Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – The Year 1939 – Part 6!

The Year 1939 – Part 6











Amazon Bans Books from the Third Reich After Jews Demand Action


This past Friday the Auschwitz Memorial tweeted about how Amazon needs to do something about books that include “hateful, virulently antisemitic Nazi propaganda,” and Amazon responded a few days later by complying with the jewish demands.

“As a bookseller, we believe that providing access to the written word is important, including books that some may find objectionable,” an Amazon spokesperson said. “We take concerns seriously and are listening to feedback. Amazon has policies governing which books can be listed for sale; we invest significant time and resources to ensure our guidelines are followed, and remove products that do not.”

Amazon started seriously banning books concerning Holocaust “revisionism” and White rights in February, 2017 after demands from Yad Vashem, following many bomb threats that were made to jewish community centers in the US. Robert Rozett, director of the Yad Vashem Libraries, wrote in an email to Jeff Bezos, “given the presence of anti-Semitism around the globe, which has become more prevalent in recent years, we strongly urge you to remove books that deny, distort and trivialize the Holocaust from your store.”

It turned out that the bomb threats came from a jew (likely actually a group of jews) living in Israel, getting paid in crypto to call in these bomb threats.

Even though the bomb threats turned out to be a jewish hoax, the “anti-semitic” books remained banned from Amazon. The psychological operation worked, and Amazon continues to ban books critical of jewry to this day.

Although Amazon will not make it clear exactly which items have been recently banned, one of them is Julius Streicher’s The Poisonous Mushroom, a children’s book that warns about the danger of jews.

In The Poisonous Mushroom, a mother tells her child:

The Jews are bad people. They are like poisonous mushrooms. And just as the poisonous mushrooms are very difficult to distinguish from the good mushrooms, so is it often difficult to recognize the Jews as rogues and criminals. Just like poisonous mushrooms appear in the most diverse colors, so do the Jews also know how to make themselves unrecognizable by assuming the most diverse forms…

Just like a single poisonous mushroom can kill an entire family, so can a single Jew destroy an entire village, an entire city, yes, even an entire folk! …

There are many millions of non-Jews who have not yet become acquainted with the Jews. And therefore we must enlighten the people and must warn them against the Jew. But we must also warn our youth against the Jew. Our boys and girls must become acquainted with the Jew. They must learn that the Jew is the most dangerous poisonous mushroom that there is. Just like poisonous mushrooms sprout from the earth everywhere, so is the Jew to be found in all the lands of the world. Just like poisonous mushrooms often bring along the most terrible misfortune, so is the Jew the cause of misery and distress, of sickness and death.”

I can understand why jews do not want this book being sold, but it is not wrong. I recently did a whole show about how jews are promoting poop to children and adults as something that is cool, fun to play with, and even appetizing. These poisonous mushrooms apparently thrive on dung.

Children need to be inoculated against jewish perversion, not injected with jewish poison.

Luckily for us, Third Reich Books is selling The Poisonous Mushroom in a number of different languages. Unfortunately, the company has been banned or denied by all credit card processors out there, so paying for the book requires a couple extra steps.

The Cause of “Anti-Semitism” in Ukraine



Jews want the “goyim” to think that any opposition to their rule is based on irrational hatred, but there are good reasons people have been “anti-semitic” throughout history.

Adolf Hitler About the Liberal-Marxist Fundamental Evil

The decay of the nation systematically spread by the Marxist false doctrine in worldview-wise inconsistent opposites means the destruction of the basis of a possible community life.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

The dissolution strikes all foundations of social order. The totally inconsistent attitude of the individual to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family and economy rips open differences, which leads to a war of all against everybody.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

The most decisive ideas of the democratic-liberal-Marxist world of parties were brought into our folk from the outside as formal concepts. The French Revolution (1789) provides slogan-filled theories and affirmations, which the Jewish intellectualism of the previous century sanctified with hair-splitting systemization into an international-revolutionary dogma.

Speech of September 10, 1934 in Nuremberg

The world-idea of the liberal era invited the international idea of Marxist socialism to be its successor, and this flows into anarchist chaos or communist dictatorship.

