A Review of “Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism” — PART 3

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

The psychological impact of the Hitler Stalin pact

Radical Jewish militants were deeply traumatized by the pact between Hitler and Stalin just prior to the start of the World War II. The dilemma facing Jewish communists, the contradiction between their “visceral anti-fascism” and what was now presented to them as an imperative of realpolitik for the USSR, repeatedly cropped up in testimony of those interviewed for Revolutionary Yiddishland. One of these, Louis Gronowski, recalled:

I remember my disarray, the inner conflict. This pact was repugnant to me, it went against my sentiments, against everything I had maintained until then in my statements and writings. For all those years, we had presented Hitlerite Germany as the enemy of humanity and progress, and above all, the enemy of the Jewish people and the Soviet Union. And now the Soviet Union signed a pact with its sworn enemy, permitting the invasion of Poland and even taking part in its partition. It was the collapse of the whole argument forged over these long years. But I was a responsible Communist cadre, and my duty was to overcome my disgust.[i]        

For many radical Jews, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 provided a sense of “relief that was paradoxical but none the less immense. They had finally found their political compass again, recovered their footing; in short, they would be able to launch all their forces into the struggle against the Nazis without fear of sinning against the ‘line.’”[ii]

In late 1941, with the outcome of the battle for Moscow uncertain, Stalin, contemplating the possibility of defeat, acted decisively to ensure the field was not left open for the former Trotskyist faction. He ordered the execution of two historical leaders of the Bund, Victor Adler and Henryk Ehrlich, just after Soviet officials had offered them the presidency of the World Jewish Congress. For Stalin, “all the militants of the Bund and other Polish Jewish socialist parties who were refugees in the USSR were considered a priori political adversaries — particularly when they refused to adopt Soviet nationality — and treated accordingly.”[iii] 

These executions caused international uproar, with Jews around the world protesting, and the furor not dying down until the establishment of a Jewish organization, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC), dedicated to winning the favor of American Jews. In Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald notes how American Jewish leaders, such as Nahum Goldmann of the World Jewish Congress and Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress “helped quell the uproar over the incident and shore up positive views of the Soviet Union among American Jews.”[iv]

Stalin controlled the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee at a distance. The JAC was headed by leaders of the Soviet Jewish intelligentsia like Solomon Mikhoels and Ilya Ehrenburg whose principal task was to “develop support for the USSR at war among Jewish communities abroad, and especially in America.”[v] Interviewee Isaac Safrin recalled hearing “on the radio that a Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee had just been set up. Ilya Ehrenburg made a great speech, very emotional, and we began to cry. The woman [he was staying with] didn’t understand what had affected us, and we had to explain to her that it was because he was Jewish.”[vi] For the six years of its existence 1942–8, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee “stood at the center of an intense reactivation of Jewish life,” and many of the interviewees were “struck by the revival of cultural activities, even of national assertion, on the part of the Jewish community, which was encouraged by the regime in the course of the war.”[vii]

The wartime revival of Jewish identity in the USSR culminated in a revival of Zionist hopes for a reversal of Stalin’s opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Alarmed by the “triumphant welcome Moscow’s Jews extended to the first Israeli ambassador, Golda Meir, Stalin dissolved the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and a few months later, prominent Jewish writers, artists and scientists were arrested, and Jewish newspapers, libraries and theatres were closed.

