Monday, February 24, 2020

Ich kämpfe (I Fight!)



Back in 2013 I made the first digital edition of the book “Ich kämpfe” (I Fight!) in English language. I made this PDF digital version of the book because it is very important for the ideological education of every true National-Socialist! Today is the 100-th anniversary of the National-Socialist German Worker’s Party – the NSDAP and it is a good occasion to popularize the book “Ich kämpfe” (I Fight!) again.

This book was presented to every new member of the NSDAP. After WWII the Allies and the Bolsheviks tried to burn all copies of the book, which they were able to find. Fortunately, the book was printed in huge numbers and our enemies failed to destroy all the copies – now the book is available all over Internet and is beyond their reach!

In the book are included: articles by Philipp Bouhler, Alfred Rosenberg, Robert Ley, Viktor Lutze and Joseph Goebbels, quotations of the Führer, a description of the National Socialist way of life, a statement of purpose, a listing of important NS dates, a brief history, an honour roll of martyrs of the Movement, the Pledge of Loyalty, words to the Horst Wessel Song, and more.

Heil Hitler!

Your comrade,
Propagandaleiter

Thursday, February 20, 2020

The Importance of Courage


The Fear of Being Politically Incorrect Has Reached Ridiculous Proportions

Original air date: July 12, 1997

I’ve never been a boxing fan, and so normally I wouldn’t feel qualified to say anything about the sport. However, I have been amused by all of the public commentary by media spokesmen, politicians, and boxing officials about the fact that one boxer of the African persuasion saw fit to bite a sizable chunk out of the ear of another boxer of the same persuasion during a recent match. Rather, I have been amused by the fact that the one thing none of these people has mentioned in the discussions of the ear-biting incident is the racial dimension. They all have carefully avoided saying anything at all about the fact that Mike Tyson is a Negro, lest anyone think that they are suggesting that his race had anything to do with his behavior. Heaven forbid!

The refusal of the media to say anything about race in the Tyson affair doesn’t mean they aren’t aware of it. For the next six months they’ll be scraping up every affirmative-action Black rocket scientist, every affirmative-action Black brain surgeon, every affirmative-action Black university president, and every affirmative-action Black Air Force general they can sign up to interview on TV for one thing or another, in an effort to neutralize the damage Tyson has done to their carefully promoted illusion of racial „equality.“

All of this is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s novel 1984, in which people are able to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears, are able to shut down their reasoning processes, and are able to interpret everything around them in a Politically Correct manner. The force which makes Orwell’s characters subordinate reason to Political Correctness is fear: fear of the Thought Police.

In America today we do not have Thought Police – not yet. We do have thought crimes and thought criminals. They are called „hate crimes“ and „hate criminals“ and are defined in terms of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time he committed an act. Our beloved Big Brother – Bill Clinton, that is – is campaigning hard for more laws against thought crimes, and so are the Jewish media and the other minions of Political Correctness. I suppose it won’t be long before we do have a new secret-police agency to catch thought criminals. Perhaps they will be called the „Hate Police“ or the „Equality Police“ or something of the sort. Or perhaps thought criminals will continue to be hunted down by the FBI, as at present.

However, it is not fear of being caught by the Thought Police and tortured, a la 1984, which keeps all of the boxing commentators from suggesting that Mike Tyson’s race has something to do with his behavior. It is fear of being condemned by all of the other commentators, fear of being ostracized from the ranks of the Politically Correct, fear of not being invited to Washington, New York, and Hollywood cocktail parties. And ostracism can have very real economic consequences. In certain fields, it can result in the loss of employment, for example. To be Politically Correct, one must not only have the Correct thoughts at all times oneself; one also must condemn and shun anyone who manifests Incorrect thoughts. One must drum the Politically Incorrect person out of Correct society.

This fear of being Politically Incorrect has reached ridiculous dimensions. Take the widespread phenomenon of „White flight,“ for example. Millions of White people are fleeing areas which have a high percentage of Blacks, Mexicans, and other non-Whites and are relocating to predominantly White areas. Sometimes this just means a move from city to suburb, or from one suburb to another; sometimes it means moving to another state or another region of the country with fewer non-Whites. But if you ask one of these fleers why he is fleeing, you will hear every sort of answer except the true answer. Hardly anyone will admit that he is moving to get away from non-Whites. He is terrified of being thought a „racist.“ I am sure that many of these fleers don’t even admit their racial motive to themselves. I am sure that many of them feel pangs of guilt whenever they do think about their motives.

This is a deplorable situation, and it is an impressive proof of the enormous power of the mass media to brainwash the population. What George Orwell’s „Ministry of Truth“ did in the author’s imagination, Time-Warner-CNN, Disney-ABC, and the other Jewish media conglomerates are doing in fact.