Speech of September 5, 1934 in Nuremberg

Proceeding from the liberalism of the previous century, this development naturally finds its end in communist chaos.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

The preservation of the broadest middle-class is just as necessary for an in itself healthfully balanced folk organism as it forms a necessary prerequisite for a real preservation of property.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

The conscious proletarianization of the medium and small businessmen, the destruction of small businesses and other small, independent existences as well as the trades leads in its final effect to it, that at the end only a very tiny number of people are interested in the concept of property and that the majority, robbed of any possibility for their own advancement, must become enemies of the concept of property.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

The German bourgeoisie as social substance was the product of a selection based less on political and more on social economic functions.

Speech of September 3, 1933 in Nuremberg

While the intellectual leaders of our bourgeoisie world talked about „working quietly” and skillfully presented lofty treatises at tea circles, National Socialism set out on the march into the folk. We held hundreds of thousands of rallies.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

We indeed have an intellectually higher-standing stratum; but it is lacking in energy. If we had not distanced ourselves so far from the folk feeling through an over-estimation of mechanical knowledge, the Jew would have never been able to find the path into our folk.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

I know this broad folk and always want to say just one thing to our intellectuals: every Reich, which you build only upon the levels of intellectual comprehension, is built weak!

Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin

The eternal pessimists and the basic complainers have never saved a folk, but destroyed numerous folks, states and empires!

Speech of March 21, 1934 in Unterhaching

Despite all capableness, a government requires not only the support of the general forces in our folk – which it is determined to pull in to the widest extent – rather also the devout loyalty and work of the professional officialdom. Only given I he most grave distress of public finance should cuts be made, but even then only strict justice will be the highest law of our action.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

The body of German officialdom must again become, what it once was!

Speech of August 1, 1923 in Munich

Similar as toward the German peasants is the attitude of the national government toward the middle class. Its salvation can only follow in the course of the general economic policy. The national government is determined to thoroughly solve this problem.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

The middle class will not be saved by criticism and theories, rather precisely it is bound for better or worse to the salvation of the peasantry and the worker.

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

The rightist parties without exception lack energy. They see how the flood nears.

Speech of April 24, 1923 in Munich

Let go of the hope that something is to be expected from the right (the reactionary side) for the freedom of the German folk! The most elemental thing is lacking there: the will, the courage and the energy. Where does strength still lie in the German folk? It lies – as always – in the broad mass. Energy slumbers there and waits for the one, who calls it from its former slumber and throws it into the fate-struggle of the German race.

Speech of April 24, 1923 in Munich

The centrum represents the idea of the solidarity of a specific religious denomination. Other folks, even if they think and act ever so fanatically according to the principles of their religious faith, are first sons of their folk, and only then do they stand up for the idea of a religious denomination.

Speech of April 10, 1923 in Munich

Does a party want to talk of the struggle of Christianity, which for fourteen years sat with atheists, with deniers of God?

Speech of February 20, 1933 in Cologne

I do not understand… that one speaks in the fashion of the centrum against godlessness, but at the same time makes a pact with the godless.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

As a support…. (social democracy) … possessed fellow-travelers, among them the centrum, which…is ready to extend the hand to the Marxists.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

The destruction of both these great life groups (of the middle class and of the peasantry), promoted for decades above all by the centrum and social democracy and today practically achieved, is the jointly performed preliminary work for the victory of Bolshevism.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, election appeal of July 31, 1932

Across the centrum the more or less national-embellished bourgeois democracy connects itself with the unveiled Marxism internationalism and now produces those parliamentarian governments, which – relieving each other in ever shorter time intervals – sells out and dissipates the saved up economic and political capital of the nation.

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

Democracy: fundamentally nothing German, rather something Jewish.

Speech of April 12, 1922 in Munich

I lien we always find two great buzz words, „freedom” and „democracy”, as, I want to say, sign-boards. Freedom, by that one understands, likewise in the important positions, which in reality govern, the possibility of an unrestrained, unresisted plundering of the broad mass.

Speech of July 28, 1922 in Munich

What was then all this liberalism, what was our press, what was the stock exchange, what was freemasonry? Jew instruments!

Speech of April 13, 1923 in Munich

Jewish democracy of majority rule: always and ever only a means… for the destruction of the actual Aryan leadership.

Speech of April 12, 1922 in Munich

Unspeakably incapable, lacking energy and cowardly are all these bourgeois political parties – at a moment when the nation would not need talkers, rather heroes. From this side, then, nothing is to be expected!

Speech of April 24, 1923 in Munich

The centrum (has) sacrificed its Christian ideals. The center-of-road parties abandon the middle class.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program“, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

The economy stagnates, the finances are ruined, millions are unemployed.