Golda Meir mobbed by ecstatic Jews in Moscow in 1948

Meir’s rapturous reception in Moscow reinforced that every Jew in the USSR was potentially an Israeli citizen, and that the Soviet authorities were right to distrust a community that, apart from its official nationality, bore another homeland in its heart. The authors note how:

Even in the Soviet dictionary, the word “cosmopolitan” was given a new meaning; instead of “an individual who considers the whole world as his homeland” (the 1931 definition), this was now “an individual who is deprived of patriotic sentiment, detached from the interests of his homeland, a stranger to his own people with a disdainful attitude towards its culture” (the 1949 definition). The official press poured scorn on “vagabonds without passports,” people “without family or roots,” always in anti-Semitic tones.[viii]         

Stalin’s campaign against “Jewish cosmopolitans” famously culminated with the “Jewish doctors’ plot” of 1953 where leading Soviet doctors, for the most part Jews, were accused of plotting to kill Stalin. Arrested and threatened with trial, they owed their salvation to Stalin’s death (under highly suspicious circumstances) the same year. Having surveyed these events, Brossat and Klingberg view the “failure of Soviet policy towards the Jews” under Stalin as stemming from “the application of a reactionary policy that broke fundamentally with the program of the October Revolution.”[ix]

Jewish radicals who remained in Europe after WWII 

For the Jewish radicals who remained in Europe after 1945, the predominant feeling was, with the defeat of fascism, history was now “on the march” and the triumph of the Red Army meant that “the great socialist dream seemed finally within reach.” The order of the day was “the building of a new society in those countries of Eastern and Central Europe liberated from fascism by the Red Army.” Brossat and Klingberg note how “these militants rapidly found themselves drawn into the apparatus of the new states being constructed.”[x]

Jewish communist cadres were “systematically entrusted with even the most senior positions in the army, the police, the diplomatic corps, economic management etc.” Jews were deliberately placed in key positions because Soviet authorities feared a resurgence of nationalism in the countries they now occupied. Jews could be trusted to carry out their plans and were seen as least likely to form an alliance with the local populace against the hegemony of the Soviets, as Tito had done in Yugoslavia. In the newly conquered nations of Eastern and Central Europe, the Soviets had few reliable supporters, and “because they were familiar with local conditions and fanatically antifascist, Jews were often chosen for the security police.”[xi] According to Adam Paszt, the Soviet authorities “knew that the population was anti-Semitic, so they tried to conceal the fact that there were Jews in leading positions.” Jews were thus “encouraged to change their names.”[xii] The authors note how:

Few of our informants could resist the siren call. Though well established in France, where he lived with his family, Isaac Kotlarz agreed nonetheless to return to Poland; he was a disciplined militant, and the party appealed to his devotion. Adam Paszt, for his part, had already lived for some years in the USSR, and although the scales had fallen from his eyes, he still had hopes. “I told myself that the USSR was a backward country, that in Poland, a more developed country, the way to socialism would be different.” Those who had been shattered by the defeat in Spain and the discovery of Soviet reality were freshly mobilized by the new situation; this upsurge of utopia, this summons from history. [xiii]

Bronia Zelmanowicz recalled that “When I returned to Poland I joined the party. Almost all the Jews did so. Some profited from the opportunity to rise higher than their abilities or their education should have let them. This was called ‘rising with the party card.’ It did a great deal to tarnish the image of Jews among the Polish population. The same phenomenon was seen in the USSR.”[xiv] The new regimes in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary “needed these experienced Jewish militants, who thus turned from revolutionaries into officials, privileged people in countries that had a hard time rising from their ruins.” The loyalty of these Jewish militants to the new regime was “based not only on conviction, but also on the material advantages that it gave.”[xv]

After World War II, Hungary offered an extreme example of the Jewish domination of the new regime brought to power by the Red Army.  The key post of general secretary was occupied by a Jew, Mátyás Rákosi, who billed himself as “Stalin’s best pupil.”[xvi]  The next five major positions were filled by Jews and a third of higher police officials were Jewish, and many departments of the security apparatus were headed by Jews.  Many had spent years, even decades, in the Soviet Union, while others “had returned from concentration camps or who survived the war in Budapest” and who, as well as regarding the Soviets as their liberators, nursed “a burning desire for vengeance” against the Hungarians who had collaborated with the Nazis. Muller notes how “By moving into the army, the police, and the security apparatus, these young Jewish survivors put themselves in a position to settle accounts with the men of the Arrow Cross.”[xvii]