The more I see things like the reaction to Mike Tyson’s cannibalism, the more I am convinced that the reason White Americans have let themselves be backed into the corner they’re in now is not because they’re stupid: it’s because they’re lacking in the courage to say what they really believe, if they may be criticized for saying it.

I’m sorry to say that I’ve seen the same sort of timidity in myself. When interviewers have asked me whether or not I’m a racist, I have responded by asking, „Well, what do you mean by the word ‘racist’?“ I’ve tried to wriggle out of giving a direct answer to the question, because the Jewish media have made such an enormous investment in demonizing the label „racist“ that one has to screw up one’s courage a bit to come right out and say, „Yes, of course, I’m a racist.“

One can quibble over the details of the definition of the word, but it’s pretty clear what the interviewers have in mind when they ask me whether or not I’m a racist. These days anyone is a racist who refuses to deny the abundantly clear evidence that there are inherited racial differences in behavior, intelligence, and attitudes. A racist is a person who will not pretend that he sees no differences – which is why all of the boxing commentators pretend that race is irrelevant and won’t mention Tyson’s Blackness in connection with his attempt to eat his opponent in the ring.

A racist is any White person who prefers to live among other Whites instead of among non- Whites and prefers to send his children to White schools.

A racist is any White person who feels a sense of identity with, a sense of belonging to, his own tribe, his own people, his own race, and who shows an interest in his race’s history, heroes, culture, and folkways – which is why Western civilization, European history, and other traditional, race-oriented curricula are being phased out at American universities and are being replaced with various „multicultural“ offerings designed specifically not to stimulate racial feelings in the students.

A White racist is a person who finds the members of his own race more attractive physically than members of other races and who is instinctively repulsed by the idea of racial intermarriage or by the sight of a White person intimately involved with a non-White – which is why the Jews in Hollywood are turning out so many films which promote racial mixing, films which portray interracial romance as glamorous and fashionable.

A racist is a White person who is disgusted with the multiracial cesspool that America is becoming under the present government and media policies. A racist is so alarmed about the threat to the future of his people that he is willing to derail these policies – which is why the media and Mr. Clinton have become so shrill recently about the need to combat „hate criminals.“

Courage: that is the key to our survival. Courage is more important than money, more important than intelligence, more important than friends or political and business connections. Unless we have the courage of our convictions, neither we nor our convictions will survive.

I don’t believe that a coward can change his nature and become a hero, but I do believe that many of us who have let ourselves be intimidated and bullied because we didn’t want to give offense, didn’t want to be rude, didn’t want to seem ungentlemanly, didn’t want to be unpopular – I do believe that we can begin reasserting ourselves. We can begin finding a little bit of courage in ourselves, we can resolve that we will no longer be bullied into going along with the crowd when we know that the crowd is wrong.

In my case, I have resolved not to refrain from speaking out whenever speaking out is the proper thing to do. I’ve resolved not to try to wriggle away from saying exactly what I believe when someone asks me whether or not I’m a racist. I believe that it would do many other people a lot of good to make a similar resolution. I believe that it would be good for their souls.

This doesn’t mean that we have to be deliberately rude or offensive. It means that when an interviewer asks me what I think about Mike Tyson’s snacking on his opponent in the ring, I’m not going to waste my time talking about Mike Tyson. I’m going to say that we should not judge the behavior of other races by our standards. I’m going to say that spectator sports in the United States have become a disaster, and that they will remain a disaster until we have swept the whole theory and practice of multiracialism into the trashbin of history, where it belongs.

Professional sports in the United States today have the spirit of the contests staged in the Roman Coliseum during the last phase of the Roman Empire, when slaves from every part of the Empire fought against other slaves for the gratification of a degenerate mob of onlookers. We need to return instead to the spirit of the Greek Olympics, in which only Greeks participated. In the Olympics, as opposed to the contests in the Coliseum – in the original Olympics – all of the contestants and the onlookers were of the same race and shared the same values. The Olympics were an expression of the Greeks’ striving for excellence. They were a racial expression as well as a spiritual expression. Compare that with what we have in the United States today, where degenerates like O.J. Simpson and Mike Tyson, the recent descendants of our African slaves, put on contests for the amusement of a debased citizenry.

Yes, I am a racist, and I believe that we should not make a fuss about the behavior of Black athletes. I believe that their behavior should be none of our business. I also believe that they should not be viewed on our television screens and held up by the Jewish masters of the media as role models for our youth, nor should they be involved in any of our athletic contests. I believe that we should get them out of our country and out of our lives. I believe that we should do away with the system which in this century has changed athletics in America from something at least remotely similar to the Olympics into something very much like what took place in the Coliseum. I also believe that we should get rid of the people behind that system, the people who deliberately conspired to make professional athletics in America what it is.