Speech of March 21, 1933 in Potsdam

Have they not already turned millions of middle-class existences into beggars? Have they not brought every honest person close to starvation and only fattened speculative swindlers?

Speech of September 5, 1933 in Potsdam

Thousands of old pensioners, middle class people, scholars, war widows sell their last gold assets for paper wipes…The last national wealth is „played off’ into the hands of Jewry, which takes over everything…Millions of existences, which were based on a life time of thrift, were robbed of everything by this swindle!

Speech of August 21, 1923 in Munich

Everything that was great, high and holy has been dragged in the dust.

Speech of March 27, 1924 in Munich.

If respect for the law has sank, then also because law and morality…(during the Marxist regime) are no longer identical.

Speech of March 27, 1924 in Munich

A reversal of all values set(s) in: what was good, now becomes bad, and what was bad, good. The heroic despised and the coward admired, the honest punished and the lazy rewarded. The decent person can only expect scorn, but the degenerate is praised. Strength experiences condemnation, but weakness glorification. The value in itself means nothing. In its place comes number, that means lesser value and no value. The historical past is just as infamously soiled as the historical future is denied without a care.

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

That everybody in a nation would be able to manage a farmstead or a factory or to decide their administration, is contested. Only that everybody is able to administer a state or to elect its administration, is ceremoniously attested in the name of democracy. This is a contradiction in itself!

Speech of September 3, 1933 in Nuremberg

For thirteen years these political parties of weakness and impotence, of half-measures, cowardice and inability court the favor of foreign countries and receive kicks after kicks.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

Internationalism and democracies are inseparable concepts.

Lecture of January 27, 1932 in Düsseldorf

One has…made Germany a colony of foreign countries. Those who were fed with the idea of internationalism were in actuality placed under the diktat of the Internationale. They have their international state: international finance governs.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

I lie democracies and what stands to their left, political parties, which are pacifist or anti-German, included and demand nothing except submission, negotiation at any price.

Speech of May 4, 1923 in Munich

What are (have been) our government organs…other than executive organs of our external tyrants.

Speech of March 27, 1924 in Munich

The nature of the November Republic characterizes itself in the coming and going to London, Spaa, Paris and Genova, servility toward the enemy, giving up German manly dignity, pacifistic cowardice, toleration of all baseness, willing acceptance of everything until there is nothing left.

Speech of September 12, 1923 in Munich

Man heard of the right of self-determination of peoples, of the League of Nations, of the self-rule of the people. And what came? A world peace, but a world peace on our field of corpses.

Speech of March 27, 1924 in Munich

What did fulfillment politics mean back then? It can be stated very simply: Man was supposed to try to meet all the opponents’ demands as much as possible in order to enable Germany’s rise again.

Speech of May 4, 1923 in Munich

For fifteen years…German people stood shaken and broken before the ruins of the national existence built up with much effort over long decades. Bad advisors, who had once lead us to ruination, found since then no other means for the salvation of the nation than recommendation of a humiliating servility, slavish attitude and lethargic letting things happen!

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

Germany’s misfortune is not fate, rather the curse of the evil deed of the November parties!

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

The former world of political parties has been smashed Germany, it has been broken by it. It is silly to believe that the factors whose existence is historically inseparably bound with Germany’s decline could now suddenly be the factors for its rise again.

Lecture of January 27, 1932 in Düsseldorf

All the men – who through this crazy or criminal behavior since November 1918 plunged our folk into the present misfortune and gave as motive for their action the phrases „freedom”, „brotherhood” and „equality” – do not today share fate and suffering with the victims of their politics! Millions of German folk comrades have been delivered by them to the most severe distress, which there is. Need, misery and hunger rape their existence. The seducers, however, enjoy in foreign countries the freedom to defame their own folk for gold, to deliver it to the hatred of the surroundings!

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

Social democracy and centrum, free thinkers and folk parties, state party, atheist associations, red and Christian trade unions, entrepreneur federations and economic parties have brotherly found their way together in the fight against the National Socialism movement.

„Adolf Hitler’s Proclamation”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

We National Socialists have passed through too long a period of persecutions and suppressions in order to not precisely recognize the real value of our political opponents’ shrill, democratic humanity phrases. We are determined to act according to this realization!

