How Zionism Infiltrated the United States of America [Exclusive Interview]

How Zionism Infiltrated the United States of America [Exclusive Interview]

Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials.
Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky.


this exclusive interview with Press TV’s Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks with Susan Modaress about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations.

He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.

Press TV: In 1982, Mr. Bruzonsky, you authored the Paris Declaration- a breakthrough event that greatly contributed to political developments of the time. Please tell us about that.

Bruzonsky: In the 1980s, in a sense, a lot of us knew there was this political cancer; it was very bad, it was eating up the patient and needed to be dealt with and cured. I was in Paris sitting in a hotel room, a big event in my life, with four very important people – I was there to do the work and write the document.

These people were the former president of France – Pierre Mendis France; the founder of the World Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress – Nahem Goldman; his successor, who was the only Jewish leader in America who had ever been president of B’nai Brith and World Jewish Congress and Secretary of Commerce. The man who inspired it was the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Isam Sartawi, the head of the PLO in Europe. They signed this document called the Paris Declaration, I wrote it and it was on the entire front page of Le Monde newspaper; Arafat responded and that was on the front page also.

But then we ran out of steam. The organizations that had founded were not willing to even entertain a discussion on what they had signed; they disassociated themselves from the people who founded their own organizations.

So then the Donahue show asked me to be on their show. The Donahue TV show was the only talk show in America at that time, there was no other competition and I went on it after no other Jewish leaders would accept to go on the program. The timing of the show was pre-intifada, pre-apartheid and there were very few Israeli settlements on Palestine occupied land at the time and the discussion was all about how to bring peace to the region. The two-state solution (with ‘Solution’ emphasized) was in fact a possible solution – it wasn’t going to be totally fair, the Palestinians were going to get a small piece of territory compared to their homeland, but at least there was a lot of support from political people to make it happen. That world is gone. The two-state solution is now dead with the possible exception that you would have to roll back a tremendous number of things that have happened; that’s not going to happen.

The reason that is not going to happen is not because President Obama is not a smart man, not because he doesn’t know that cancer has gotten a lot worse; he knows all that. He also knows that politically he is totally blocked. There is no way in the world he can come up against the Israeli Jewish lobby and their great group of institutions, personalities and foundations – no way. He knows it.

So he continues to talk the language of two-state solution, but that’s largely to keep Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) from being totally discredited.

Press TV: During his inaugural as US president reports were circulating that his administration was going to move away from the Bush doctrine of rejecting Hamas into talks. Where does Hamas stand in the equation? Can there even be talks with the Palestinians when Hamas is sidelined?

Bruzonsky: In my cable TV program that I ended in 2003 I interviewed Musa Abu Marsuk the No.2 leader in Hamas. He was in New York under arrest at the time. I think it was 1996 and the Israeli Jewish lobby got the congress to pass a law outlawing Hamas and so Abu Marsuk, who was living in America as a successful businessman, was imprisoned. I got permission to interview him and do three reality TV programs. I don’t think the Obama people ever said anything positive about Hamas; I think they did say they were going to re-invigorate the peace process – but those are just words, slogans, the devil is in the detail and all that meant was that we (the US) are going to say they have to stop building settlements.

Well, Obama made a joke and a fool out of himself. Didn’t anyone tell what was going to happen the moment he tried to get the Israelis to stop building settlements? There is a whole history that goes back to Camp David and US President Carter who also told the world that he had got the Israelis to agree to stop settlements and then the Israelis at that time made a fool out of that president by saying they had discussed freezing settlements, but only for 90 days. And then after that they escalated their program and we now live in the world we live in.

The story of how Obama became president, how he got support is important here. Obama is a different kind of president and we were all relieved. It was very embarrassing for eight years and more so for people throughout the world that suffered and were being killed by a US president who frankly (it’s not said in Washington and it’s not the kind of thing said at meetings, but many of us consider them as war criminals and we consider Chaney and Bush; they fit the definition of war criminals).

When Obama ran for president he stood for human rights, he was bright and principled, but then during the campaign certain things happened.

First of all the top financiers of the Democratic Party half of them are Jewish and almost all of those are quite Zionist and quite involved with the Israelis. At the time when Hilary Clinton and Obama were competing for support AIPAC had its annual convention. On that day Obama gave a speech and he gave more than what was expected. Lee Hamilton who was on Obama’s advisory board said to me that he went too far – he shouldn’t have said what he said about Jerusalem – we’re going to be correcting it. After the speech, behind the scenes, he was taken to meet the Board of Directors of AIPAC. Rahm Israel Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff escorted him upstairs to the hotel room.

This is very unusual, presidency candidates don’t usually get interviewed by boards of directors like this, but AIPAC is different. The way the Israeli community signaled that they were going to support Obama, without actually announcing that they had even had a meeting with him, was to have Rahm endorse Obama. So a few hours later Rahm came out in public and did that, which was the signal to the rest of us that Obama had made his peace with this lobby and that he wasn’t going to be able to do anything they weren’t going to approve of.

Press TV: You mentioned that it was well-known to you that the Arab-Israeli conflict will be political cancer if it was not resolved, and at this point it has become the cancer that you mentioned. What has been the main obstacle of not reaching a solution?

Bruzonsky: America is the super power – American money; American arms; American UN vetos; American military support at critical times. The Israelis took a decision way back in the 1940s – and it goes back to the holocaust and back to Jewish impotence; there’s lots of factors it’s not black and white. It was a powerless community, I was part of it – born into a family that my mother and father would tell me we lost all of our relatives nobody knows where they are or they were all killed or maybe some escaped to what had become Israel.

The US has prevented a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict because the Israelis set up such powerful institutions, lobbies, publications, personalities and control in various ways of political parties and of the media making it impossible for American leaders to do what they knew they should do to solve this cancer; and it goes way back to General Marshall the secretary of state. When President Truman told Marshall that he was going to accept a Jewish state, Marshall was going to resign saying it’s not in the interests of the US it is going to be war, which we won’t be able to end; it’s going to get worse; it’s going to unleash forces we won’t be able to control – he was exactly right.

At every critical moment since: Eisenhower tried to do things in the 1950s, carter tried to do things in the 1970s, but they were blocked. There are plenty of books and academic information about this.

The Israelis then realized since they had control of the US, and Sharon said it bluntly back in 2001, he and Peres had a little debate in a cabinet meeting and the word that leaked out from that meeting was that Peres said that we’ve got to be careful, the Americans aren’t happy with what we’re doing and Sharon said stop worrying about the Americans we control things in America, I’ll take care of things there don’t worry about it. – And he was right.

I’ve been watching all this. I did a lot of travelling for a lot of years through the Middle East while the US has been my home base; and it’s been outrageous.

Bruzonsky: I was a kid journalist just out of school. The Egyptian Embassy in Washington read something I had written. It was a movie review about a film called, “Children of Rage.” And they called me and said it was very interesting and asked if I would like to be the first Jewish journalist that has ever been invited by our government. Of course I said yes. So I went for three weeks and I met everybody: the Foreign Minister, the Minister of State, and then they said to me that they knew the three weeks were up but they wanted me to stay longer because the President wanted to meet with me. And they were so surprised when I said I could stay one more day, but I really have other places I have to go. So I said to thank him so much and it was a great honor and so nice to meet all of them, and I took off.