Jewish Stalinist leader of Hungary Mátyás Rákosi

Jews played central roles in building societies that “obeyed the strictest canons of Stalinism, and it was with an iron broom that the new administration consolidated its power against the ‘forces of the past,’” which involved “‘getting their hands dirty’ in this new phases of history, to bend to the Stalinist precept that you do not make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”[xviii] The conspicuous role played by Jews in the brutal Sovietization of Hungary led to anti-Jewish riots in 1946. The oppressive nature of the new regime can be gauged by the fact that between 1952 and 1955 “the police opened files on over a million Hungarians, 45 percent of whom were penalized,” and “Jews were very salient in the apparatus of repression.”[xix]

Ultimately it was the very Stalinism these Jews so zealously implemented throughout the countries of the Warsaw Pact that served to “crush them, or at least some of them, a few years later, so that today they have the sense of a great swindle.”[xx] Stalin’s abandonment of revolutionary internationalism alienated many Jewish operatives throughout Eastern Europe. The authors note how, in the context of this new stance where internationalism tended to be “reduced to the obligatory reverence towards the guardian power, Stalin’s USSR, Jewish militants very often felt out of place.”[xxi]

Another reasons for the Jewish abandonment of the communist utopia was “the direct discovery at their own expense, not only that socialism did not put an end forever to anti-Semitism” but at times willingly used it, as in Poland in 1968, as a political tool. There an “unbridled campaign against ‘Zionists’ on Polish radio and television poisoned public life, with Jewish cadres being silently dismissed.” In 1968 restrictions on emigration were abolished and thousands of Jews left Poland. In Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania, the trials and liquidations of the 1950s “also had an anti-Jewish connotation, sharper or less so as the case might be.”[xxii] Pierre Sherf related his experience in Romania:

I returned to Romania with my wife in December 1945. We were at the same time naïve and fanatical. We had a deep sense of coming home, finally leaving behind our condition of wandering Jew. I was appointed to a high position in the foreign ministry, but after the foundation of the state of Israel one of my brothers became a minister in the Israeli government, and I was suddenly removed and transferred to another ministry. When Ana Pauker was dismissed in 1952, I felt the net tighten around me. My superior in the hierarchy was arrested and a case against me was opened. As in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the USSR, veterans of Spain were fingered as “spies.” …

I never hid the fact I was Jewish, and the Party needed us, as it needed cadres belonging to other national minorities living in Romania. But it was afraid the population would resent the large number of Jews in the party leadership. Like many others, I had therefore to “Romanize” my name. I now called myself Petre Sutchu instead of Pierre Sherf. During the trials of the 1950s, the specter of “Jewish nationalism” was brandished, as in other countries. The suspicion was scarcely belied by future events. Later a member of the political bureau was eliminated because his daughter had asked to immigrate to Israel. In Spain, in the Brigades, there was an artillery unit named after Ana Pauker, but when she was dismissed, it was given a different name in the official history museums.[xxiii]

Sherf later applied for an emigration visa and left for Israel. For Jewish communist functionaries like him “the European workers’ movement and socialism had failed to resolve the Jewish question in its national dimension — not just in Europe but in the whole world.” After this failure Jewish history seemed to “present itself as an eternal recurrence founded on the permanence of anti-Semitism.”[xxiv] According to this conception, the differences between Jews and non-Jews “swells to the dimensions of an essential and irreducible alterity. As in the preachings of the rabbis, the non-Jewish world, the universe of the goyim, tends once more to become a perpetually threatening other and elsewhere.”[xxv] This sense of betrayal was the key to their subsequent disenchantment which would ultimately “lead the great majority of them far from communism.”[xxvi]