And as I said, there’s no need to be rude about this, no need to use the „n“ word or engage in name-calling. But we do need to be completely honest for a change, both with ourselves and with others. We need to have the courage to face the whole truth regarding our situation and what we need to do about it. That doesn’t mean that every time I speak with an interviewer I have to tell him that we can’t restore America to spiritual health until we restore her to racial health, and that means total, geographical racial separation. I don’t have to mention all that, unless he specifically asks for it. But it does mean that I should not equivocate when asked whether or not I’m a racist. I should be as straightforward and direct and clear and honest as I can be.

I’ll say just one more thing on the importance of having the courage to tell others what we believe. It’s not just a matter of personal pride. It’s not just a matter of being able to feel good, of being able to pat ourselves on the back because we weren’t afraid to stand up to the media bosses. If we had shown more courage from the beginning, if we had spoken out the first time and every time the Jews and their collaborators had tried to implement their policies for changing America from a White republic into a multiracial garbage dump for the New World Order, I think the Jews would have found themselves some other country to subvert. I think they would have decided to try their poison on the Turks or the Mexicans or the Indonesians instead of on us. If we hadn’t let ourselves be bulldozed and manipulated and backed into a corner, but had said what we believed from the start, I don’t think we’d be in the mess we’re in today. Courage is catching; it’s contagious. If a nation’s leaders show courage, so will the ordinary citizens. But when the leaders are afraid to be honest, then you can’t expect the ordinary citizens to be very courageous.

A concrete example of this is the ongoing scandal of the rape and sexual harassment of White women in our Army by Black officers and Black noncoms. The Jewish media have had very little to say about this scandal. They have preferred to focus on non-racial stories, such as Lt. Kelly Flynn’s resignation from the Air Force after being charged with adultery. But the more the Army’s investigators dig into the sexual-harassment scandal, the bigger it becomes and the clearer the racial dimensions are. The highest profile case the Army’s investigators have turned up so far is that of Sergeant Major Gene McKinney, a Black noncom who was appointed to the Army’s highest post for enlisted personnel at the prodding of the Clinton administration. This top Black noncom used his position systematically to extort sex from White women in the Army.
The first case came to light in February, when a White female sergeant major went public with the story of what McKinney had done to her. Before her case became public the Army had ignored her complaints. Since then case after case of McKinney’s use of his office to force himself on White female soldiers has come to light.

A 25-year-old married White sergeant described under oath to Army investigators how McKinney had raped her last October, when she was nearly eight months pregnant. She is the fourth White female soldier assaulted by McKinney to give evidence in the investigation so far. And the case of Sergeant Major McKinney is only the most prominent of hundreds of cases in the Army in which Blacks used their positions of authority over White women to rape or sexually harass them.

Why was this horrendous situation allowed to develop? It certainly wasn’t because the Army’s leaders wanted it to develop. It may gratify some of the nutcase racial egalitarians in the Clinton White House to read about White women being raped by Blacks, but the Army’s leaders definitely are not gratified. They didn’t want this situation, but they didn’t have the courage to prevent it. They were afraid to take steps to protect White females from Black males. In nearly every case which has come to light so far, the women victims have testified that when they reported what had happened to them to their White superiors they were ignored. The White officers were afraid to get involved. They were afraid that they would be charged with „racism“ if they took action against the Black rapists.

And let’s face it, they would have been. That’s the standard Black excuse for everything: „racism.“ And it’s the excuse of their Jewish promoters in the media too. But that’s no excuse for the cowardice of the Army’s leaders. The horrendous situation we have in our Army today is the result of the failure of courage on the part of the Army’s leaders to deal forthrightly with the racial issue.

And the racial mess we have in American society today is a consequence of the failure of courage on the part of our society’s leaders. When the courage of our leaders fails, our whole society fails, and then we become the victims of the Jewish predators who control our media.

The one thing that all of us can do about this now is to resolve that our own courage will not fail, that we will not be intimidated, but that we will stand up and speak out forthrightly.

Monday, February 17, 2020

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime

Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism


by Mark Weber

In the night of July 16-17, 1918, a squad of Bolshevik secret police murdered Russia’s last emperor, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his wife, Tsaritsa Alexandra, their 14-year-old son, Tsarevich Alexis, and their four daughters. They were cut down in a hail of gunfire in a half-cellar room of the house in Ekaterinburg, a city in the Ural mountain region, where they were being held prisoner. The daughters were finished off with bayonets. To prevent a cult for the dead Tsar, the bodies were carted away to the countryside and hastily buried in a secret grave.