I went to Oman and then I went to Israel. There was going to be a big peace conference and you will see the connections in just a minute. There was going to be this big peace conference. So I get to Israel and I go to the new outlet magazine, which was sponsoring the conference and George Ball, the most important under Secretary of State, the man who helped resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis was going to be the speaker. And they said to me Mark where have you been. And I said I’ve just been to Egypt. I said I’m here because they wanted me to stay and meet the President but I’m at your peace conference. And they said oh my god don’t you know what has happened. And I didn’t because I had been traveling and it wasn’t like you could tune in to Al-Jazeera in those days. They said the President gave a speech and said he is willing to go anywhere and do anything to bring peace. They said you were supposed to have a meeting with him, and I said yes.

I was in Israel for about six hours. They gave me a whole bunch of cash and wrote a letter and said Mark go back to Cairo and meet the President and invite him to come to our peace conference. So later I’m sitting with the President of Egypt and am given him this invitation, and he was asking me about my three weeks in his country. So there I am and it’s a little hard for me to believe that I’m sitting with the President of Egypt all alone. Maybe forty to fifty feet away there is someone from the Minister of the Interior or somebody to protect, but he can’t even hear he was so far away. And I was so disappointed because at the end of the meeting which was very nice he said I’m very sorry but I will not be able to come to your peace conference. Then I suppose I was just looking sad. I don’t remember saying anything. But he said I have decided I will send a telegram to this conference. And I already knew that leaders in the Arab world do not send telegrams to Israel. I had never heard of such a thing. There wasn’t a procedure. I figured it was just his way of being polite to me. I literally had to leave on the first flight in the morning, and I went to a travel agent that was recommended to me, but at the moment I whispered Israel it was don’t say anther word about Israel.

We can’t talk about Israel and there is no way we can get you to Israel. He said first flight in the morning goes to Athens and that is all I can do. So I said okay and I’m on my flight to Athens. I’m dog tired and I’m half asleep. I traveled so much in those days the moment anybody asked me anything I would say orange juice and English. When I woke up on the plane, there was this newspaper in front of me, The Egyptian Gazette. And I wasn’t sure if was hallucinating or dreaming because as my eyes cleared I said good god that’s me. There is this big picture of me and Sadat on the front page at the top of the paper. But there was no story. It was just Journalist Mark Bruzonsky meets President Sadat. There was no story; no nothing. A day later I’m called aside by the Chairman of the conference. He said Mark in one hour there is a press conference and all the media will be here.

You have to come sit up front and you have to tell everybody about your meeting with the President. And I said what’s going on, what’s going on. He said you know the office is closed but we are all at the hotel. We sent somebody back to get some papers and under the door is this telegram. It wasn’t just oh, hope you had a nice conference. It was a whole page of the importance of peace to the region and what this conflict has done. It was a very long statement which I learned later was written for him. And for 24 hours I was the guy who met the President! It was I that had arranged this telegram and then on Thursday morning came the unbelievable announcement. The President of Egypt arrives to Israel on Shabbat (Saturday) as soon as the sun goes down. And it’s like something out of some dream, as people starting arriving within hours. A press center was set up in almost minutes. There were free phones. Anybody could pick up a phone and call anywhere. And on Saturday night he arrived and I went to the airport with the Egyptian press delegation. We all thought the world was going to change now.

The Israelis would feel accepted, the Palestinians would have their homeland, for at the time it was called a homeland and we weren’t even talking about a state. Then unfortunately everything started to deteriorate, and three years later Sadat was assassinated and it has been downhill ever since.

Press TV: So the postphonement on the decision on settlements led to the fact that it termed from an occupation issue in the eyes of the international community, and everyone who was observing the settlement issues thought it was a contested issue. At that point the issue of settlement could be contested after Oslo. Before that it was an occupation and it wasn’t even discussed.

Bruzonsky: Once the Israelis got the PA (Abbas was the man who actually signed the document) at the White House. Once that got them to sign this agreement and become their collaborating regime without having to agree to stop the settlements. That’s symbolic. If the Israelis weren’t going to stop enlarging the occupation, how could we possibly consider this a major step on the way to a peace settlement? So it was the symbolism of it. Not the actual settlement here or there. The Israelis never intended to stop the settlements.

Rabin in my judgment never attended for what he was signing to end up being a Palestinian state. For them it was autonomy we packaged under different names and they were hiring Arafat and his people to control the Palestinian people. That of course is the origin of the growth of Hamas because many non-religious people and many who had been supporters of Fatah and of more secular things decided we are going to support Hamas. At least they are honest and dignified. At least they have principals and are not corrupt. And Fatah has sold us out. That’s the origins of how in 2006 Hamas was elected.

Press TV: I’m going to dare ask this question to wrap up. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Bruzonsky: It’s a very long, dark tunnel now but hopefully saner, wiser policies will prevail down the road. And we can’t afford this anymore. Our own empire is collapsing financially, morally, and spiritually in terms of the credibility of American institutions. We don’t feel it so much in Washington, but around the country, the Tea Party and the other movements is representative of a feeling that our future is dissolving in our place in the world, and our standard of living and what we are providing for our children. There is big conflict here and we don’t have the resources to continue these policies even if you want to argue the policies are right.

Press TV: Mark Bruzonsky, thank you very much for joining us on the Autograph.

Bruzonsky: Thank you Susan.


Mark Bruzonsky holds dual advanced degrees in international affairs and law from Princeton University and New York University where he was a Root-Tilden Scholar. He is a journalist and international affairs consultant and the publisher of as well as the now under development WashReport. He writes and speaks frequently about world affairs, U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, the underlying realities of policy-making in Washington, and U.S.-Israeli relations. [Read more]




From this period in 1916-1917 the decay of parliamentary and representative government can be traced, both in England and America. If secret men could dictate major acts of American state policy and major operations of British armies, then clearly “e1ection” and “responsible office” were terms devoid of meaning. Party distinctions began to fade in both countries, once this hidden, supreme authority was accepted by leading Western politicians, and the American and British electors began to be deprived of all true choice. Today this condition is general, and now is public. Leaders of all parties, before elections, make obeisance to Zionism, and the voter’s se1ection of president, prime minister or party makes no true difference.

In November 1917 the American Republic thus became equally involved with Great Britain in Zionism, which has proved to be a destructive force. However, it was only one agency of “the destructive principle”. The reader will recall that in Dr. Weizmann’s Russian youth the mass of Jews there, under their Talmudic directors, were united in the revolutionary aim, and only divided between revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism.



February 19, 2011 – 11:51 am
Barack Ben-Obama’s political career was built by Chicago’s Jewish mafia family. Former Jewish Congressman Abner Mikvaner, a Federal Judge and White House counsel to former president Bill Clinton was honest to admit that Obama will be the FIRST JEWISH PRESIDENT of USA.
February 19, 2011 – 12:28 pm
Israel will never want peace. It is a predatory farce-and-fraud talmudic cancer that implies these madmen are ordered by “god” to own the world and eradicate or enslave the other peoples.Only the dismantlement of the jewish entity frankeisteinian error,as Marshall had tried to prevent,can bring peace and harmony back to the world. The Rothschilds’ 600 trillions dollars false-flag-wars fortune and looting of the last 200 years must be returned to an environmental and thirld world rehabilitation fund. Jews who renounce judaism can be resettled in Birobidjan . The rest can be parked in a Gaza size psychiatric ghetto in Antartica to give them the change of their coin and a dose of their own medicine . (“You should want for yourselves what you wanted for others..”). For top intel on rat-cat mossad black-ops go to
Ron Paul 2012
February 19, 2011 – 3:07 pm
Must watch!