After 1948 many of the Yiddishland diaspora migrated to Israel, some reluctantly, some less so. Brossat and Klingberg note that their decision to interview only former Yiddishland revolutionaries living in Israel was arbitrary, and how the same task could have been undertaken in Paris or New York. The particular situation of their informants did, however, highlight one essential factor: “the gaping, radical break between the world that they lost and the arrogant new Sparta within whose walls they have chosen to live.”[xxvii] These onetime militants for socialist internationalism, who had “waged a bitter struggle against every kind of nationalism” now pledged their allegiance to “the state of Israel, expression of triumphant Zionism” which “has carved on the pillars of the rebuilt Temple the principles of a Manichean view of the world, a system of thought founded on simple oppositions, a binary metaphysics: just as the world is divided in two, Jews and goyim.”[xxviii]


Revolutionary Yiddishland is another example of that incredibly prolific literary genre: Jewish apologetic historiography. Despite this, the book is worthy of attention because, intended for a Jewish readership, its discussion of the roots and motivations of Jewish radicalism and militancy is unusually candid. It illuminates aspects of Jewish radicalism that are usually concealed from non-Jews, such as how the pursuit of Jewish ethnic interests was the primary motivating factor for Jewish participation in and support of communism in the first half of the twentieth century. When addressing non-Jewish audiences, Jews typically ascribe their disproportionate involvement in leftist politics to the impulse of tikkun olam — a desire to heal the world which naturally flows from the inherent benevolence of the Jewish people. Appeals to non-Jews to serve Jewish interests by fighting for universal “human rights” have been a consistent and incredibly successful feature of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy in the modern era. Millions of White people (who are likely genetically predisposed to moral universalism) have been enlisted to fight for Jewish interests (and against their own ethnic interests) on the assumption they are upholding the “universal brotherhood of man.”

In the post-Cold War era, the Jewish revolutionary spirit chronicled and lionized in Revolutionary Yiddishland has been redirected into the Cultural Marxist assault on White people and their culture. As with the older generation of Jewish revolutionaries, the pursuit of Jewish ethnic interests remains the central motivation for this new revolution which revolves around the demographic and cultural transformation of European and European-derived societies. This motivation is fully evident in a review of the book by leftist Jewish activist Ben Lorber, who, placing the White heterosexual male enemy firmly in his sights, raved that “the Left faces a terrifying fascist threat unseen since the era of Yiddishland, with the rapid embrace of far-right politics engulfing Europe and culminating … with the startling seizure by Donald Trump of the most powerful political position in the world. As we combat mounting attacks on Muslim and Arab communities, black folks, immigrants, Jews, women, LGBTQ folks and more.”

Reflecting of the older generation of radical Jewish activists, Lorber insists “we have much to learn from the boundless optimism, the fearless advances and the terrifying retreats of those who struggled before.” Rather than decrying his radical Jewish forerunners as handmaidens and direct practitioners of oppression and genocide, Lorber fondly looks to them for inspiration, contending that “We need to draw hope from this previous generation of radicals who believed, against all odds, that a new sun was dawning in the sky of history. Revolutionary Yiddishland lets this generation speak, and helps us to listen.” Prey to the same ethnocentric infatuation with the “romance” of Jewish radical revolutionaries as the authors, Lorber “cannot help but look upon the passionate, almost messianic optimism of early-20th century radicals with a strange sense of dislocation and longing.”

Another Jewish reviewer extolled Revolutionary Yiddishland as “a marvelous bitter-sweet book” with the sweetness coming from “understanding the depth and vibrancy of the revolutionary socialist movement, from listening to the voice of the interviewees, and from the matter of factness of their everyday heroism and commitment.” The pro-Palestinian website Mondoweiss described the book as “a memorial to a missing world,” and claimed that “as an aesthetic composition, it is beautiful.” The Jewish Chronicle also praised the book but thought it was insufficiently apologetic and resented its “occasional anti-Zionist animus” (i.e., its very tepid criticisms of Israel) which “mars an otherwise absorbing account.”