Bolshevik authorities at first reported that the Romanov emperor had been shot after the discovery of a plot to liberate him. For some time the deaths of the Empress and the children were kept secret. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the killings, and that Lenin, founder of the Soviet state, had nothing to do with the crime.

In 1990, Moscow playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky announced the result of his detailed investigation into the murders. He unearthed the reminiscences of Lenin’s bodyguard, Alexei Akimov, who recounted how he personally delivered Lenin’s execution order to the telegraph office. The telegram was also signed by Soviet government chief Yakov Sverdlov. Akimov had saved the original telegraph tape as a record of the secret order.1

Radzinsky’s research confirmed what earlier evidence had already indicated. Leon Trotsky – one of Lenin’s closest colleagues – had revealed years earlier that Lenin and Sverdlov had together made the decision to put the Tsar and his family to death. Recalling a conversation in 1918, Trotsky wrote:2

My next visit to Moscow took place after the [temporary] fall of Ekaterinburg [to anti-Communist forces]. Speaking with Sverdlov, I asked in passing: „Oh yes, and where is the Tsar?“

„Finished,“ he replied. „He has been shot.“

„And where is the family?“

„The family along with him.“

„All of them?,“ I asked, apparently with a trace of surprise.

„All of them,“ replied Sverdlov. „What about it?“ He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply.

„And who made the decision?,“ I asked.

„We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn’t leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances.“

I asked no further questions and considered the matter closed.

Recent research and investigation by Radzinsky and others also corroborates the account provided years earlier by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs - originally published in 1920, and reissued in 1993 by the Institute for Historical Review – is based in large part on the findings of a detailed investigation carried out in 1919 by Nikolai Sokolov under the authority of „White“ (anti-Communist) leader Alexander Kolchak. Wilton’s book remains one of the most accurate and complete accounts of the murder of Russia’s imperial family.3

A solid understanding of history has long been the best guide to comprehending the present and anticipating the future. Accordingly, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis, when the future seems most uncertain. With the collapse of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, 1989-1991, and as Russians struggle to build a new order on the ruins of the old, historical issues have become very topical. For example, many ask: How did the Bolsheviks, a small movement guided by the teachings of German-Jewish social philosopher Karl Marx, succeed in taking control of Russia and imposing a cruel and despotic regime on its people?

In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country.4 But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame „the Jews“ for so much misfortune?

A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population,5 they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and – as chairman of the Central Executive Committee – head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.6

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.7

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. „An intelligent Russian,“ he once remarked, „is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins.“8

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.

Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik „October Revolution“ of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.9

To direct the takeover, a seven-man „Political Bureau“ was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev).10 Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet – whose chairman was Trotsky – established an 18-member „Military Revolutionary Committee“ to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews.11 Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man „Revolutionary Military Center“ as the Party’s operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).12

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a „worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.“ The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:13

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: „The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.“14

The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: „Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.“15

„The Bolshevik Revolution,“ declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, „was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct.“16

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment.17 Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that „because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel.“18

Historians’ Views

Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:19

Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins

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 And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin’s dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

„Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka,“ wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, „stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.“20 In Ukraine, „Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents,“ reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history.21 (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)

In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin’s execution order.22

Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician of world stature, has sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country. Shafarevich was a leading dissident during the final decades of Soviet rule. A prominent human rights activist, he was a founding member of the Committee on the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR.

In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were „amazingly“ numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II:23

This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.

In his 1920 book, British veteran journalist Robert Wilton offered a similarly harsh assessment:24

The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.

In the struggle for power that followed Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolsheviks leaders - including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.

Put to Death Without Trial

For a few months after taking power, Bolshevik leaders considered bringing „Nicholas Romanov“ before a „Revolutionary Tribunal“ that would publicize his „crimes against the people“ before sentencing him to death. Historical precedent existed for this. Two European monarchs had lost their lives as a consequence of revolutionary upheaval: England’s Charles I was beheaded in 1649, and France’s Louis XVI was guillotined in 1793.

In these cases, the king was put to death after a lengthy public trial, during which he was allowed to present arguments in his defense. Nicholas II, though, was neither charged nor tried. He was secretly put to death - along with his family and staff – in the dead of night, in an act that resembled more a gangster-style massacre than a formal execution.

Why did Lenin and Sverdlov abandon plans for a show trial of the former Tsar? In Wilton’s view, Nicholas and his family were murdered because the Bolshevik rulers knew quite well that they lacked genuine popular support, and rightly feared that the Russian people would never approve killing the Tsar, regardless of pretexts and legalistic formalities.

For his part, Trotsky defended the massacre as a useful and even necesssary measure. He wrote:25

The decision [to kill the imperial family] was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either total victory or total doom This Lenin sensed well.