“Benjamin Freedman Speech”

February 19, 2011 – 5:37 pm
Dr.Nur, I know and feel your frustration on the Zionist World Order dilemma. I have extensively studied this topic for years now. The true and only answers are in the Holy Scriptures. The Zionists will succeed with their World Order, but then Israel will “pass under the rod” (divine judgment ) and then the true and rightful heirs to the Holy Land will return.
Washington cannot say ‘NO’ to Jewish Lobby | Rehmat’s World
February 19, 2011 – 8:31 pm
[…] during the Camp David peace accord (September 17, 1978). Early this month, Mark Bruzonsky was interviewed by Susan Modaress for Iranian Press TV (watch the video […]
February 19, 2011 – 10:02 pm
How Zionism Infiltrated the United States of America [Exclusive Interview]…

Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials….
I Want To | Blog | Washington cannot say ‘NO’ to Jewish Lobby
February 20, 2011 – 3:30 am
[…] during the Camp David peace accord (September 17, 1978). Early this month, Mark Bruzonsky was interviewed by Susan Modaress for Iranian Press TV (watch the video […]

Party distinctions began to fade in both countries, once this hidden, supreme authority was accepted by leading Western politicians, and the American and British electors began to be deprived of all true choice. Today this condition is general, and now is public. Leaders of all parties, before elections, make obeisance to Zionism, and the voter’s se1ection of president, prime minister or party makes no true difference.



4 responses to “How Zionism Infiltrated the United States of America [Exclusive Interview]






    The Western po1iticians thus bred a bicephalous monster, one head being the power of Zionism in the Western capitals, and the other the power of Communism advancing from captive Russia. Submission to Zionism weakened the power of the West to preserve itself against the world-revolution, for Zionism worked to keep Western governments submissive and to deflect their po1icies from national interests; indeed, at that instant the cry was first raised that opposition to the world-revo1ution, too, was “anti-semitism”. Governments hampered by secret capitulations in any one direction cannot act firmly in any other, and the timidity of London and Washington in their dea1ings with the world-revolution, during the four decades to follow, evident1y derived from their initial submission to “the web of intrigue” spun across the Atlantic between 1914 and 1917.

    After 1917, therefore, the question which the remainder of the 20th Century had to answer was whether the West could yet find in itself the strength to break free, or prise its po1itical 1eaders 1oose, from this double thrall. In considering the remainder of this account the reader should bear in mind what British and American politicians were induced to do during the First World War.

  2. POWERLESS AND NOTE THE YEAR! unnecessary war

    Roosevelt part jewish himself surrounded by approx 70 jews in his administration- that is NOT POWERLESS!

    The date was January 30, 1933, five weeks before Franklin Roosevelt’s first inauguration as President of the United States; but it was only after the aged President von Hindenburg’s death (on August 2) that Hitler was made both President and Chancellor (August 19th). Differences between the rulers of the United States and Germany developed quickly. Hitler issued a series of tirades against Communism, which he considered a world menace, whereas Roosevelt injected life into the sinking body of world Communism (Chapter III, above) by giving full diplomatic recognition to Soviet Russia on November 16, 1933, a day destined to be known as “American-Soviet Friendship Day” by official proclamation of the State of New York.

    Sharing the world spotlight with his anti-Communist words and acts, was Hitler’s domestic policy, which in its early stages nay be epitomized as “Germany for the Germans,” of whom in 1933 there were some 62,000,000. Hitler’s opponents, more especially those of non-German stock (510,000 in 1933 according to the World Almanac, 1939), were unwilling to lose by compromise any of their position of financial and other power acquired in large degree during the economic collapse of 1923, and appealed for help to persons of prominence in the city of New York and elsewhere. Their appeal was not in vain.

    In late July, 1933, an International Jewish Boycott Conference (New York Times, August 7, 1933) was held in Amsterdam to devise means of bringing Germany to terms. Samuel Untermeyer of New York presided over the Boycott Conference and was elected President of the World Jewish Economic Federation. Returning to America, Mr. Untermeyer described the planned Jewish move against Germany as a “holy war . . . a war that must be waged unremittingly” (speech over WABC, as printed in New York Times of August 7, 1933). The immediately feasible tactic of the “economic boycott” was described by Mr. Untermeyer as of the “economic boycott” was described by Mr. Untermeyer as “nothing new,” for “President Roosevelt, whose wise statesmanship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is invoking it in furtherance of his noble conception of the relations between capital and labor.” Mr. Untermeyer gave his hearers and readers specific instructions:

    It is not sufficient that you buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German made goods or who patronizes German ships and shipping.

    Before the Boycott Conference adjourned at Amsterdam, arrangement was made to extend the boycott to “include France, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia and other lands as far flung as Finland and Egypt” (New York Times, August 1, 1933). In connection with the boycott, the steady anti-German campaign, which had never died down in America after World War I, became suddenly violent. Germany was denounced in several influential New York papers and by radio.

    The public became dazed by the propaganda, and the U.S. Government soon placed on German imports the so-called “general” tariff rates as against the “most favored” status for all other nations. This slowed down but did not stop the German manufacture of export goods, and the U.S. took a further step, described as follows in the New York Times (June 5, 1936): “Already Germany is paying general tariff rates because she has been removed by Secretary of State Cordell Hull from the most favored nation list . . . Now she will be required to pay additional duties . . . it was decided that they would range from about 22 to 56 per cent.” There were protests. According to the New York Times (July 12, 1936): “importers and others interested in trade with Germany insisted yesterday that commerce between the two countries will dwindle to the vanishing point within the next six months.” The prediction was correct.

    An effort of certain anti-German international financial interests was also made to “call” sufficient German treasury notes to “break” Germany. The German government replied successfully to this maneuver by giving a substantial bonus above the current exchange rate for foreigners who would come to Germany, exchange their currency for marks, and spend the marks in Germany. Great preparations were made for welcoming strangers to such gatherings as the “World Conference on Recreation and Leisure Time” (Hamburg, August, 1936), one of whose programs, a historic pageant on the Auszen-Alster, was attended by the author (who was visiting northern European museums and coastal areas in the interest of his historical novel, Swords in the Dawn). Special trains brought in school children from as far as northern Norway. Whether from sincerity or from a desire to create a good impression, visitors were shown every courtesy. As a result of the German effort and the money bonus afforded by the favorable exchange, retired people, pensioners, and tourists spent enough funds in the Reich to keep the mark stable.

    But this German financial victory in 1936, though it prevented an immediate currency collapse, did not solve the problem of 62,000,000 people (69,000,000 by 1939) in an area approximately the size of Texas being effectively denied export trade.

    Through Secretary of State Cordell Hull and other officials President Roosevelt sponsored Mr. Untermeyer’s economic war against Germany, but he still adhered, in his public utterances, to a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of foreign nations. In two speeches in the summer of 1937 he voiced “our entanglements” (American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, by Charles A. Beard, Yale University Press, 1946, p. 183).

