Review: Stalin’s War Against the Jews: The Doctor’s Plot and the Soviet Solution

Stalin’s War Against the Jews: The Doctor’s Plot and the Soviet Solution
Louis Rapoport
Free Press, 1990

A person’s lack of self-awareness can produce a sense of eye-rolling irony. Not a pleasant feeling—sort of like spinning one’s wheels. But such an encounter doesn’t have to be a total loss. A self-unaware person can still teach us things, as long as we don’t let the irony get the better of us.

Louis Rapoport’s 1990 work Stalin’s War Against the Jews gives us such an opportunity by offering an engaging roundup of a vital part of twentieth century history. Although Rapoport presents it as part of the interminable saga of Jewish “lugubria” (if I may coin a term), what he really offers is an eye-opening account of Jewish culpability in the vast blacklist of Soviet atrocity. In mentioning anti-gentile enormities offhandedly and focusing more on the significantly less deadly anti-Jewish crimes of the Soviets, Rapoport reveals his appalling lack of self-awareness. (As do Natan Sharansky, Benjamin Netanyahu, Robert Conquest, and Theodore Draper, who provide glowing blurbs on the book’s back cover.)

Would these reviewers have responded as well to a book entitled Hitler’s War Against White Christians which only mentions Jewish suffering in passing?

Rapoport starts with some useful biographical information about Stalin, whom he correctly vilifies throughout his book. He describes young Joseph Djugashivili as an industrious bully who was always cynical and pragmatic regarding his interactions with Jews. Rapoport covers Stalin’s time as a young radical robbing banks, getting into Lenin’s good graces, and vying with the more urbane and Mephistophelean Leon Trotsky during the early days of the Bolsheviks. Rapoport compares Stalin, being a Georgian, to the Corsican Napoleon and the Austrian Hitler as an ethnic outsider identifying with gentile majorities as a basis for his power and appeal.

Right off the bat, however, he discusses Stalin’s sinister yet unrealized intention in his last years to deport nearly all Soviet Jews to Siberia, Kazakhstan, and Birobidzhan. Yes, I think it is fair to say that Russian Jews dodged a bullet when Stalin died. Despite this, Rapoport makes the dubious claim that “the Jews suffered far more under the ‘anti-racist’ Bolsheviks than they had under the openly anti-Semitic czar Nicholas II.”

Here is where the lack of self-awareness comes in. Everyone suffered more under the Bolsheviks than under the Czar. For gentiles, it wasn’t even close, yet Rapoport never directly acknowledges this. It’s as if for him no one can suffer the way a Jew suffers. Furthermore, he quite astonishingly indicts the Jews for much of this suffering. He admits not only that Jews “laid the foundations of communism and socialism” (for example, Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, and Eduard Bernstein) and made up Lenin’s “top men” (Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, and Jacob Sverdlov) but also that Jews were instrumental in the rise of Bolshevism.

In the three decades before the Revolution of 1917, a growing number of young Jewish revolutionaries flocked to the new religion of communism, seeing it as a means of delivery not only from their own constricted status as Jews, but for all humankind. These were the educated, secular equivalents of those Jews who had followed previous false Messiahs—such as Shabtai Zvi in the seventeenth century, or much earlier pretenders like David Reuveni. The very high proportion of Jews in the forefront of the movement in Russia was, however, also directly linked to the fact that the aristocracy and peasants shared a mutual antipathy toward Jews, considering them Russia’s main source of bedevilment.

It gets better. It turns out that Jews got their hands dirty after the Revolution as well.

Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution—partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka, “perhaps in subconscious retaliation for the many years of suffering at the hands of the Russian police.” And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

And did someone say genocide? Here is a direct quote from Zinoviev in a 1917 conversation with Polish Cheka leader Felix Dzerzhinsky and Jewish Menshevik leader Raphael Abramovich:

We must carry along with us ninety million out of the one hundred million Soviet Russian population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.

Moving on to the 1930s, it gets even better.

Thousands of Jewish revolutionaries helped to spearhead the Terror machine with a messianic fervor. One of them, Matvei Berman, had helped to institutionalize slave labor as early as 1922. . .

