapest.Read More »What happened in Cairo?