    Some sinister underground deal must have been consummated within two months, however, for in a speech in Chicago on October 5th the President made an about-face, which was probably the most complete in the whole history of American foreign policy. Here are two excerpts from the famous “Quarantine” speech:

    Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked! . . .

    When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.

    This pronouncement, so inflammatory, so provocative of war, caused unprecedented consternation in the United States (see Beard, op. cit., pp. 186 ff.). Most outspoken in opposition to the “quarantine” policy was the Chicago Tribune. Violently enthusiastic was the New Masses, and Mr. Earl Browder promised the administration the “100 percent unconditional support of the Communist party” provided Roosevelt adopted a hands-off policy toward Communism. Incidentally, this Democratic-Communist collaboration was openly or covertly to be a factor in subsequent United States foreign and domestic policy to and beyond the middle of the twentieth century. “I welcome the support of Earl Browder or any one else who will help keep President Roosevelt in office,” said Harry S. Truman, candidate for Vice President, on October 17, 1944 (National Republic, May, 1951, p. 8).

    Far more numerous than denouncers or endorsers of the “quarantine” speech of 1937 were those who called for clarification. This, however, was not vouchsafed — nor was it, apart from possible details of method and time, really necessary. It was perfectly obvious that the President referred to Japan and Germany. With the latter country we had already declared that “no quarter” economic war recommended by the President of the World Jewish Economic Federation, and now in unquestionably hostile terms our President declared a political war. In his diary, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal recorded that he was told by Joseph P. Kennedy, our Ambassador to Britain, that Prime Minister Chamberlain “stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war” (The Forrestal Diaries, ed. by Walter Millis, The Viking Press, New York, 1951, pp. 121-122).

    Censorship, governmental and other (Chapter V), was tight in America by 1937. It had blocked out the reasons for Mr. Roosevelt’s public change of policy between summer and autumn, and it blacked out the fact that the President’s threatening attitude caused Germany to make, and make a second time, an appeal for peace. These appeals did not become known to the American public for more than ten years. Here is the story, summarized from an article by Bertram D. Hulen in the New York Times of December 17, 1948:

    In 1937 and again in 1938 the German government made “a sincere effort to improve relations with the United States, only to be rebuffed.” The U.S. Government’s alleged reason was “a fear of domestic political reactions in this country unfavorable to the Administration.” Germany was told that the American public would not tolerate a conference. Some officials favored exploring the German offer “after the congressional elections in the fall” (1938). The sequel, of course, is that the Roosevelt administration blocked Germany’s further efforts for peace by withdrawing our ambassador from Berlin and thus peremptorily preventing future negotiations. Germany then had to recall her Ambassador “who was personally friendly toward Americans” and, according to the New York Times, “was known in diplomatic circles here at the time to be working for international understanding in a spirit of good will.” Here, to repeat for emphasis, is the crux of the matter: The whole story of Germany’s appeal for negotiations and our curt refusal and severance of diplomatic relations was not published in 1937 or 1938, when Germany made her appeals, but was withheld from the public until ferreted out by the House Committee on Un-American Activities after World War II and by that committee released to the press more than ten years after the facts were so criminally suppressed. Parenthetically, it is because of services such as this on behalf of truth that the Committee on Un-American Activities has been so frequently maligned . In fact, in our country since the 1930’s there seems little question that the best criterion for separating true Americans from others is a recorded attitude toward the famous Martin Dies Committee.

    Economically strangled by an international boycott headed up in New York, and outlawed politically even to the extent of being denied a conference, the Germans in the late 1930’s faced the alternatives of mass unemployment from loss of world trade or working in government-sponsored projects. They accepted the latter. The workers who lost their jobs in export businesses were at once employed in Hitler’s armament industries (see the special edition of the Illustrierte Zeitung for November 25, 1936), which were already more than ample for the size and resources of the country, and soon became colossal.

    Thus by desperate measures, advertised to the world in the phrase “guns instead of butter,” Hitler prepared to cope with what he considered to be the British-French-American-Soviet “encirclement.” Stung by what he considered President Roosevelt’s insulting language and maddened by the contemptuous rejection of his diplomatic approaches to the United States, he made a deal (August, 1939) against Poland with the Soviet Union, a power he had taught the German people to fear and hate! With the inevitability of a Sophoclean tragedy, this betrayal of his own conscience brought him to ruin — and Germany with him. Such is the danger which lurks for a people when they confide their destiny to the whims of a dictator!

    The war which resulted from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policy is well remembered, especially by those American families whose sons lie beneath white crosses – at home or afar. Its pre-shooting phase, with all the weavings back and forth, is analyzed in Professor Beard’s volume, already referred to. Its causes are the subject of Frederick R. Sanborn’s Design for War (Devin-Adair, New York, 1951). Its progress is surveyed in William Henry Chamberlin’s America’s Second Crusade (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1950). Details cannot be here presented.

    This much, however, is evident. With some secret facts now revealed and with the foul picture now nearing completion, we can no longer wonder at a clean trustful young soldier or an honorable general being unable to give a satisfactory reason for our part in promoting and participating in World War II.

    As the “unnecessary war” progressed, we adopted an increasingly horrible policy. Our government’s fawning embrace of the Communist dictator of Russia, and his brutal philosophy which we called “democratic,” was the most “unnecessary” act of our whole national history, and could have been motivated only by the most reprehensible political considerations – such, for instance, as holding the 100 percent Communist support at a price proposed by Mr. Browder. Among those who learned the truth and remained silent, with terrible consequences to himself and his country, was James V. Forrestal. In an article, “The Forrestal Diaries,” Life reveals (October 15, 1951) that in 1944 Forrestal wrote thus to a friend about the “liberals”


    Among those who saw our madness, and spoke out, were Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Winston Churchill.

    Senator Taft’s radio address of June 29, 1941, a few days after Hitler invaded Russia, included the following passage:

    How can anyone swallow the idea that Russia is battling for democratic principles? Yet the President on Monday announced that the character and quantity of the aid to await only a disclosure of Russian needs. . . To spread the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship airplanes and tanks and guns to Communist Russia. But no country was more responsible for the present war and Germany’s aggression than Russia itself. Except for the Russian pact with Germany there would have been no invasion of Poland. Then Russia proved to be as much of an aggressor as Germany. In the name of democracy we are to make a Communist alliance with the most ruthless dictator in the world. . .

    But the victory of Communism in the world would be far more dangerous to the United States than the victory of Fascism. There has never been the slightest danger that the people of this country would ever embrace Bundism or Nazism . . . But Communism masquerades, often successfully, under the guise of democracy (Human Events, March 28, 1951).

    The Prime Minister of Britain, the Right Honorable Winston Churchill, was alarmed at President Roosevelt’s silly infatuation for Stalin and the accompanying mania for serving the interests of world Communism. “It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the ancient states of Europe,” he wrote on Oct. 21, 1942, to the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden. Churchill also wanted an invasion of the Balkans, which Roosevelt and Marshall opposed apparently to please Stalin (Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1946, passim). This is no place and the author assumes no competence for analyzing the strategy of individual campaigns; but according to Helen Lombard’s While They Fought (Charles Scribner’s Sons, p. 148) General Marshall stated to a Congressional Committee that the “purpose” of the Italian campaign was to draw “German forces away from the Russian front,” and according to the same source General Mark Clark when questioned “about American political aims” found himself ” obliged to state that his country was seeking nothing except ground in which to bury her dead.” Such being true, one may wonder why — except for the furtherance of Stalin’s aims the forces devoted to strategically unimportant Italy, the winning of which left the Alps between our armies and Germany, were not landed, for instance, in the Salonika area for the historic Vardar Valley invasion route which leads without major obstacles to the heart of Europe and would have helped Stalin defeat Hitler without giving the Red dictator all of Christian Eastern Europe as a recompense.