The most telling (though entirely predictable) feature of the Jewish responses to Revolutionary Yiddishland was the absence of any reservations having been expressed over Brossat and Klingberg’s glorification of Jewish communist militants who enthusiastically founded and served regimes that destroyed millions of lives. This provides another reminder, if any were needed, that Jewish involvement with communism remains the most glaring example of Jewish moral particularism in all of history. It yet again underscores the fact that Jews have no problem setting aside moral consistency in pursuit of their group evolutionary interests.

[i] Alain Brossat & Sylvie Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism (London; Verso, 2016), 139-40.

[ii] Ibid., 141.

[iii] Ibid., 225.

[iv] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), xxxix.

[v] Brossat & Klingberg, Revolutionary Yiddishland, 225.

[vi] Ibid., 230.

[vii] Ibid., 232.

[viii] Ibid., 234.

[ix] Ibid., 236.

[x] Ibid., 264.

[xi] Ibid. 171.

[xii] Ibid., 267.

[xiii] Ibid., 265.

[xiv] Ibid., 267.

[xv] Ibid., 267-8.

[xvi] Ibid., 173.

[xvii] Ibid., 175.

[xviii] Ibid., 268.

[xix] Ibid. 178-9.

[xx] Ibid., 268.

[xxi] Ibid., 272.

[xxii] Ibid., 275.

[xxiii] Ibid., 375-6.

[xxiv] Ibid., 277.

[xxv] Ibid., 285.

[xxvi] Ibid., 268.

[xxvii] Ibid., 241.

[xxviii] Ibid.

14 replies
  1. Protestant
    Protestant says:

    Dear Dr. Kevin MacDonald,
    Would you mind clarifying the censorship policy of this website, which now appears to block all comments by Protestants? Judging from commenters on other articles, implying that you yourself had driven away all previous commenters of the Protestant faith, I wonder if this is now your editorial policy. Since you have said your personal religious views are not Christian, I can think of no reason for this censorship, other than that a majority of your subscribers are Catholic, and have threatened to cancel their subscriptions unless you censored all input from Protestants. Please clarify this, so that I don’t waste more of your time or your moderator’s by any future comments, nor visit your website ever again. Thank you.


    (Mod. Note: “Protestant”, please take note of the mission statement and header of this blog. It doesn’t include internecine religious wars as an objective. Nor does it include “taking verbal potshots” at other commenters who may not share one’s religious beliefs. This note is for ALL TOO commenters, not just “Protestant”. Thanks.)

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      This from last April:

      The geopolitical chessboard is an important field in explaining the current non-European mass migrations, although it carries less weight than dominant political ideas and historical myths that have shaped political decision makers in the EU and the US ever since 1945. Millions of migrants who are waiting now in makeshift camps in Turkey, Jordan and Libya for their entry into the EU may have limited IQ, but they are by no means stupid. They know that they have two powerful allies in the West — the ruling and often self-hating intellectual and political class and the Catholic clergy. Surely, one can blame George Soros and a host of murky NGO’s for flooding the West with African and Asian migrants. Yet the fact remains that these migrants follow first and foremost the unilateral invitation calls from EU high ranking politicians seconded by the Pope and the high Catholic clergy.



      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        A vastly more coherent analysis—one that doesn’t require the superimposed editorial table pounding of boldface type—was offered by Nick Dean at the end of the linked article’s comment thread.

        If Tom Sunic or any other doctrinaire, reflexive Christophobe can offer even a marginally coherent explanation of how or why Muslim thugs from the Middle East should wait upon a nonentity like Bergoglio for their marching orders, I for one would love to hear it.

    • Gregory
      Gregory says:

      This is NOT a religious site. It says WHITE interests. The owner is a lapsed Catholic. Other writers like Dr. Joyce are not even religious.

      You and your Roman Catholic foes like Pierre de Craon, Mari etc need to take you Judeo-Christian squabbles elsewhere. You just distract from real issues.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Thank you for the charitable counsel, Gregory. You might simply have quoted Ring Lardner:

        “Shut up,” he explained.