And then we have the Jewish “Iron Commissar” Lazar Kaganovich:

Kaganovich was also known for his vow against alleged class enemies and saboteurs: “We’ll break their skulls in.” In 1932, when he was in charge of suppressing a strike by Kuban Cossacks during collectivization in the Ukraine, he transferred whole Cossack settlements to Siberia—a mere rehearsal for the transfer of eight entire nationalities in the forties. Khrushchev, who participated in many of these events and whose own hands were not unsullied, termed Kaganovich “unsurpassed in his viciousness.”

I saved the best for last:

Other Jewish Chekists who rose to the top included Aron Soltz, long known as “the consciences of the Party,” and Naftali Frenkel, a Turkish Jew whom Solzhenitsyn would characterize as “the nerve of the Archipelago, which stretched across the nine time zones of the vast country.” It was Frenkel who refined Berman’s use of prisoners as slave laborers. In 1932 Stalin put him in charge of the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, which took the lives of some 200,000 prisoners, and later he worked under [Genrikh] Yagoda, the first and last Jewish head of the Cheka. Most of the chief overseers of the canal were Jews.

While it is nice that Rapoport likens communism to false religions, he fails to consider why the Russian aristocracy and peasantry “shared a mutual antipathy toward Jews.” I understand that tit-for-tat can reach farther back into history than we can fathom, and that the Jews have their side of things. But to assume that this anti-Jewish antipathy sprang out of nowhere or from the black hearts of gentiles is simply dishonest. Honesty would compel Rapoport to discuss uncomfortable topics like usury, alcohol peddling, prostitution, draft evasion, tax evasion, anti-assimilation, russophobia, ideological subversion, terrorism, and the weaponization of the Jewish fund known as the Kahal against gentile economic competitors—which effectively wiped out gentile middle classes in places like Odessa.

Honesty would also compel him to admit that perhaps this anti-Semitism he’s so worried about (which he refers to as a “disease”) was justifiable given the atrocious behavior of so many Soviet Jews. It’s as if he feels anti-Semitism is a worse crime than working 200,000 slaves to death or deporting whole populations to their doom in Siberia.

Not only is Rapoport not entirely honest, his argument doesn’t follow logically. Given that. . .

  1. Jews suffered as Jews under the anti-Semitic Czar, and
  2. Jews rebelled against the anti-Semitic Czar through Bolshevism.

It follows that. . .

  1. Jews suffered more as Jews under Bolshevism than they did under the Czar.

How does this even make sense?

It only makes sense when rewriting C as “Jews—especially urban, educated Jews—benefitted enormously from taking part in the vast Soviet system.”

So then where does this war against the Jews come in? Well, first Rapoport discusses the well-known suppression of all nationalist, religious, and ethnic identity during the early Soviet period. This included abolishing the teaching of Hebrew, instruction in Judaism, and the existence of all Jewish organizations. But if you don’t read Rapoport carefully, you’d think the Jews were the only group being repressed during this time. Ironically, however, Rapoport admits (again, with zero self-awareness) that the Jews themselves were doing most of the repressing.

The Jewish Bolsheviks were the most fanatical advocates of suppressing Jewish parties—no matter how anti-Zionist, such as the Bund. The main Jewish enemy was the “Bourgeois-clerical-Zionist” camp: Judaism, Zionism, the Hebrew language. At one and the same time, the Bolsheviks granted grudging recognition of the Jews as a nationality while taking the rights of nationality away from them. For the sine qua non of the Communist revolution remained the dissolution of all nationalities, and the Jews were at the head of the list.

Next, Rapoport provides a chilling rundown of the Great Terror, with all its plots, paranoia, denunciations, and show trials. This was essentially Stalin’s mid-1930s purge of the Communist Party, which resulted in seven to ten million being killed. Rapoport estimates that “hundreds of thousands” of these victims were Jewish—which makes sense, given that so many Jews were active communists at the time. His chapter on the Great Terror certainly makes for some gripping reading and provides an excellent introduction to this grisly topic. Still, however, he cannot seem to help himself with his lack of awareness. He admits that “[m]any of the prosecution witnesses and agents provocateurs” used against Jews during the Terror were Jews themselves, as were “[s]ome of the main instruments of the Terror.” He names M.I. Gay, A.A. Slutsky, Boris Berman, and others.

Yet on the same page he condemns contemporaneous actions against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky as anti-Semitism. Basically, we have bad Jews doing bad things to other bad Jews in a bad system that they themselves had created after doing bad things to not-so-bad gentiles—and all Rapoport can do is point and sputter about anti-Semitism.