    It is widely realized now that Churchill had to put up with much indignity and had to agree to many strategically unsound policies to prevent the clique around Roosevelt from prompting him to injure even more decisively Britain’s world position vis-a-vis with the Soviet Union.


    Examining Stalin’s 1941 Plan to Attack Germany
    Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit (“Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians’ Dispute”), by Wolfgang Strauss. Munich: Herbig, 1998. Hardcover. 199 pages. Illustrations. Source references. Bibliography. Index.
    Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels
    No two peoples suffered more during the Second World War than the Russians and the Germans. In the carnage of that great global conflict, nothing matched the massive destruction of life and property wrought on the Eastern front by Russian and German forces fanatically driven by irreconcilable ideologies.

    Now, more than 50 years after the end of the “clash of the titans,” free Russian and German historians are collaborating to ascertain the historical decisions and actions that led to that bloodiest of all conflicts. Wolfgang Strauss, a respected German Slavicist and political analyst, explains this clarifying historical process in “Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians’ Dispute,” his most recent work.[note 1] He examines here the research of revisionist scholars in Russia and Germany on Stalin’s role in igniting the German-Russian conflict and his efforts to expand the Soviet empire across Europe. Perhaps most importantly, he also shows how a shared understanding of the war is contributing to reconciliation between these two great European peoples.

    Strauss affirms the view of German historian Ernst Nolte that Hitler’s militant anti-Communism was an understandable reaction to the looming Soviet threat to Europe and humanity. Put another way, the militancy of the “fascist” movements that arose in Germany, Spain, Italy and other European countries in the 1920s and 1930s was, in essence, a response to the undisguised Bolshevik goal of dominating Europe.[note 2] This view, Strauss contends, has now largely been embraced by Russian revisionists and the French historian François Furet.[note 3] It is basically irrelevant whether one regards the war that broke out in June 1941 between Germany and Soviet Russia as a war of aggression, a preventive war or a counterattack. For each side, Nolte and others contend, this was a life or death struggle to decide which world view and way of life would prevail in Europe — atheistic, internationalist Communism or the bourgeois Christian civilization of the West.

    The Black Book
    In no way does Strauss dismiss or whitewash Hitler’s brutal excesses. He also holds that Hitler’s racist concept of the inferiority of the Slavic peoples and his attempt to colonize their lands was not only wrong but doomed his military campaign, and ultimately the Third Reich, to failure. At the same time, Strauss stresses the monumental brutality of Soviet and international Communism. In this regard he cites The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror and Repression, a recent 860-page work by French scholar Stéphane Courtois and others.[note 4]

    As Courtois stresses, many American and European scholars have upheld a morally peculiar view of history that fervently condemns National Socialist Germany while maintaining a meretriciously non-judgmental “objectivity” toward Soviet Russia. But there is no hierarchy of death and suffering. As Courtois writes: “The death of a Ukrainian peasant child, deliberately exposed to starvation by the Stalinist regime, is just as important as the starvation of a child in the Warsaw Ghetto.”

    As Strauss relates, Courtois finds that 1) some 100 million human beings lost their lives as a result of Communist policies in the Soviet Union, Red China and other Communist states 2) The Communists made mass criminality an integral part of their governmental system; 3) Terror was part of the Soviet regime from the outset, beginning with Lenin; 4) Class and ethnic genocide, begun by Lenin and systematized by Stalin, preceded Hitler’s dictatorship by years; 5) Stalin was unquestionably a greater criminal than Hitler; and 6) Stalin’s joint, if not primary, responsibility for the outbreak of Russo-German War is undeniable.[note 5]

    It is often forgotten that the Russian people were the first victims of Communism. Citing evidence from British, Russian and other sources, Strauss shows that those who imposed Communist despotism on the Russians were primarily non-Russian and non-Christian aliens — above all, Jews.[note 6] Their goal was nothing short of eradicating Christianity and European civilization, at whatever the human cost. Many Russians place the primary responsibility for the crimes of Communism, particularly in the first ten years of Soviet rule, on the Bolshevik party’s non-Russian elements. For example, Strauss notes, the Russian press has referred to the execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family as a “Jewish ritualistic murder.”[note 7] In a similar context, Strauss cites from Solzhenitsyn the names of the ruthless Soviet secret police (NKVD) chiefs — all of them Jews — who put tens of thousands of slave laborers to death under appallingly inhumane conditions in building the White Sea Canal.[note 8]

    One should not, however, get the impression that Slavs were the exclusive victims of Stalin’s terror, or that the murderers were all non-Russians.[note 9] During the Great Purge of 1937-39, Strauss points out, Stalin executed many Jews who had played a prominent role in the early Soviet regime. In 1940 Stalin succeeded in killing his greatest rival, Lev Trotsky (Bronstein), who had once been the second most powerful figure in the Soviet state. And when Stalin installed the Russian Nikolai Yezhov as head of the NKVD, replacing the Jewish Genrikh Yagoda, thousands of Yagoda’s followers and their families, mostly Jews, were murdered or committed suicide.

    Pioneering Russian Revisionists
    One of the earliest Russian revisionists of World War II history was Pyotr Grigorenko, a Soviet Army Major General and highly decorated war veteran who taught at the Frunze Military Academy. Already in the early 1960s, during the Khrushchev era, he was a “dissident,” publicly supporting civil rights for oppressed ethnic minorities. (Authorities committed him to a mental asylum.) In 1967, Strauss relates, he was the first leading Soviet figure to advance the revisionist arguments, which became well known during the 1980s and 1990s, on Stalin’s preparations for aggressive war against Germany. In an article submitted to a major Soviet journal (but rejected, and later published abroad), Grigorenko pointed out that Soviet military forces vastly outnumbered German forces in 1941. Just prior to the German attack on June 22, 1941, more than half of the Soviet forces were in the area near and west of Bialystok, that is, in an area deep in Polish occupied territory. “This deployment could only be justified” wrote Grigorenko, “if these troops were deploying for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack these troops would soon be encircled.”[note 10]

    The best known Russian historian to advance revisionist arguments on Stalin’s preparations for a first-strike against Germany has been Viktor Suvorov (pen name of Vladimir Rezun). Strauss recapitulates his main arguments (which have been treated in detail in the pages of this Journal).[note 11]

    Strauss examines three significant speeches by Stalin (which have also been dealt with by Suvorov, as well as in the pages of this Journal):[note 12] 1. In his address of August 19, 1939, shortly before the outbreak of war, Stalin explained why a temporary alliance with Germany was more beneficial to Soviet interests than an alliance with Britain and France. 2. In his speech of May 5, 1941, Stalin explained to graduate officers of military academies that the impending war would be fought offensively by Soviet forces, and that it would nonetheless be a just war because it would advance world socialism. 3. In the speech of November 6, 1941, some four months after the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” campaign, Stalin stressed the importance of killing Germans. (This speech helped to “inspire” the Soviet Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg to make his notorious contribution to the war effort in the form of murderously anti-German propaganda.)