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

The others speak of democracy and avoid the folk. National Socialism speaks of authority, but has fought and struggled with this folk like no movement in Germany before it.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

I do not believe in the future of the German nation as long as its interests are represented by twenty or thirty parties, federations, associations, groups and tiny groups. I know the curse of German fragmentation through the centuries of our history. It is not more useful for the German nation to let thirty parties act than it was previously useful to be governed just by as many rulers. I consider it above all impossible that a folk can survive m the hard time of the present world crises, if it is divided internally in classes.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

The parties have now finally been eliminated; this is a historical event, of whose significance and scope one is largely not yet conscious.

Speech of July 6, 1933 in Berlin

Not from the stagnant swamp of our old parties could German salvation come, it could only come from the portion of the nation, which decently fulfills its duty.

Speech of February 26, 1934 in Munich

In one year of National Socialist revolution, we have overthrown the parties…All of them, which orbited as satellites around the Second or Third Internationale, which represented the bourgeois middle class, the interests of Catholicism, the tasks of an evangelical socialism, the goals of finance to the pitiful representation of our rootless intellectualism, they are all gone. The energy of our folk’s life has victoriously elevated itself in this year over the ruins of this sunken world. What do all the legislative measures of decades mean compared to the force of this single fact?

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

There the front of the Germany of parties, there the front of folk-Germany’s future.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

National Socialism is hence a fanatical and merciless enemy of any class division and separate of ranks.

Speech of October 2, 1933 in Hameln

The inconsequence of the economic and political idea of bourgeois democracy invariably called the consequent Marxist theory onto the playing field of these forces. So it came that while the folks still partook of the material fruits of bourgeois and liberal individualism, the apostles of the new (Marxist) doctrine politically preached the equality of all values. Parliamentarian democracy had to invariably in the long-run become the moral enemy of the value of personality even in the purely economic sphere. It could only be a question of time when the ruthlessly advancing doctrine of the Marxist idea of equality would have finally overrun the last bulwarks of politics before the economy in order to then finally finish off the political and economic ideology of the bourgeois era.

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

The proletariat (of the Marxist era) …is outwardly pacifist and inwardly terrorist, the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, wants to be a terrorist outwardly and a pacifist inwardly.

Speech of April 20, 1923 in Munich

It is furthermore the characteristic trait of these fourteen (postwar) years that, aside from natural fluctuations, the line of development constantly led downward.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

The number of Germans standing inwardly on the ground of the Weimar constitution, despite the suggestive significance and pitiless utilization of the power of government, was at the end only a fraction of the whole nation.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

For fifteen years things went ever more downward for our folk. The most horrible thing thereby was not the fact of the collapse in itself, rather the lack of will, born out of desperation and lunacy, with which the folk set about accepting this fate. Each year of the progressing decline appeared to prove those people right, who had already at the start made the prophecy of the futility of all attempts to change our fate.

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

Marxism became the herder of the workers, freemasonry formed the disintegration machinery for the „intellectual” strata, „Esperanto” was supposed to make „understanding” easier.

Speech of September 18, 1922 in Munich

Who are the freemasons, actually? One distinguishes two grades: to the lower belong in Germany those average citizens who can „feel something” by the offered phraseology. The responsible people, however, are those far-sighted ones, who bear any climate, those three hundred Rathenaus, who all know each other, who direct the affairs of the world over the heads of the kings and state presidents. Those who scrupulously assume any office, who know how to brutally enslave all the folks – again, Jews!

Speech of April 13, 1923 in Munich

One wants to believe that a „statesman” who fails would disappear forever. In the parliamentarian state, however, he simply goes to the back and stands in line again.

Speech of May 4, 1923 in Munich

Never will one of the November criminals be able to represent Germany in the world!

Speech of September 12, 1923 in Munich

German parliamentarism is…the decline and the end of the German nation.

Speech of May 4, 1923 in Munich

I understand under Marxism a doctrine, which in principle rejects the value of personality, which replaces energy with mass.

Speech of February 26, 1924 in Munich

They suffocate in their own compromises.

Marxism invariably flows not only politically, rather also culturally, into nihilism.

Speech of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

The end of socialism in Germany is that a sixty-million folk has become the slave of capitalism, and indeed of an international world-capitalism.

Appendix to „Adolf Hitler’s Speeches”: Adolf Hitler’s Sayings

Whether Germany rises up means nothing to the „classconscious” social democrat, if just the party stands – likewise for the Erzbergish centrum and for the democrats: if only the doctrine is not harmed, folk reconciliation, folk peace etc… These chosen ones of the folk calmly look on until the whole has dropped dead!