Historical Context

In the years leading up to the 1917 revolution, Jews were disproportionately represented in all of Russia’s subversive leftist parties.26 Jewish hatred of the Tsarist regime had a basis in objective conditions. Of the leading European powers of the day, imperial Russia was the most institutionally conser-vative and anti-Jewish. For example, Jews were normally not permitted to reside outside a large area in the west of the Empire known as the „Pale of Settlement.“27

However understandable, and perhaps even defensible, Jewish hostility toward the imperial regime may have been, the remarkable Jewish role in the vastly more despotic Soviet regime is less easy to justify. In a recently published book about the Jews in Russia during the 20th century, Russian-born Jewish writer Sonya Margolina goes so far as to call the Jewish role in supporting the Bolshevik regime the „historic sin of the Jews.“28 She points, for example, to the prominent role of Jews as commandants of Soviet Gulag concentration and labor camps, and the role of Jewish Communists in the systematic destruction of Russian churches. Moreover, she goes on, „The Jews of the entire world supported Soviet power, and remained silent in the face of any criticism from the opposition.“ In light of this record, Margolina offers a grim prediction:

The exaggeratedly enthusiastic participation of the Jewish Bolsheviks in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that will be avenged Soviet power will be equated with Jewish power, and the furious hatred against the Bolsheviks will become hatred against Jews.

If the past is any indication, it is unlikely that many Russians will seek the revenge that Margolina prophecies. Anyway, to blame „the Jews“ for the horrors of Communism seems no more justifiable than to blame „white people“ for Negro slavery, or „the Germans“ for the Second World War or „the Holocaust.“

Words of Grim Portent

Nicholas and his family are only the best known of countless victims of a regime that openly proclaimed its ruthless purpose. A few weeks after the Ekaterinburg massacre, the newspaper of the fledgling Red Army declared:29

Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies by the scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritskii let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie – more blood, as much as possible.

Grigori Zinoviev, speaking at a meeting of Communists in September 1918, effectively pronounced a death sentence on ten million human beings: „We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.“30

‘The Twenty Million’

As it turned out, the Soviet toll in human lives and suffering proved to be much higher than Zinoviev’s murderous rhetoric suggested. Rarely, if ever, has a regime taken the lives of so many of its own people.31

Citing newly-available Soviet KGB documents, historian Dmitri Volkogonov, head of a special Russian parliamentary commission, recently concluded that „from 1929 to 1952 21.5 million [Soviet] people were repressed. Of these a third were shot, the rest sentenced to imprisonment, where many also died.“32

Olga Shatunovskaya, a member of the Soviet Commission of Party Control, and head of a special commission during the 1960s appointed by premier Khrushchev, has similarly concluded: „From January 1, 1935 to June 22, 1941, 19,840,000 enemies of the people were arrested. Of these, seven million were shot in prison, and a majority of the others died in camp.“ These figures were also found in the papers of Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan.

Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet „repression“ of it own people:34

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as ‘The Twenty Million’.“

A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.35

The Tsarist Era in Retrospect

With the dramatic collapse of Soviet rule, many Russians are taking a new and more respectful look at their country’s pre-Communist history, including the era of the last Romanov emperor. While the Soviets – along with many in the West – have stereotypically portrayed this era as little more than an age of arbitrary despotism, cruel suppression and mass poverty, the reality is rather different. While it is true that the power of the Tsar was absolute, that only a small minority had any significant political voice, and that the mass of the empire’s citizens were peasants, it is worth noting that Russians during the reign of Nicholas II had freedom of press, religion, assembly and association, protection of private property, and free labor unions. Sworn enemies of the regime, such as Lenin, were treated with remarkable leniency.36

During the decades prior to the outbreak of the First World War, the Russian economy was booming. In fact, between 1890 and 1913, it was the fastest growing in the world. New rail lines were opened at an annual rate double that of the Soviet years. Between 1900 and 1913, iron production increased by 58 percent, while coal production more than doubled.37 Exported Russian grain fed all of Europe. Finally, the last decades of Tsarist Russia witnessed a magnificent flowering of cultural life.

Everything changed with the First World War, a catastrophe not only for Russia, but for the entire West.

Monarchist Sentiment

In spite of (or perhaps because of) the relentless official campaign during the entire Soviet era to stamp out every uncritical memory of the Romanovs and imperial Russia, a virtual cult of popular veneration for Nicholas II has been sweeping Russia in recent years.

People have been eagerly paying the equivalent of several hours’ wages to purchase portraits of Nicholas from street vendors in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. His portrait now hangs in countless Russian homes and apartments. In late 1990, all 200,000 copies of a first printing of a 30-page pamphlet on the Romanovs quickly sold out. Said one street vendor: „I personally sold four thousand copies in no time at all. It’s like a nuclear explosion. People really want to know about their Tsar and his family.“ Grass roots pro-Tsarist and monarchist organizations have sprung up in many cities.