  2. dubya
    dubya says:

    Very interesting set of articles. It is hard to read this article and not see parallels to 21st C USA. The themes of tolerance, and cities vs rural areas is especially familiar, although there are some differences as well.

    I have some broad questions if the author is inclined to consider them. Feel free to pick through them to the ones you think are the best, I have a less than cursory understanding of Russian history, especially if its related to the Jews.

    You mentioned that Russia had almost half of the world’s Jewish population at the beginning of the 1900s. Where else in the world were there large populations of Jews at that time? Were they behaving similarly?

    Why was Russia in such bad shape that it could be so easily fractured by the Bolshevik / Jewish alliance?

    How much support did the Bolsheviks gain among natives Russians after the revolution compared to anti-semetic pro Tsar groups? Who were the Bolsheviks?

    What percent of Russian / Eastern European jews came to America after WWII? What are the other notable locations they went to?

    To what extent were UK / USA s actions in WWII impacted by the desires of their jewish populations to defeat Germany / Defend the Soviet Union?

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      Think of Poland. 10% Jewish, Jews hollowed it out. That’s why it was partitioned several times so easily. Same with Russia. Same with Germany. Now same with USA, the new paradisus judaeorum. Poland was for a long time called paradisus judaeorum. Then France. Then USA. In Poland there were pogroms after WW2. This is how big the contempt of Poles is for Jews. Holocaust and emigration didn’t mitigate their contempt for Jews. Poles pretend that they despise Germans for the mistreatment of Jews. In fact Poles are more than happy to see Jews go.

      I have the mania to finish what I start. I stopped reading a book from Erich Fromm in the exact page where he recommends suicide as a solution to life’s problems. Suicide for the goyim, obviously.

  3. tadzio308
    tadzio308 says:

    Quibble. “He [Stalin] ordered the execution of two historical leaders of the Bund, Victor Adler and Henryk Ehrlich, just after Soviet officials had offered them the presidency of the World Jewish Congress.” Victor Adler was an Austrian Jewish politician in that era. The Polish Bund leader referenced was Victor Alter. Birds of a feather.

  4. Henry
    Henry says:

    “He [Stalin] ordered the execution of two historical leaders of the Bund, Victor Adler and Henryk Ehrlich, just after Soviet officials had offered them the presidency of the World Jewish Congress”

    That can’t be correct. What is the source for it?

    • Brenton Sanderson
      Brenton Sanderson says:

      From Revolutionary Yiddishland (p. 225):
      “In August 1941, Stalin personally gave the order to execute two historical leaders of the Bund, Victor Alter and Henryk Ehrlich, shortly after Soviet officials had offered them the presidency of a World Jewish Committee that they then envisaged setting up.”
      This was not the World Jewish Congress founded in Geneva in 1936 and currently headed by Ronald Lauder. I should have made this clear. Thanks for pointing out the error.

  5. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    @Stalin’s opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine….dissolved the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948

    The dissolution of the JAC had more to do with Stalin’s opposition to the establishment of a Jewish Soviet republic in Crimea proposed by JAC in February 1944 in a memorandum addressed to the Soviet leadership.
    The memo stressed “the NEED* to grant the Jews equality in governmental-legal terms with the other nationalities of the Soviet Union. They also expressed the hope that “the Jewish masses of all countries, in particular the United States would give substantial aid” to building up such a republic. Despite the rumors that some members of the Politburo of the Central Committee ( Lazar Kaganovich and Vyacheslav Molotov) were favorably disposed toward the idea of the “Crimean Plan,” it was rejected in 1944″.