    Recent Russian Revisionist Historiography
    A radical revision of World War II history, Strauss contends, became possible only after the collapse of the multinational Soviet Union (1991), when some 14 million previously classified documents dealing with all aspects of Soviet rule were finally open to free examination. This book’s greatest contribution may well be to highlight for non-Russians the research of Russian revisionists. Strauss is very familiar with this important work, which has been all but entirely ignored in the United States. The most important publications cited by Strauss in this regard are two Russian anthologies, both issued in 1995: “Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler?,” and “September 1, 1939-May 9, 1945: 50th Anniversary of the Defeat of Fascist Germany.”[note 13] The first of these contains articles by revisionist scholars as well as by critics of revisionism. (The “Russian historians’ dispute” referred to in the subtitle of Strauss’ book echoes the “German historians’ dispute” of the 1980s, in which Ernst Nolte played a major role.)

    As Strauss notes, the most prominent critic of the revisionist view of Suvorov and others has been Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, who teaches at Tel Aviv University. (Strauss suggests that he is an long-time apologist for Stalin.) Gorodetsky is the author of a 1995 Russian-language anti-Suvorov work, “The ‘Icebreaker’ Myth,” and a detailed 1999 study, Grand Illusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia.

    In his discussion of “Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler,” Strauss writes (pages 42-44):

    Even though revisionists as well as the critics of revisionism have their say in this book, the end result is the same. The anti-Fascist attempts to justify and legitimize Stalin’s war policy from 1939 do not hold up. The view that the Second World War was “a crime attributable solely to National Socialist Germany” can no longer be sustained. The historical truth as seen by Russian revisionists is documented in this collection of articles published by Bordyugov and Nevezhin as well as by the renowned war historian Mikhail Melitiukhov, academic associate of the All-Russian Research Institute for Documentation and Archives.
    This most recent compendium of Russian revisionist writings deepens our understanding of Stalin’s preparations for a military first-strike against Germany in the summer of 1941. The strategic deployment plan, approved by Stalin at a conference on May 15, 1941, with General Staff chief Georgi Zhukov and Defense Commissar Semen Timoshenko, called for a Blitzkrieg:

    Tank divisions and mechanized corps were to launch their attack from the Brest and Lviv [Lemberg] tier accompanied by destructive air strikes. The objective was to conquer East Prussia, Poland, Silesia and the [Czech] Protectorate, and thereby cut Germany off from the Balkans and the Romanian oil fields. Lublin, Warsaw, Kattowice, Cracow, Breslau [Wroclaw] and Prague were targets to be attacked.

    A second attack thrust was to be directed at Romania, with the capture of Bucharest. The successful accomplishment of the immediate aims, namely, to destroy the mass of the German Army east of the Vistula, Narev and Oder rivers, was the necessary prerequisite for the fulfillment of the main objective, which was to defeat Germany in a quick campaign. The main contingents of the German armed forces were to be encircled and destroyed by tank armies in bold rapid advances.

    Three recurrent terms in the mobilization plan of May 15 confirm the aggressive character of Stalin’s plan. “A sudden strike” (vnyyzapni udar), “forward deployment” (razvertyvaniye), and “offensive war” (nastupatel’naya voyna). Of the 303 [Soviet] divisions assembled on the western front, 172 were assigned to the first wave of attack. One month was allotted for the total deployment — the period from June 15 to July 15. Mikhail Melitiukhov: “On this basis it appears that the war against Germany would have to have begun in July.”

    This anthology also devotes much attention to analyzing Stalin’s speech of May 5, 1941, delivered to graduates of Soviet military academies. In this speech Stalin justified his change of foreign policy in connection with the now decided-upon attack against Germany. From the Communist point of view even a Soviet war of aggression is a “just war” because it serves to expand the “territory of the socialist world” and “to destroy the capitalist world.” Most important in this May 5 speech was Stalin’s efforts to dispel the “myth of the invincible Wehrmacht.” The Red Army was strong enough to smash any enemy, even the “seemingly invincible Wehrmacht.”

    Strauss lists (pages 102-105) the major findings and conclusions of Russian revisionists, derived mostly from the two major works cited above:

    Stalin wanted a general European war of exhaustion in which the USSR would intervene at the politically and militarily most expedient moment. Stalin’s main intention is seen in his speech to the Politburo of August 19, 1939.
    To ignite this, Stalin used the [August 1939] Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact, which: a) provoked Hitler’s attack against Poland, and b) evoked the declarations of war [against Germany] by Britain and France.
    In the event Germany was defeated quickly [by Britain and France], Stalin planned to “Sovietize” Germany and establish a “Communist government” there, but with the danger that the victorious capitalist powers would never permit a Communist Germany.
    In the event France was defeated quickly [by Germany], Stalin planned the “Sovietization” of France. “A Communist revolution would seem inevitable, and we could take advantage of this for our own purposes by rushing to aid France and making her our ally. As a result of this, all the nations under the ‘protection’ of a victorious Germany would become our allies.”
    From the outset Stalin reckoned on a war with Germany, and the [Soviet] conquest of Germany. To this end, Stalin concentrated on the western border of the USSR operational offensive forces, which were five- to six-times stronger than the Wehrmacht with respect to tanks, aircraft and artillery.
    With respect to a war of aggression, on May 15, 1941, the Red Army’s Main Political Directorate instructed troop commanders that every war the USSR engaged in, whether defensive or offensive, would have the character of a “just war.”
    Troop contingents were to be brought up to full strength in all the western military districts; airfields and supply bases to support a forward-strategy were to be built directly behind the border; an attack force of 60 divisions was to be set up in the Ukraine and mountain divisions and a parachute corps were to be established for attack operations.
    The 16th, 19th, 21st, 22nd and 25th Soviet Armies were transferred from the interior to the western border, and deployed at take-off points for the planned offensive.
    In his speech of May 5, 1941, to graduate officers of the academies, Stalin said that war with Germany was inevitable, and characterized it as a war not only of a defensive nature but rather of an offensive nature.
    Stalin intended to attack in July 1941, although Russian historians disagree about the precise date. Suvorov cites July 6, [Valeri] Danilov [a retired Soviet Colonel] gives July 2, while Melitiukhov writes: “The Red Army could not have carried out an attack before July 15.”
    Hitler’s Proclamation
    In an appendix of documents, Strauss includes portions of Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa” directive of December 18, 1940. Also here, in facsimile, is a German press announcement of June 22, 1941, that gives Hitler’s reasons for Germany’s attack against the Soviet Union:

    This morning the Führer, through Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels, issued a proclamation to the German people in which he explains that after months-long silence he can finally speak openly to the German people about the dangerous machinations of the Jewish-Bolshevik rulers in Soviet Russia. After the German-Russian Friendship Treaty in the Autumn of 1939, he hoped for an easing of tensions with Russia. This hope, however, was crushed by Soviet Russia’s extortionist demands against both Finland and the Baltic states as well as against Romania.
    After the victory in Poland the Western powers rejected the Führer’s proposal for an understanding because they were hoping that Soviet Russia would attack Germany. Since the Spring of 1940 Soviet troops have been deploying in ever increasing numbers along the German border, so that since August 1940 strong German forces have been tied down in the East, making any major German effort in the West impossible.