A public opinion poll conducted in 1990 found that three out of four Soviet citizens surveyed regard the killing of the Tsar and his family as a despicable crime.38 Many Russian Orthodox believers regard Nicholas as a martyr. The independent „Orthodox Church Abroad“ canonized the imperial family in 1981, and the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has been under popular pressure to take the same step, in spite of its long-standing reluctance to touch this official taboo. The Russian Orthodox Archbishop of Ekaterinburg announced plans in 1990 to build a grand church at the site of the killings. „The people loved Emperor Nicholas,“ he said. „His memory lives with the people, not as a saint but as someone executed without court verdict, unjustly, as a sufferer for his faith and for orthodoxy.“39

On the 75th anniversary of the massacre (in July 1993), Russians recalled the life, death and legacy of their last Emperor. In Ekaterinburg, where a large white cross festooned with flowers now marks the spot where the family was killed, mourners wept as hymns were sung and prayers were said for the victims.40

Reflecting both popular sentiment and new social-political realities, the white, blue and red horizontal tricolor flag of Tsarist Russia was officially adopted in 1991, replacing the red Soviet banner. And in 1993, the imperial two-headed eagle was restored as the nation’s official emblem, replacing the Soviet hammer and sickle. Cities that had been re-named to honor Communist figures – such as Leningrad, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Kalinin, and Gorky – have re-acquired their Tsarist-era names. Ekaterinburg, which had been named Sverdlovsk by the Soviets in 1924 in honor of the Soviet-Jewish chief, in September 1991 restored its pre-Communist name, which honors Empress Catherine I.

Symbolic Meaning

In view of the millions that would be put to death by the Soviet rulers in the years to follow, the murder of the Romanov family might not seem of extraordinary importance. And yet, the event has deep symbolic meaning. In the apt words of Harvard University historian Richard Pipes:41

The manner in which the massacre was prepared and carried out, at first denied and then justified, has something uniquely odious about it, something that radically distinguishes it from previous acts of regicide and brands it as a prelude to twentieth-century mass murder.

Another historian, Ivor Benson, characterized the killing of the Romanov family as symbolic of the tragic fate of Russia and, indeed, of the entire West, in this century of unprecedented agony and conflict.

The murder of the Tsar and his family is all the more deplorable because, whatever his failings as a monarch, Nicholas II was, by all accounts, a personally decent, generous, humane and honorable man.

The Massacre’s Place in History

The mass slaughter and chaos of the First World War, and the revolutionary upheavals that swept Europe in 1917-1918, brought an end not only to the ancient Romanov dynasty in Russia, but to an entire continental social order. Swept away as well was the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany, with its stable constitutional monarchy, and the ancient Habsburg dynasty of Austria-Hungary with its multinational central European empire. Europe’s leading states shared not only the same Christian and Western cultural foundations, but most of the continent’s reigning monarchs were related by blood. England’s King George was, through his mother, a first cousin of Tsar Nicholas, and, through his father, a first cousin of Empress Alexandra. Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm was a first cousin of the German-born Alexandra, and a distant cousin of Nicholas.

More than was the case with the monarchies of western Europe, Russia’s Tsar personally symbolized his land and nation. Thus, the murder of the last emperor of a dynasty that had ruled Russia for three centuries not only symbolically presaged the Communist mass slaughter that would claim so many Russian lives in the decades that followed, but was symbolic of the Communist effort to kill the soul and spirit of Russia itself. 


Notes

1.      Edvard Radzinksy, The Last Tsar (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 327, 344-346.; Bill Keller, „Cult of the Last Czar,“ The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1990.

2.      From an April 1935 entry in „Trotsky’s Diary in Exile.“ Quoted in: Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), pp. 770, 787.; Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra (New York: 1976), pp. 496-497.; E. Radzinksy, The Last Tsar (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 325-326.; Ronald W. Clark, Lenin (New York: 1988), pp. 349-350.

3.      On Wilton and his career in Russia, see: Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), pp. 141-142, 144-146, 151-152, 159, 162, 169, and, Anthony Summers and Tom Mangold, The File on the Tsar (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), pp. 102-104, 176.

4.      AP dispatch from Moscow, Toronto Star, Sept. 26, 1991, p. A2.; Similarly, a 1992 survey found that one-fourth of people in the republics of Belarus (White Russia) and Uzbekistan favored deporting all Jews to a special Jewish region in Russian Siberia. „Survey Finds Anti-Semitism on Rise in Ex-Soviet Lands,“ Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1992, p. A4.