Speech of August 21, 1923 in Munich

Social democracy declares literally in its main organ, the „Vorwärts”, that it does not lie in the interests of the German worker, if Germany wins the war.

Speech of April 13, 1923 in Munich

And what does the party of Mr. Ebert and Mr. Auer say? „A German victory does not lie in the interests of the German worker class” – whereby they just mean themselves.

Speech of April 17, 1923 in Munich

One (the Marxist) means: anybody can govern; any cobbler or tailor is supposed to be able direct a state. And then one believes, through soiling and putting down the own self, the own folk, to acquire sympathy from the others.

Speech of April 20, 1923 in Munich

They talk so much about it that social democrats also stood in the field: the German workers stood in the field! But even if they still felt social democratic in some kind of fog back then – it was not the case, and everybody who was a soldier knows that back then nobody thought about his party – even it that had been the case: How base are these leaders that they have denied their own people, who bore the sacrifice of this struggle, the fruit of these sacrifices – all the suffering, all the need, mortal fear, torment, hunger and sleep deprivation. They can no longer make restitution for what they have inflicted on our folk through this crime!

Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin

For the first time at the start of the war in August 1914 international solidarity whistled off with a huge crash.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

Social democracy represents world-political interests; but a common walk with the workers of the world is, after all, only possible on the basis of mutual respect and setting equal. The German must first be a German as the Englishman is an Englishman, if he wants to gain the respect of the others.

Speech of April 10, 1923 in Munich

The senile thing in the life of folks, however, is internationalism.

Speech of May 1, 1923 in Munich

When folks no longer possess creative energy, then they become international.

Speech of May 1, 1923 in Munich

What is present in real values of human culture, did not emerge from internationalism, rather the folkdom has created it.

Speech of May 1, 1923 in Munich

It is a lack of conviction and lack of character, to be a pacifist: For he himself certainly makes a claim to help from others, but does not want to himself practice self-assertion. With a folk it is the same. A folk, which is not ready to defend itself, lacks character.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

The Jew became founder of the social democratic, of the communist movement.

Speech of July 28, 1922 in Munich

That (the international German state) is the paradise of the Jews.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

The development has confirmed to us that the overwhelming portion of German workers no longer clings inwardly to Marxism.

Speech of May 16, 1934 in Berlin

Neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat was in their overwhelming portion ready to make a sacrifice for their conviction or even to die.

Speech of May 16, 1934 in Berlin

One must recognize the nature of our previous world of political parties in order to comprehend the meaning of this „parliamentarian democracy”…., and one will then come to the conclusion: that, first, there was almost no trace of world-view among these formations (the previous parties) despite all the talk, that, second, they were in their whole intellectual content and their construction unable to ever interest the nation in a single great goal or even to completely win it for it, and that they, third, also did not have any intention at all, for the sake of higher ideas and goals, to renounce the business possibilities, which were to be found in the fragmentation of the folk body given the „capitalist ability” of these saviors of folk and economy.

Speech of September 10, 1934 in Nuremberg

One can image that: Mr. Ebert as national leader of the German folk – Fritz Ebert from Berlin! Freedom fighter and revolution- maker at the same time? No, thrice no!

Speech of September 12, 1923 in Munich

Marxism as world-view of decomposition has with sharp vision recognized in the trade union movement the possibility to launch the attack against the state and human society with an absolutely devastating weapon. Not in order to perhaps help the worker – what does the worker of whatever land mean to these international apostles? Nothing at all! They do not see him. They are no workers, they are folk-alien literati, folk-alien pack!

Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin

Social democracy was…a party with huge connections and contacts. Then there were the trade unions. They, too, were used for the struggle, for the political one, not the economic one. The trade unions provided the money reservoir for the party. In addition came a tremendous terror, with which one held the „comrades” together.

Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich

When we introduced on May 2 (1933) last year the destruction of the German political parties through occupation of the trade unions, it did not happen in order to take purposeful representation away from any German, rather in order to liberate the German folk from those organizations, whose worst damage it was that they had to cause damage in order to justify the necessity of their own existence.

Speech of May 1, 1934 in Berlin

Marxism: for it wanted nothing else than to destroy Germany!

Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin

The numerical and objectively existing weakness…of the (Marxist) regiment led to that unique connection between Marxist theoreticians and capitalist practitioners, who as a consequence had to imprint the basic character traits of this rare, corrupt misalliance on both political and economic life.

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

The men who today lead Germany have nothing in common with the paid traitors of November 1918.

Speech of October 14, 1933 in Berlin

What has been overthrown, will never again be resurrected. That is why we are there!

Speech of November 16, 1933 in Elbing

Fate gave fourteen years time to the men before us to prove their real ability through deeds. However, whoever fourteen years long fails like these, ruins a healthy folk, drives it toward misery and desperation, has no right in the fifteenth year to play the critic of those who want to do better and who have also done better. They had an opportunity to act for fourteen years. We give them no opportunity today to babble very long.

Speech of March 21, 1934 in Munich

We will…not tolerate that the bearers of the previous destruction of our folk, through their eternally negative activity of decomposition, continue to make the German folk lacking in will or even just unsure at a time when its entire will must help to avoid the catastrophe, to overcome the crisis.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

It will hence be one of the movement’s most important tasks to declare pitiless battle against these destroyers of our folk’s strength of resistance and to wage it until their total destruction or subjugation.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

A revolutionary upheaval is only justified, if in the end result it actually serves the self-preservation and life-preservation of a folk. That is the only justification for socialism.

Speech of May 16, 1934 in Berlin

Bismarck once declared that liberalism was the pace-maker for social democracy. I do not need to say here that social democracy is the pace-maker for communism.

Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin

The deepest essence and meaning of the communist process lies in the attempt to break up the folks made up of various racial cores and to replace the previously politically and world- view-wise leading portion with a new, in this case Jewish, ruling stratum.

Speech of February 7, 1934 in Berlin

While the communists fundamentally reject the discipline of the state, they preach the discipline of the party. While they reject the administration of the state as bureaucracy, they kneel before the bureaucracy of their own movement. A state within a state emerges, which opposes the state of the folk community as a mortal enemy. It finally produces people with a fanatical rejection of their own folk, so that eventually foreign countries find allies in them. That is the product of the Marxist doctrine!

Speech of April 24, 1923 in Munich

Just like after the Kerenski government in Russia, the real Soviet dictatorship is supposed to be erected after the lemonade Ebert revolution. Do not take that lightly! Many of those who still laugh at that in Germany, will have their heads roll in the sand. – The human rubble is the same in all lands. Only a miracle can stop Germany’s political collapse.

Speech of September 5, 1923 in Munich

In the master folk the realization became unconsciously ever more alive as morality, that its mastery must not be arbitrariness, rather noble reason. The ability to subjugate others was not given it by Providence in order to, without purpose, feel like master or to torment, rather to – from the connection of its genius and the other’s strength – shape for both together an existence worthy of humans, because useful to them. But just when this process of forming folks and states was introduced, the communist era of humanity ended. For communism is not a higher stage of development, rather it is the most primitive starting form.

Speech of September 3, 1933 in Nuremberg

The left: energy is there. Where they have power, they use it, but how? For Germany’s ruin!

Speech of April 24, 1923 in Munich

Communism, however, is the pace-maker for death, for folk-death, for decline!

Speech of May 10, 1933 in Berlin

The communist revolution threatening the folk since November 1918: a danger, however, which the lands cannot gauge, who have not like us had millions of organized communists and have not – like Germany – suffered under terror.

Speech of May 17, 1933 in Berlin

The mobilization of the most primitive instincts leads to a connection between the views of a political idea and the actions of real criminals. Starting with plundering, arson, rail sabotage, assassinations etc., everything receives its moral sanction in the communist idea.

Speech of March 23, 1933 in Berlin

Does one not see… that Bolshevism is not just a band raging in Germany on a few streets, rather a world-view, which is in the process of subjugating the whole Asian continent and which today as a state stretches from almost our eastern border to Wladiwostok?

Lecture of January 27, 1932 in Düsseldorf

The path Europe walked was the direct path into Bolshevism. And what this Bolshevism would have mean for Europe, I do not have to illustrate!

Speech of October 24, 1933 in Berlin

Communism would, given its victory in Europe, in the coming half millennium have to lead to the total extermination of even the last remnants of the creations of that Aryan spirit, which as culture-bringer since the millennia historically know to us has, in its diverse ramifications and branches, given the present White world the general cultural and hence genuinely human foundations.