We can see where his priorities lie.

Rapoport dutifully chronicles Jewish suffering during the early days of the Second World War, which he paints as Soviet-Nazi collusion. One example is the Soviet silence in the face of German anti-Jewish atrocities in Poland from 1939 to 1941 during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Another is Babi Yar, where the Soviet press reported that nearly 50,000 Russians or Ukrainians (but not Jews) had been massacred. This all counts as part of Stalin’s war against the Jews, apparently. But Rapoport fails to consider other reasons for Soviet behavior here. In the former case, the Soviets did not want to upset a supposed ally whom they were intending to attack anyway. (See Viktor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit for more on Stalin’s secret war plans against the Germans.) In the latter case, the Soviet newspapers’ prime goal was to inspire anti-German hatred among the Soviet masses. Calling the Babi Yar victims Jews simply would not have accomplished this as well as calling them Russians or Ukrainians.

The best Rapoport can do to forward his “Stalin’s-war-against-the-Jews” thesis during his Second World War chapter is to bring up the massive eastward deportations Stalin executed in the wake of the German invasion. Sure, hundreds of thousands of Jews suffered during this period—as did all people of all nationalities. I’m sure a good bit of this suffering had been caused by gentile cruelty. But it’s a stretch to call these deportations a “war against the Jews,” especially when they were taken either to protect the Soviet citizenry from the German invasion, or to prevent them from taking part in it, which, after decades of terror and oppression, many Soviet citizens were keen to do.

Up until this point, it is clear that Stalin disliked Jews and was not above treating Jewish Party members as harshly as they had treated their victims throughout the 1920s and 1930s. But he had always been willing to work with them and kept several, such as Kaganovich, as his favorites. This changed after 1948, when Golda Meir, the Israeli Ambassador to the Soviet Union, visited Moscow and was thronged by 50,000 enraptured Soviet Jews. This bold ethnocentric display infuriated Stalin, who from then on marked Soviet Jewry as an unstable element which needed to be dealt with. If there is any point in Rapoport’s narrative where his war-against-the-Jews thesis is strongest, it’s here.

Right away, Stalin began ordering the mass arrest, deportation, and execution of Jews for the flimsiest of reasons, such as merely attending the Meir visit, communicating with various Jewish groups such as the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC), being a prominent cultural figure, or simply receiving Zionist brochures in the mail from the Israeli embassy. Perhaps some of these victims had been bad actors during the Great Terror or before, but the vast majority were certainly innocent.

Stalin was growing increasingly paranoid and totalitarian in his old age and the Jews of the Soviet Union were bearing the brunt of it according to Rapoport. His writing assumes tremendous urgency as he depicts the disastrous Crimea Affair—an episode in which prominent Jews, including Vyacheslav Molotov’s Jewish wife Paulina, hoped to convince Stalin to concede the Crimea to the Jews. The famous Doctor’s plot garners its own chapter, as it should, since no event in Russia since the Beilis Trial had exhibited as much controversy surrounding Jews and anti-Semitism as that.

My favorite moment describes how Paul Robeson, the Black American singer and left-wing luminary, visited the Soviet Union in 1949. He repeatedly asked the Soviet authorities to arrange a meeting with an old friend of his, the Jewish poet and former JAC Deputy Chairman Itzik Feffer. Unbeknownst to Robeson, however, Feffer had run afoul of Stalin and had been rotting away in Lubyanka Prison. The Soviets stalled while they fattened Feffer up in his cell before finally allowing him to visit Robeson in his (no doubt bugged) hotel room. While chatting amiably with his old friend, Feffer indicated through gestures his own dire circumstances as well as those of other Jews, such as the actor Solomon Mikhoels, whom Stalin murdered the year before. The two were crying when they parted because they knew they would never see each other again.

Despite knowing that his friend’s fate was sealed, Robeson later performed brilliantly at the Tchaikovsky Hall and then spoke glowingly to the audience about the freedom that writers and artists enjoy in the Soviet Union. Afterwards, the tragic farce continued:

When Robeson went home, he continued to misrepresent the reality of life in the Soviet Union. Apparently Robeson, Howard Fast, and others who knew what was going on felt that “quiet diplomacy” was the best way to help their friends. Robeson made his son vow not to make the story public until after his death, “because he had promised himself that he would never publicly criticize the USSR.” The singer-actor who had become as much a leader for black Americans as actor Mikhoels had become for Soviet Jews was covering up not only the murder of Mikhoels and the arrest and imminent death of his Jewish writer friends, but the clear signs of an anti-Semitic campaign that spelled impending genocide.