    During his [November 1940] visit to Berlin, [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov posed questions regarding Romania, Finland, Bulgaria and the Dardanelles that clearly revealed that Soviet Russia intended to create trouble in eastern Europe. To be sure, the Bolshevik coup attempt against the [Romanian] government of Antonescu failed, but, with the help of the Anglo-Saxon powers [Britain and the United States], their putsch in Yugoslavia succeeded. Serbian air force officers flew to Russia and were immediately incorporated in the Army there.

    With these machinations Moscow has not just broken the so-called German-Russian Friendship Treaty, it has betrayed it. In his proclamation the Führer stressed that further silence on his part would be a crime not only against Germany, but against Europe as well. On the border now stand 160 Russian divisions,[note 14] which have repeatedly violated that frontier. On June 17-18 Soviet patrols were forced back across the border only after a lengthy exchange of fire. Meanwhile, to protect Europe and defend against further Russian provocations, the greatest build-up of forces ever has been assembled against Soviet Russia. German troops stand from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea, allied in the north with Finnish troops and along the Bessarabian border with Romanian forces.

    The Führer concluded his proclamation with the following sentences: “I have therefore decided to once again lay the fate and the future of the German Reich and of our people in the hands of our soldiers. May the Lord God help us especially in this struggle!”

    Coming to Terms With the Past
    Even though more and more independent Russian, German and other European historians support the revisionist arguments of Suvorov (and others), it still seems impossible, especially in Germany, to reapportion historical responsibility from Hitler to Stalin. In this regard, Strauss recalls (pages 45-46) a discussion in May 1993 at the Military History Research Office in Freiburg involving German historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann, decades-long associate of the Research Office, and Russian historian Viktor Suvorov. Hoffman told of conversations on the “preventive war” issue he has had with prominent Germans, including President Richard von Weizsäcker, the influential journalist Marion Gräfin Dönhoff, and political figures Egon Bahr and Heinrich Graf von Einsiedel. In every case he was told that even if Suvorov is correct, and Hitler’s attack indeed preceded Stalin’s by weeks, this must not be acknowledged publicly because it would exonerate Hitler. This is typical, says Hoffmann, of the immoral attitude that prevails in Germany. In their egotism, he adds, these Germans do not realize that they are, in effect, demanding that Russians accept the propaganda lies of the Stalin era.

    Strauss contrasts the very different attitudes of Germans and Russians toward 20th century history, and the role of historical revisionism. Whereas Germans are imbued with a national masochistic guilt complex about their collectively “evil” past, which was instilled during the postwar occupation as part of Allied “reeducation” campaign, and reinforced ever since in their media and by “their” political leaders, Russians are much more free and open about their Communist past, largely because they have not been occupied by foreign conquerers, and their media and educational system has not come under the control of outsiders.[note 15] Although die-hard Communists try to uphold the historiography of the Soviet era, most Russians want to know the truth about their past. After all, Strauss points out, one out of every two Russian families suffered under the Stalinist tyranny. For the time being, anyway, nothing is taboo in Russia, including the role of Jews in the Communist movement. (By contrast, Germans are forbidden by law to say anything derogatory about the political activities of Jews in the first half of the 20th century.)

    The term “genocide” is used to refer particularly to the World War II treatment of Europe’s Jews. Without in any way minimizing the sufferings of innocent Jews caught up in that maelstrom, one should not forget that Stalin’s Soviet regime inflicted a much more ruthless and widespread genocide against the Russian and Ukrainian peoples. It is estimated that in the Soviet Union about 20 million people, the vast majority of them Slavs, lost their lives as a result of Soviet policies, either executed or otherwise perished in the Gulag prison network or as victims of imposed famine, and so forth. Millions of Germans were also victims of genocide. It is estimated that some four million Germans were killed or otherwise perished during the 1944-1948 period, victims of Allied-imposed “ethnic cleansing,” starvation, slave labor in the USSR, and in inhumane POW camps administered by the victorious Allies.[note 16]

    In promoting greater understanding of the calamitous German-Russian clash of 1941-1945, German and Russian revisionist scholars foster reconciliation between these two peoples. Strauss cites recent developments that attest to this process. In Volgograd, victors and vanquished have joined to erect a monument dedicated to all the victims of the Battle of Stalingrad. Its inscription, written in Russian and German, reads: “This monument commemorates the suffering of the soldiers and civilians who fell here. We ask that those who died here and in captivity will rest in eternal peace in Russian soil.” On the outskirts of St. Petersburg a German soldiers’ cemetery and memorial was recently dedicated. Across Russia today, it is not unusual for Russian women to tend the graves of German soldiers. (Because the Soviet government did very little to help identify and provide decent burials for their war dead, few Russian women have had any idea where their own sons, brothers, and husbands fell.)

    In the book’s epilogue, Strauss describes the fervent indignation and rage of Russians over the criminal capitalism that has taken hold in their country. The inequities between the nouveau riches and the mass of Russian working class people are now greater than under Soviet rule. Many Russian revisionists see an intrinsic resemblance and affinity between capitalism and Communism. Given that many former Soviet officials still hold office or otherwise wield power in the “new Russia,” everyone readily sees how easy it has been for members of the old Soviet elite — the Nomenklatura — to reemerge in Russia’s predatory capitalism as racketeers, gangsters, money speculators, bank frauders, extortionists and mafiosi. On the ruins of the Soviet system, writes Strauss, has emerged a new dictatorship of pitilessness, corruption, criminality, social division, poverty and despair. Resentment against the “reformist” policies advocated by the United States is widespread.

    In this regard Strauss cites the views of Spanish writer Juan Goytisolo, who asserts that if this social pathology endures in Russia, then Karl Marx’s analysis will be proven correct, at least in part. While Marx was wrong about the promised virtues of Communism, writes Goytisolo, events seem to confirm his critique of capitalism, especially of unrestrained monetarism that knows only one value, namely, maximum profits regardless of human cost.[note 17]

    ‘Strong and Free’
    Whether they call themselves “Reformers” (Westernizers), Communists or nationalists (“Eurasians”), Russians today, writes Strauss, overwhelmingly reject all forms of internationalism, whether Communist or capitalist. They want a Russia that is strong and free.

    Toward this goal, many look to geopolitics, an outlook built on the Eurasian “heartland” theory expounded by 20th-century British geographer Halford Mackinder and promoted in Third Reich Germany by Karl Haushofer. (According to this theory, Russia has the potential for great power and prosperity because it is the core of the vast, resource-rich Eurasian heartland.) The leading exponent in Russia today of this view is Alexander Dugin, whose book, “The Basics of Geopolitics: Russia’s Geopolitical Future,” has been influential with both old Communists and new nationalists in a grouping sometimes referred to as the “national Bolshevik alliance,” and whose adherents are known as “Eurasianists.” Dugin is a close associate of Gennady Zyuganov, head of the country’s largest political party, the Russian Communist Party (which, in spite of its name, is much more nationalist than Marxist). Zyuganov himself is the author of a recent book, “The Geography of Victory: The Bases of Russian Geopolitics.”