Speech of February 7, 1934 in Berlin

While the communist party wrote the fight against Versailles on its own flags, it managed to mobilize people who in their desperation believed they can only find an escape through chaos. The world, however, did not appear to notice that – while it blindly insisted down to the letter on the fulfillment of incomprehensible, yes, downright crazy impossibilities – a development was underway in Germany which, as the prelude for the communist world revolution, had to soon put a disease- ridden plague-carrier in place of the useful treaty-slave.

Speech of January 30, 1934 in Berlin

If in Western or Central Europe one folk falls to Bolshevism, this poison will eat farther and desolate the today oldest and most beautiful cultural property of the earth.

Speech of September 3, 1933 in Nuremberg

The struggle against Bolshevism as a world threat is practically a struggle for a richly structured, organically constructed folk state, which possesses in the peasantry its fundament, but in the middle class the bridge over which capable individuals can gradually work their way up into the higher levels.

„Adolf Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932

The situation in which we find ourselves is clear to all: At the beginning of this year (1933) there were weeks in which we came within a hair’s width of the brink of Bolshevik chaos.

Proclamation of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg

If our enemies of the red color had come to power, then we would see by us as well as elsewhere just a heap of rubble. Today, however, we see blossoming life in Germany.

Speech of March 20, 1934 in Munich

When I turned against communism, then not because of the 100,000 bourgeoisie…, we did it because we saw the whole folk facing ruin, the millions of its productive people and above all the workers as well! One will not be able to dispute that we have conducted this struggle heroically and courageously.

Speech of October 24, 1933 in Berlin

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,

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized – The Year 1939 – Part 5!

The Year 1939 – Part 5











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.

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


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.


  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.;
    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. 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. 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).

The Secret Masonic Victory of WW2 – Part 3 – Holodomor – Death by Famine

Who was Julius Streicher?

Gauleiter Julius Streicher

(12.02.1885 – 16.10.1946)

Julius Streicher was born on February 12, 1885, in Fleinhausen, Germany, Julius Streicher was the ninth child of a Roman Catholic school teacher. He worshiped his mother, who he later called, „the fortress of my childhood. “ At the age of 13, he entered a training institute to become a teacher. After a five- year course, Streicher began teaching elementary school children in January, 1904. By 1912, he joined the Democratic Party and addressed their meetings in Nuremberg. He was a gifted orator and quickly became very popular, receiving warm applause wherever he spoke. In 1913, Streicher married Kunigunde Roth. Lothar, their first son, was born in 1915. He would later write for Der Stürmer. A second son, Elmar followed in 1918.

World War One broke out in 1914 and Streicher enlisted in the infantry. He saw heavy front- line fighting in France. Streicher sought out dangerous missions and carried a crucial message though heavy enemy fire which prevented an encirclement. For this, he became the first man in his company to win the Iron Cross. He then was selected as a member of the elite Mountain Machine Gun Detachment and was later accepted as an officer candidate. As a First Lieutenant, he fought bravely on the Romanian and Italian fronts. At the time of the Armistice in November, 1918, Streicher was back serving again on the French front, winning the coveted Iron Cross First Class. After the war Streicher returned to his old teaching position.

After his return to treaching , Streicher was given his first copy of the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion. Streicher began speaking on these new revelations . In 1919 Streicher helped to establish the Nuremberg German Socialist Party, an anti-Semitic organization. In 1921Streicher launched the Deutscher Volkswille, it became the voice of the party. In 1922 Streicher joined the NSDAP and shortly thereafter handed his own party over to Hitler.

On April 20, 1923, the first copy of Der Stürmer („The Attacker“) was published. The first few editions of the Nazi weekly lacked many of the central elements that were to make Der Stürmer so popular and so notorious; they consisted of four small pages, focused on Julius Streicher’s (the paper’s founder and editor) political enemies (rather than against Jews), offered few if any cartoons, and carried only a few ads. But Der Stürmer already had a circulation of several thousand when it was forced to take a four month hiatus, beginning in November 1923.

Streicher was a player in Hitler’s abortive attempt to seize power from the Bavarian government during the Munich Putsch of November 9, 1923. Streicher was made „Director of Propaganda“ and drove around Munich, speaking to street corner crowds, announcing the revolution. Streicher marched with Hitler, Himmler and General Erich Ludendorff through Munich to the Feldherrnhalle monument, when police opened fire. Sixteen marchers were killed, dozens, including Hermann Goering, were seriously wounded and the rest scattered. The „Beer Hall Putsch“ had been quashed. Hitler was imprisoned at Landsberg for 14 months. Streicher was luckier, receiving one month in jail. Streicher lost his teaching job but due to his good record, was granted a pension at the age of 39.