A poignant story, and Rapoport tells  it well. But it is undone (again) by his astonishing lack of self-awareness. Several chapters earlier, Rapoport writes how Feffer’s fate could not have happened to a nicer guy.

The JAC’s deputy chairman, poet Itzik Solomonovich Feffer, was a very different kind of Soviet Jew, much more in the tradition of those who had helped shape totalitarian terrorism. Feffer, born in Kiev in 1900 and a Party member from age nineteen, was a devoted communist, a Red Army colonel, and an operative of “the organs.” In his poem, “I am a Jew,” he declared that he drank “happiness from Stalin’s cup” and praised Kaganovich, “Stalin’s friend.” Though Feffer boasted of his rabbinic ancestry, his poems jeered at Judaism, while celebrating the slave-labor society. He immortalized the show trials of “traitors, spies, and assassins. . . .[w]e shoot you down like mad dogs.”. . . . There is no doubt now why Beria chose him as second in command at the JAC—to watch everyone else, and denounce them at the appropriate moment.

The more Rapoport denounces anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, the more he underscores its rock-solid justifications.

Of course, Stalin cannot be defended. His murderous and possibly genocidal anti-Semitism was only one of his many evil facets. Rapoport does a fine job condemning him through his reporting—a necessary case to make, if somewhat trivial given the millions of deaths already on Stalin’s head by the time he turned on the Jews. Despite its author’s obvious blind spots, Stalin’s War Against the Jews is a well-written and serviceable history of the highs and lows of twentieth century Soviet Jewry—and how interconnected these extremes actually were. Much of this book will be a revelation to those unacquainted with the Jewish Question.

But by conflating Stalin’s personal anti-Jewish animus (as paranoid as it was) with something as broad as anti-Semitism, Rapoport prestidigitously condemns the Russian people when such a charge is unwarranted. No, the Russian people are not to blame here. Stalin’s war against the Jews was his alone. Once he died in 1953, so did much of the violent anti-Jewish repression in the Soviet Union, and his plan to deport them all was permanently shelved. If anything, Rapoport does a better job of painting Soviet Jews as anti-Semitic—or worse—since they had always oppressed their own and by the late 1940s were being forced to lie in the very same bed that they had so enthusiastically made twenty to thirty years prior.

That Louis Rapoport remains oblivious to this irony throughout his book is incomprehensible. He writes in his Preface that one purpose of Stalin’s War Against the Jews was to help readers understand how the “pogrom atmosphere of 1948 to 1953 that culminated in the Doctor’s Plot” had led to the great exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Instead, however, he presents all the excellent reasons why the Russians wanted them gone in the first place.

53 replies
  1. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    “It may be said that the Romish atheist only utilizes religion as he does the police and the courts while his Berlin colleague really believes in the infallibility of the Church of Rome.” (Trotzky)

    Hitler despised biblical faith; in small circles he announced that he wanted to let the church “rot away like a gangrenous limb” (abfaulen lassen wie ein brandiges Glied).

    He considered this goal subordinate, since the people returned to Germanicism could not be detoxified from Jewish monotheism within a very short time.

  2. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Very good article about a very interesting book. However, there is something confusing/puzzling to me; the autore quotes a book by Viktor Suvorov called “The Chief Culprit”, isn’t it the famous “Icebreaker”? Because the thesis is very much the same, unless Suvorov wrote the former as a follow up of the latter.

    I would appreciate if someone could clarify this matter. Thank you

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 Suvorov cited Stalin as calling Germany his Icebreaker.

      02 The Reich’s integration of all Western European conquered countries in its war effort would be used, in addition to Red Army capabilities, to conquer all of Europe and the UK.

      03 Quite an advance en route to their espoused world revolution. Curently doing well under Biden’s Cabinet tutelage.


      05 Key in SUVOROV’S 2014 ICEBREAKER LECTURES. Slow loading 2 hour video, but immensely rewarding: straght from the horse’s mouth !

      06 His ” THE CHIEF CULPRIT: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II “, did not have to run the gauntlet of Jewish publishers, since it was published by the NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS, at Annapolis, Maryland.