    Russia’s parliament, the Duma, has established a Committee of Geopolitical Affairs, chaired by Alexey Mitrofanov, a member of Vladimir Zhirinovksy’s Liberal Democratic Party. (Zhirinovsky proposes the formation of a Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo axis, and has been quoted as saying: “Today, the United States of America is the major enemy of our country. All our actions and dealings with America from now on should be undertaken with this in mind.”)

    Strauss, born in 1931, was arrested for anti-Communist activities as an Oberschuler (secondary school student) in East Germany (DDR) and imprisoned, 1950-1956. He is the author of several other notable books on Russia, including Russland wird leben: vom roten Stern zur Zarenfahne (1992), Drei Tage, die die Welt erschutterten (1992), Burgerrechtler in der UdSSR (1979), and Von der Wiedergeburt slawophiler Ideen in Russland (1977). He is also a frequent contributor to scholarly journals. He currently lives in Bavaria, where he works as a Slavic affairs specialist.
    See: Ernst Nolte, Der Europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917-1945: Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus (Munich: 1997 [5th ed.]). Nolte has strongly suggested that Hitler’s wartime treatment of the Jews might legitimately be regarded as a defensive response by Hitler to the threat of Bolshevik mass murder of the Germans. In a 1980 lecture he said: “It is hard to deny that Hitler had good reason to be convinced of his enemies’ determination to annihilate long before the first information about the events in Auschwitz became public.” See also the interview with Nolte in the Jan.-Feb. 1994 Journal (Vol. 14, No. 1), pp. 15-22, and “Changing Perspectives on History in Germany: A Prestigious Award for Nolte: Portent of Greater Historical Objectivity?,” July-August 2000 Journal, pp. 29-32.
    François Furet and Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe: Kommunismus und Faschismus im 20. Jahrhundert: Ein Briefwechsel (Munich: 1998).
    The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, by Stéphane Courtois and others (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). Original edition: Le livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression (Paris: 1997). Earlier works by Courtois include Histoire du parti communiste français (1995), L’etat du monde en 1945 (1994), Rigueur et passion (1994), 50 ans d’une passion français (1991), and Qui savait quoi? (1987).
    Courtois has also written: “I am fighting for a reevaluation of Stalin. He was to be sure the greatest criminal of the century. But at the same time he was the greatest politician — the most competent, the most professional. He was the one who understood most perfectly how to put his resources at the service of his goals.”
    Russian nationalists are fully aware, just as were the anti-Bolshevik “White Russians,” that the leaders of Russia’s Marxist movement — Mensheviks and Bolsheviks alike — were predominantly not Russian at all. As evidence of the alien character of the Bolshevik revolution and of the early Soviet regime, Russian nationalists (along with many others) often cite The Last Days of the Romanovs, a work by British writer Robert Wilton (and now translated into Russian). In an appendix to the 1993 IHR edition of this work (pp. 184-190), Wilton also notes: “According to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of important functionaries of the Bolshevik state… in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews.” See also: M. Weber, “The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Early Soviet Regime,” Jan.-Feb. 1994 Journal, pp. 4-14.
    A special 1996 edition of the Moscow newspaper Russkiy Vestnik lists the names of the executioners: Yankel Yurovsky, Anselm Fischer, Istvan Kolman, A. Chorwat, Isidor Edelstein, Imre Magy [?], Victor Grinfeld, Andreas Wergasi and S. Farkash. The article concludes: “All of this attests to the non-Russian origin of the murderers.”
    According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the six directors were Semyon Firin, Matvei Berman, Naftali Frenkel, Lazar Kogan, Yakov Rappoport, Sergei Zhuk. The Head of the Military Guards was Brodsky, the Canal Curator of the Central Executive Committee was Solts, the GPU and NKVD heads were Yagoda, Pauker, Spiegelglas, Kaznelson, Sakovskiy, Sorensen, Messing and Arshakuni. As the names indicate, all were non-Russians. Stalin awarded most of these murderers the honorary title “Hero of Labor.” See: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, III-IV, Book Two (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 79, 81, 82, 84, 94, etc.
    This generalization is mostly valid for the first 20 years of Soviet rule. However, following the Great Purge (1937-1939), and except for several years after World War II in East Europe where Stalin used Jewish Communists to instal puppet regimes, the dictator until his death actively opposed elements he referred to as cosmopolitans, parasites, and so forth.
    Grigorenko originally submitted his article to the Soviet journal Voprosy istorii KPSS, which (of course) rejected it. It was published in 1969 by Possev, a Russian emigré publishing house in Frankfurt am Main.
    Suvorov’s first three books on World War II have been reviewed in The Journal of Historical Review. The first two, Icebreaker and “M Day,” were reviewed in Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal (Vol. 16, No. 6), pp. 22-34. His third book, “The Last Republic,” was reviewed in the July-August 1998 Journal (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 30-37.
    See the review of Stalins Falle (“Stalin’s Trap”), by Adolf von Thadden, in the May-June 1999 Journal, pp. 40-45.
    Gotovil li Stalin nastupatel’nuyu voynu protiv Gitlera (“Did Stalin Make Preparations for an Offensive War Against Hitler?,” by Grigoriy Bordyugov and Vladimir Nevezhin (Moscow: AIRO XX, 1995), and, 1 sentyabrya 1939-9 maya 1945: Pyatidesyatiletiye razgroma fashistkoy Germanii v Kontekste Nachala Vtoroy Mirovoy Voyny (“September 1, 1939-May 9, 1945: the 50th Anniversary of the Defeat of Fascist Germany in the Context of the Beginning of the War”), edited by I.V. Pavlova and V. L. Doroshenko (Novosibirsk Memorial, 1995). The latter work was briefly cited in the Nov.-Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32-34.
    The German High Command greatly underestimated the number of Soviet divisions, as well as the quality and quantity of Soviet tanks. Hitler and the Wehrmacht were to find not 160 divisions on their doorstep, but more than 300. See: David Irving, Hitler’s War (New York: Viking, 1977), pp. 205-206, 297. On the correlation of forces in June 1941, see also Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 (Munich, 1995), Chapter 1, and esp. pp. 31, 66.
    Ominously, however, the “oligarchs,” most of them Jewish, exercise considerable control over the Russian media. See: Daniel W. Michaels, “Capitalism in the New Russia,” May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27, and, “A Jewish Appeal to Russia’s Elite,” Nov.-Dec. 1998 Journal, pp. 13-18.
    See: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), Alfred-M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1989 [3rd rev. ed.]), James Bacque, Other Losses (Prima, 1991), J. Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (Little, Brown, 1997), Ralph Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (IHR, 1992).
    Juan Goytisolo, La Saga de los Marx (Barcelona: Mondadori, 1993). Although Goytisolo was undoubtedly one of Spain’s foremost 20th century novelists, both his political views and private life were highly controversial. Expelled from Spain by Franco, he lived most of his life in France.


    About the author
    Daniel W. Michaels is a Columbia University graduate (Phi Beta Kappa, 1954), and a former Fulbright exchange student to Germany (1957). He is retired from the US Department of Defense after 40 years of service.

    Bibliographic information Author:
    Daniel W. Michaels
    Examining Stalin’s 1941 Plan to Attack Germany: Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians’ Dispute (review)

    The Journal for Historical Review (
    November/December 2000
    Volume 19 number 6
    page 40
    Attribution: “Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA. Domestic subscriptions $40 per year; foreign subscriptions $60 per year.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s