5.      At the turn of the century, Jews made up 4.2 percent of the population of the Russian Empire. Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: 1990), p. 55 (fn.).
By comparison, in the United States today, Jews make up less than three percent of the total population (according to the most authoritative estimates).

6.      See individual entries in: H. Shukman, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution (Oxford: 1988), and in: G. Wigoder, ed., Dictionary of Jewish Biography (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991).
The prominent Jewish role in Russia’s pre-1914 revolutionary underground, and in the early Soviet regime, is likewise confirmed in: Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism (New York: Oxford, 1982), pp. 92-94.
In 1918, the Bolshevik Party’s Central Committee had 15 members. German scholar Herman Fehst – citing published Soviet records – reported in his useful 1934 study that of six of these 15 were Jews. Herman Fehst, Bolschewismus und Judentum: Das jüdische Element in der Führerschaft des Bolschewismus (Berlin: 1934), pp. 68-72.; Robert Wilton, though, reported that in 1918 the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin and three were of Russian ancestry. R. Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs (IHR, 1993), p. 185.

7.      After years of official suppression, this fact was acknowledged in 1991 in the Moscow weekly Ogonyok. See: Jewish Chronicle (London), July 16, 1991.; See also: Letter by L. Horwitz in The New York Times, Aug. 5, 1992, which cites information from the Russian journal „Native Land Archives.“; „Lenin’s Lineage?“‘Jewish,’ Claims Moscow News,“ Forward (New York City), Feb. 28, 1992, pp. 1, 3.; M. Checinski, Jerusalem Post (weekly international edition), Jan. 26, 1991, p. 9.

8.      Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 352.

9.      Harrison E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia’s Revolutions, 1905-1917 (Doubleday, 1978), p. 475.; William H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution (Princeton Univ. Press, 1987), vol. 1, pp. 291-292.; Herman Fehst, Bolschewismus und Judentum: Das jüdische Element in der Führerschaft des Bolschewismus (Berlin: 1934), pp. 42-43.; P. N. Pospelov, ed., Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A Biography (Moscow: Progress, 1966), pp. 318-319.
This meeting was held on October 10 (old style, Julian calendar), and on October 23 (new style). The six Jews who took part were: Uritsky, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Sverdlov and Soklonikov.
The Bolsheviks seized power in Petersburg on October 25 (old style) – hence the reference to the „Great October Revolution“ – which is November 7 (new style).

10.  William H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution (1987), vol. 1, p. 292.; H. E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia’s Revolutions, 1905-1917 (1978), p. 475.

11.  W. H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 274, 299, 302, 306.; Alan Moorehead, The Russian Revolution (New York: 1965), pp. 235, 238, 242, 243, 245.; H. Fehst, Bolschewismus und Judentum (Berlin: 1934), pp. 44, 45.

12.  H. E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia’s Revolutions, 1905-1917 (1978), p. 479-480.; Dmitri Volkogonov, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991), pp. 27-28, 32.; P. N. Pospelov, ed., Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A Biography (Moscow: Progress, 1966), pp. 319-320.

13.  „Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,“ Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920. Facsimile reprint in: William Grimstad, The Six Million Reconsidered (1979), p. 124. (At the time this essay was published, Churchill was serving as minister of war and air.)

14.  David R. Francis, Russia from the American Embassy (New York: 1921), p. 214.

15.  Foreign Relations of the United States – 1918 – Russia, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: 1931), pp. 678-679.

16.  American Hebrew (New York), Sept. 1920. Quoted in: Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot (Cambridge, Mass.: 1963), p. 268.

17.  C. Jacobson, „Jews in the USSR“ in: American Review on the Soviet Union, August 1945, p. 52.; Avtandil Rukhadze, Jews in the USSR: Figures, Facts, Comment (Moscow: Novosti, 1978), pp. 10-11.

18.  T. Emmons and B. M. Patenaude, eds., War, Revolution and Peace in Russia: The Passages of Frank Golder, 1913-1927 (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1992), pp. 320, 139, 317.

19.  Louis Rapoport, Stalin’s War Against the Jews (New York: Free Press, 1990), pp. 30, 31, 37. See also pp. 43, 44, 45, 49, 50.

20.  Quoted in: Salo Baron, The Russian Jews Under Tsars and Soviets (New York: 1976), pp. 170, 392 (n. 4).

21.  The Atlantic, Sept. 1991, p. 14.;
In 1919, three-quarters of the Cheka staff in Kiev were Jews, who were careful to spare fellow Jews. By order, the Cheka took few Jewish hostages. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 824.; Israeli historian Louis Rapoport also confirms the dominant role played by Jews in the Soviet secret police throughout the 1920s and 1930s. L. Rapoport, Stalin’s War Against the Jews (New York: 1990), pp. 30-31, 43-45, 49-50.