      07 You will notice a plethora of related videos and articles paralleling the above entry.

      • Junghans
        Junghans says:

        I read both of Suvarov’s books when they first came out. Icebreaker was very good and highly revealing. However, I found his 2nd book to be both poorly translated and edited. Since it was published by the Naval Institute, I often wondered if that was intentional sabatoge of the English edition by the (((deep state))).

        • charles frey
          charles frey says:

          The Navy is assesed as the most traditional / loyal branch of the services. As implied by his several appearances there.

          If his facts, and his telling of them are not altered, the problem would point at a seond rate interpreter.

          PM Thatcher’s autobiography was clearly compiled by two different ghost writers. The syles abruptly changed.

    • Flo
      Flo says:

      From Wikipedia: “Suvorov first wrote about the theory in a short 1985 article. He expanded on it in his book Icebreaker and in subsequent books, ending with the 2008 monograph, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. He says that in 1930s, Stalin was planning a conquest of Europe, had been working toward this objective for many years, and directed his military to plan for it.”

  3. Polar Star
    Polar Star says:

    Don’t waste any pity for Soviet Jews. They had it coming. They were the main perpetrators of Bolshevik mass murder of Russians. Jews were Lenin’s willing executioners. If later Stalin turned on them, then good – they deserved worse. No surprise that Louis Rapoport cares only for Jews, and ignores all their crimes.

    • Angelicus
      Angelicus says:

      Very well said. By the way I remember an anecdote told by the traitor Ernst Jünger in his memoirs “Jahre der Okkupation 1941-1944”. Once he met the French writer Louis Ferdinand Celine who told him “You haven’t learned anything in Russia, you must exterminate your enemies!” Celine was obviously referring to the ridiculous/stupid German policy of tolerance towards the Jews and Communists in occupied France.

      As a German told me many years ago “We should have killed ALL OF THEM. After all, if we were going to be executed for “war crimes” we did not commit, we should have given them a good reason to do so and take with us as many of them as possible”

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        We Germans did indeed commit War Crimes,always embellished. Regrettably for mankind, we were not alone at the table:

        01 Allied Operation Keelhaul.
        02 Churchill’s Operation Unimaginable.
        03 FDR’s Morgenthau ” Plan “.
        04 The massacre at Katyn.
        05 The rape of millions of women and
        girls by the Red Army and Western
        06 US treatment of Japanese US
        07 Ditto for Canada, including Italians.
        08 ” Lord ” Kitchener in SA.
        09 GRU Operation Snow.
        10 The Massacre at Katyn.
        11 Clinton ispired bombing in
        12 Dresden, etc.

        While despicable in themselves, the mealy mouthed STATESMEN in support are nauseating.

        • charles frey
          charles frey says:

          Let me exchange the accidentaly twice counted Katyn Massacre with the innumerable Israeli massacres against the Palestinians. Then as now initiated by Israel.

          Exercise caution if researching my list with Wikipedia !.

          • charles frey
            charles frey says:

            Shame on me for omitting the HOLODOMOR.
            At its minimum victim count still considerably higher than the widely agreed upon, revised count at Auschwitz II, Now chiselled into four languages granite plaques.

            Said plaques speak of ca. one million: three millions less than previously, though, 6 minus three, for reasons of power and compensation, in Jewish math, remains at 6. .

          • charles frey
            charles frey says:

            Bob, I had a nearby friend who was in the Canadian Paratroopers, serving British Army Intelligence operations.

            He was dropped over Northern France, to reconnoitre German positions in preparation for D Day.

            The Wehrmacht had withdrawn two days before, which he radioed to London, with the help of the Resistance.

            On the next day the RAF bombed anyway, killing dozens of allied French.

            Upon his return to London, he indignantly marched into his superior’s office and asked whether they had been in receipt of his message.

            Yes they were ! Well, why did you bomb the area anyway, killing only the French inhabitants ? His CO replied: ” Have you ever tried to cancel a planned air attack AFTER it had been scheduled “.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            The author of one of those suppressed books that told the truth about WWII, written just after the war, ‘Unconditional Hatred’ or something like that, was a British officer and he was told to beware the French civilians as much as anyone after D-Day because Britain had been bombing (Vichy)French cities for five years straight.
            So the French naturally despised the Brits.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      But I raise you the civil war and the ruskies should pay for mailing talky abe supplies to attack my confederacy. Boo hoo ..bye bye Czar Nicklaus.