    *”The proposals of the memorandum contained nothing radically new. Projects for establishing a Jewish republic in the southern Ukraine or in the Crimea had been suggested earlier. For example, in 1923 the social leader A. Bragin had proposed that one be established on the Black Sea coast from Bessarabia to Abkhaz with its capital in Odessa, while Yuri Larin supported, in opposition to the Birobidzhan plan, a Jewish autonomous area in the southern Crimean and Azov region centered in Kerch” (which was abandoned in favor of the Birobidzhan project).

    The plan proposed by JAC was obviously older and gained (as it was meant from the start) the enthusiastic support of the American Jews with whom the JAC representative discussed it during their 1943 visit: “Crimea interests us not only as Jews, but as Americans, because Crimea – is the Black sea, the Balkans and Turkey”.
    In 1943, Stalin complained to Tito, that in Tehran, Roosevelt told him (Stalin) that the US can no longer continue land-lease deliveries, because the Jewish lobby is very strong in America, and is demanding the implementation of the project for the establishment of the “Crimean California”. We (USA) are also unable to open a second front, if the decision on Crimea is not taken”
    [Under the pressure from the Americans, On May 11, 1944, Stalin signed the order to deport Crimean Tatars to Uzbekistan. A month later, on June 6, 1944, the Americans opened the second front!
    In a letter of J. Marshall to Averell Hariman it was stated:
    “The President approves of your plans. He added to them the following. Coexistence on the territory of Crimea of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and the Jewish Republic, open for free entry of Jews from all over the world is not feasible, fraught with unpredictable consequences. This initially caused him to doubt the possibility of the “Crimean project”. Crimea should become a demilitarized zone. Let Stalin know, that he should be ready to relocate the fleet from Sevastopol to Odessa and the Black sea coast of the Caucasus. Then we will believe that the Crimean Jewish Republic is a reality and not a propaganda myth”.
    Still in 1948, when Golda Meir was appointed Ambassador to USSR, huge rallies of Jews were still demanding ” the fulfillment of the promise to America and give up Crimea”. It was then that the ‘Crimean affair’ started (which eventually would lead to the elimination of Stalin).
    It is not closed even today!

  6. Gotcha
    Gotcha says:

    East European Jews are by far the most toxic kind. Sadiq Khan in London would never have become mayor without backers like Margaret Hodge (German roots) and Ed Miliband (East European). Meanwhile another East European Jew “Alf Dubbs” is pushing for open borders.

    Our biggest problem is ignorance among our kind. Sometime back here on TOO one writer was even praising Jeremy Corbyn.

    “Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn: Fighting
    the Jewish Establishment”

    Momentum, the radical Marxist group, Corbyn (used to date Diane Abbott who is very unattractive and black) is using to try to gain power, was hatched by a Jew.

    “Momentum founder Jon Lansman elected to Labour’s ruling body”

  7. Lothar von Trotha
    Lothar von Trotha says:

    Without coincidence, Mátyás Rákosi was eventually succeeded in Hungary by the Jew Ernő Gerő. In Poland, the Jew Roman Zambrowski took the reins, only to eventually be ousted by patriots like Mieczysław Moczar. Rudolf Slánský took power in Czechoslovakia, only to be executed in 1952 when official Soviet policy turned on Zionism (or, it could be argued, Zionism turned on Sovietism). Josep Broz Tito’s point man was Moša Pijade, another Jew.

    The east/west distinction in terms of the fast boil of the East, vs. the slow boil of the West, the use of both to destroy the Axis and then the split over the Israel, the transition of the main Jewish thrust from Communism to “anti-totalitarianism,” integration, feminism, “civil rights,” i.e. the transition from the Old Left to the New Left, from Ak-47’s and gulags to Hollywood and media “freedom spreading” to blacks, women, etc., is one of the most fascinating transitions of politics in the 20th century. Many of the seeming incoherent contradictions within the GOP and Democratic Party mainstream positions stem from this, things like “conservatives” who can’t wait to send endless taxpayer money to Israel, or Democrats importing mediocrities en masse to drive down wages.

Comments are closed.