22.  E. Radzinsky, The Last Tsar (1992), pp. 244, 303-304.; Bill Keller, „Cult of the Last Czar,“ The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1990.; See also: W. H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution, vol. 2, p. 90.

23.  Quoted in: The New Republic, Feb. 5, 1990, pp. 30 ff.; Because of the alleged anti-Semitism of Russophobia, in July 1992 Shafarevich was asked by the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC) to resign as an associate member of that prestigious body.

24.  R. Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs (1993), p. 148.

25.  Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 787.; Robert K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra (New York: 1976), pp. 496-497.

26.  An article in a 1907 issue of the respected American journal National Geographic reported on the revolutionary situation brewing in Russia in the years before the First World War: „ The revolutionary leaders nearly all belong to the Jewish race, and the most effective revolutionary agency is the Jewish Bund „ W. E. Curtis, „The Revolution in Russia,“ The National Geographic Magazine, May 1907, pp. 313-314.
Piotr Stolypin, probably imperial Russia’s greatest statesman, was murdered in 1911 by a Jewish assassin. In 1907, Jews made up about ten percent of Bolshevik party membership. In the Menshevik party, another faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Jewish proportion was twice as high. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 365.; See also: R. Wilton, The Last Days of the Romanovs (1993), pp. 185-186.

27.  Martin Gilbert, Atlas of Jewish History (1977), pp. 71, 74.; In spite of the restrictive „Pale“ policy, in 1897 about 315,000 Jews were living outside the Pale, most of them illegally. In 1900 more than 20,000 were living in the capital of St. Petersburg, and another 9,000 in Moscow.

28.  Sonja Margolina, Das Ende der Lügen: Russland und die Juden im 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: 1992). Quoted in: „Ein ganz heisses Eisen angefasst,“ Deutsche National-Zeitung (Munich), July 21, 1992, p. 12.

29.  Krasnaia Gazetta („Red Gazette“), September 1, 1918. Quoted in: Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), pp. 820, 912 (n. 88).

30.  Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: 1990), p. 820.

31.  Contrary to what a number of western historians have for years suggested, Soviet terror and the Gulag camp system did not begin with Stalin. At the end of 1920, Soviet Russia already had 84 concentration camps with approximately 50,000 prisoners. By October 1923 the number had increased to 315 camps with 70,000 inmates. R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 836.

32.  Cited by historian Robert Conquest in a review/ article in The New York Review of Books, Sept. 23, 1993, p. 27.

33.  The New York Review of Books, Sept. 23, 1993, p. 27.

34.  Review/article by Robert Conquest in The New York Review of Books, Sept. 23, 1993, p. 27.; In the „Great Terror“ years of 1937-1938 alone, Conquest has calculated, approximately one million were shot by the Soviet secret police, and another two million perished in Soviet camps. R. Conquest, The Great Terror (New York: Oxford, 1990), pp. 485-486.;
Conquest has estimated that 13.5 to 14 million people perished in the collectivization („dekulakization“) campaign and forced famine of 1929-1933. R. Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow (New York: Oxford, 1986), pp. 301-307.

35.  Russian professor Igor Bestuzhev-Lada, writing in a 1988 issue of the Moscow weekly Nedelya, suggested that during the Stalin era alone (1935-1953), as many as 50 million people were killed, condemned to camps from which they never emerged, or lost their lives as a direct result of the brutal „dekulakization“ campaign against the peasantry. „Soviets admit Stalin killed 50 million,“ The Sunday Times, London, April 17, 1988.;
R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, has recently calculated that 61.9 million people were systematically killed by the Soviet Communist regime from 1917 to 1987. R. J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (Transaction, 1990).

36.  Because of his revolutionary activities, Lenin was sentenced in 1897 to three years exile in Siberia. During this period of „punishment,“ he got married, wrote some 30 works, made extensive use of a well-stocked local library, subscribed to numerous foreign periodicals, kept up a voluminous correspondence with supporters across Europe, and enjoyed numerous sport hunting and ice skating excursions, while all the time receiving a state stipend. See: Ronald W. Clark, Lenin (New York: 1988), pp. 42-57.; P. N. Pospelov, ed., Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: A Biography (Moscow: Progress, 1966), pp. 55-75.

37.  R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), pp. 187-188.;

38.  The Nation, June 24, 1991, p. 838.

39.  Bill Keller, „Cult of the Last Czar,“ The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1990.

40.  „Nostalgic for Nicholas, Russians Honor Their Last Czar,“ Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993.; „Ceremony marks Russian czar’s death,“ Orange County Register, July 17, 1993.

41.  R. Pipes, The Russian Revolution (1990), p. 787.
 


From The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 1), pages 4-22.

About the Author

Mark Weber was born and raised in Portland, Oregon. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977).