  4. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    Mr Quinn: “See Viktor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit”

    Those books are case closed on whether Hitler was correct to attack the Soviet Union. Nothing else makes sense. It’s also what Hitler said, and the older we all get, the more Hitler is proved right about just about everything.
    What most convinces Suvorov is the way the Soviets *admitted* they were caught with their pants down. As a Soviet intelligence officer, he knew they never told the truth about anything and certainly never admitted things that made the regime look incompetent.
    Then you have the *millions* of POW’s the Germans took, what were all those divisions doing on the German border? A disbelieving friend of mine said they were there in defence. But Russians don’t fight wars like that, they draw their enemy in and make their stand at a Borodino or a Stalingrad, hundreds of miles from the enemies supplies.
    What’s the bets if we all get lucky in 2023/24 and NATO actually tries to invade Russia they’ll make the exact same mistake as Napoleon and Hitler.
    Although according to David Irving, Hitler never intended to take Moscow and Leningrad, the idea was to defeat the Russian army in the field then force a settlement. Hitler then got sick and was out the game for a couple of weeks, by the time he returned his generals had re-planned the campaign to take the cities because they were glory hunters. As for taking Stalingrad to cut off the oil supplies, I think by then they were just desperate.
    Who knows the truth. Certainly no one remembers Mark Clark taking Rome, this does seem to be a thing with generals.

  5. shahnameh
    shahnameh says:

    Still looking for a Rapallo Treaty discussion and some clarity of the influence of Tadeusz Brezinsky since he was LAST POLISH AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY AND SOVIET UNION! Perhaps the PILSUDSKI Brezinsky nexus.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      I entirely agree and hope KM will take note.

      That 1922 Treaty brought Weimar, represented by Jewish Foreign Minister Rathenau, and the SU together, since both were shunned by the League of Nations.

      Germany, in the SU, carried out all rearmament efforts forbidden by Versailles, building entire German towns and villages, surrounding their joint factories.

      • charles frey
        charles frey says:

        01 During the mid-70s, I guided a tour of ca. 30 members of the then combined NRTA/AARP, for my employer. American Grand Circle Tours, of 555 Madison Avenue.

        02 Said tour of southern Italy, included Rapallo.

        03 The reception at the then EXCELSIOR PALACE HOTEL, venue of the Treaty Conference, knew from experience, that I as tour conductor, was obliged to distribute a set amount as tips to all departments.

        03 My German passport, necessary as part of my own registration, moved them to ask me whether I would like to have the room occupied by Rathenau during his stay.

        04 Who wouldn’t want the second largest room, after the Treaty Room, with a magnificent view over the Bay and a palatial bathroom.

        05 Upon departure, they received their prescribed tips and then some.

        06 Which was made up by my members with tips beyond those recommended by HO for their tour conductors, because of my explanation of the Treaty, on which I had coincidentally written a term paper some 10 years earlier.

  6. vox australis
    vox australis says:

    I was more than a little surprised to see that Robert Conquest was among those who provided “glowing blurbs” for Rapoport’s book. Robert Conquest was a distinguished English historian who wrote a number of books about Stalin’s war on the Russian people, including “The Great Terror” and “The Harvest of Sorrow”, which are standard works on the crimes of the Bolsheviks. Either Rapoport’s publisher is misquoting (? deliberately) Conquest’s books, or hadn’t read them.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      But the lanky emancipator got help from the Russians to burn us hicks up in the civil war. The Bolsheviks we’re good people except Stalin.


    Like to know more about Soviet-Nazi deportations/ evacuations/ population transfers during WWII, certainly in the millions. Explains all the train transports to Treblinka.

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      Raquel you might want to read; ‘Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed For Him.’ By Donald Rayfield.

      Not much about the Germans but a lot of what your looking for in regards the Soviets.

  8. K M Landis
    K M Landis says:

    Stalin’s belated war against Soviet Jews, starting in 1948, was the least of his crimes. In his book, Rapoport is only concerned about crimes against Jews, not Whites.

    Before 1948, Soviet Jews killed millions of Russians, with Soviet government approval, while in America many Jews cheered from the sidelines and some even spied for the USSR. They were typical of their race, disloyal to the host population.

    Jews are doing it again today with their war against Russia. Sam Bankman-Fried, Paul Singer, George Soros, and many other Jewish “investors” (swindlers) have bribed the US Congress to send $100 billion to Ukraine this year. The jew-media agitate for war, as do the neocons in the US government. This will result in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians, while enriching a lot of Jewish middlemen. That is their intention, to use our money to kill Whites and enrich themselves.

  9. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    The progressive Jew Harvey Milk, for his part, was always very interested in “observing long brown candy bars” (especially when white milk squirted out of their tops).

  10. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    As always, thanks Spencer. Great review of this book.

    To most of the races on the earth, 2+2=4. But to the Jews 2+2=5, or 6, or 7, or whatever they want it to equal, when they want it to equal, whatever they want it to equal. Believe me, I’ve lived around them my whole life, it’s the inbreeding that makes them so prone to madness and hysteria.

    It’s so bad, as we see here, that the lies they spin, or I should say, how they manipulate anything, history etc., for their own benefits and advantages, eventually just exposes them for the evil bastards that they are.

    “The Jews are the scum of the earth, they are the masters of lies. ~Schopenhouer.

    And of course Martin Luther wrote a book titled ‘The Jews and Their Lies.’

  11. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    When I was in Scandinavia in the 1990s, I shared a room in a youth hostel with a young Japanese man. He felt a strong connection to German culture (Japanese are called “the Germans of Asia” because of their strict morality, willingness to sacrifice, and industriousness) and talked about our common wartime alliance.

    At the time, unfortunately, I was still massively brainwashed by the anti-German delusion that all this was to be condemned without exception and rudely rejected his kindness. It was only many years later that I realized that this people, just like ours, had been robbed of their cultural heritage and identity.

    That’s why my music tip today will be two Japanese, a man (born 1930) and a woman (probably born in the 1950s).

    • Strange World
      Strange World says:

      The simplicity, clarity, frugality, of Japanese culture is also expressed in their music. Only the most necessary is relevant, just as Buddhism preaches. The ear can rest and the mind can travel.

  12. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    If Putinist Ritter admits on the one hand that “Germany is at best a US colony”, why does he at the same time blame the country of origin of his “knightly” surname for the Ukraine war?

    Is this a kind of diversionary maneuver from his own involvement in senseless wars? Or is it just one of his aberrations, like his unsuccessful attempts to seduce underage girls for sex?

    His compatriot sounds much more prudent, who at least does not make idiotic general accusations. But he, too, is of the opinion that Russia would never have wanted to wage this war.

    In his opinion, the guilty parties are “globalists”, “multi-billionaires”, “oligarchs”, or “these people” whose names “cannot be mentioned without hesitation”. (At least he dared to put the name “Soros” in his mouth.)

    Btw., America’s first multimillionaire was German

  13. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    01 And, quelle surprise, another addition to my comment, referring to War Crimes not committed by Germans, but, rather against them.

    02 In 1945, ca 20 holocaust survivors, both male and female, planned to poison the municipal water supplies of major German cities, intending to kill six millions, to revenge themselves for their 6 miilions.

    03 The many intended charges flying around Washington, have taught everyone, that intended conspiracies to damage people are as actionable as if they had succeeded.

    04 I read about these intentions years ago and found out, that Abba Kovner the POET travelled to Israel to obtain such poison and was helped by their kindly Ben Gurion.

    05 One of many net entries speaks of Zionist help in Israel, then terms it CONTENTIOUS, of course.

    06 The POET AND POISON returned to Europe, illegally attired in a British Army uniform, aboard a British Army transport ship. Its Officers became suspicious which obliged the POET to jettison the poison.

    07 They obtained another poison and restricted their mass murder to a US Army barracks housing 2,000 German POW patients. They brushed their poison on the yet unbaked loaves of bread in their bakery. Most got sick: none died.

    08 These religious dogooders were never indicted, much less tried.

    09 Instead, they had a feature film made about their also genocidal intentions, whose trailer is linked below. You can obtain all of it by searching PLAN A.

    10 Personally, I prefer to remember the Jewish, female Red Army doctor who ministered to the wounded Wehrmacht soldiers in her field hospital tent, as unstingly as she did to her own. Distributing rare supplies equally to all her charges.

    As deposed by a former, returned soldier, videotaped and on record at the former Wehrmacht’s record office.

Comments are closed.