Upon Streicher’s release, the paper was again published, beginning in March 1924. Only a month later, Der Stürmer published its first cartoon directed against Jews. Streicher began an incessant, running battle with the Establishment, extending through the Third Reich era. Editions of his paper were banned or seized thirty times between 1923 and 1933 and in one eleven-day period, he was hit with five lawsuits. He served a total of eight months in prison for defying court orders to cease distribution of banned issues of Der Stürmer. He was elected to parliament on April 6, 1924 and in the fall of 1924, he ran for the Nuremberg City Council and won. He held two elected positions simultaneously. That drawings all come up for newspaper, they take up to December 19 1925 small parts. In this day first cartoon Philippe Rupprecht, pen name „Fips“ is published in newspaper. The Rupprecht’s Cartoons contain the satyr to anti-semitic themes. It drew the jews with enormous hooked noses, releaseded eyes, unshaven, short and thick. It often express them in the manner of parasites, snake and spiders. Rupprecht’s Well drew the feminine forms denuded or half-naked. The Aryan women on such cartoons emerge as victims of jews.

In 1927 circulation was only 14,000 copies. By 1933 it rose to 25,000 in 1934, 113,800 and jumped to two million by 1940. By then, some 300 people worked for Der Stürmer including one Jew named Jonas Wolk. The Goring report noted that Wolk was paid a „good salary“ and wrote some of the paper’s most anti-Jewish articles. It was now a publication of international prominence and one most feared by the Jews. By 1941 Der Stürmer had opened branch offices in Vienna, Prague and Strasbourg and in Denmark an edition was launched.

Goring, Himmler, Hess and others sought to have Der Stürmer banned as being „too anti-Semitic and an embarrassment. Despite the efforts of these influential Nazis, Hitler usually sided with his old party comrade Streicher. He once defended Streicher saying, „If I let Streicher fall and banned the Stürmer, world Jewry would howl with glee. I will not give them the pleasure. “Goring, Hess and the others demanded that Hitler take action to silence Streicher. Hitler did take firmer action to silence Streicher. Hitler ordered him to „retire“ to his country estate outside Nuremberg. He also forbade him from speaking at party meetings.

Streicher’s wife died in 1943. Several weeks before the war’s end, he married his life-long secretary Adele. They then fled their home to the Alps before the advancing U. S. Army. On May 23, 1945, a Jewish U. S. Army Major Plitt recognized Streicher and took him into custody.

The Struggle of „Der Stürmer“

The only newspaper in Germany, yes, in the whole world, which often screams the accusation of ritual murder into the Jewish face, is Der Stürmer. For more than ten years Der Stürmer has led a gigantic battle against Judaism. This has caused Der Stürmer to be under constant attack by the Jews. Dozens of times it has been confiscated and prohibited. Its workers and, most of all, its editor, Julius Streicher, have been dragged into court hundreds of times. They were convicted, punished and locked into prisons. Der Stürmer has come to know the Jew from the confession which Dr. Conrad Alberti-Sittenfeld, a Jew, wrote in 1899 in No. 12 of the magazine Gesellschaft:

“One of the most dangerous Jewish qualities is the brutal, direct barbaric intolerance. A worse tyranny cannot be practiced than that which the Jewish clique practices. If you try to move against this Jewish clique, they will, without hesitating, use brutal methods to overcome you. Mainly the Jew tries to destroy his enemy in the mental area, by which he takes his material gain away, and undermines his civil existence. The vilest of all forms of retaliation, the boycott, is characteristically Jewish. ”

Der Stürmer has not been stopped. Just in Nuremberg alone there have been fought dozens of Talmudic and ritual murder cases in the courts. Because of the Jewish protests the attention of the whole world was focused on these cases. Thereafter heavy convictions followed. At first no judge had the guts to expose the Jewish problem. Finally, in 1931 (a court case lasting from Oct. 30th to Nov. 4th) Der Stürmer won its first victory. The jury found the following:

  1. Der Stürmer is not fighting against the Jewish religion; but against the Jewish race.
  2. The Talmud and Schulchan Aruch are not religious books. They have no right to be protected under the religious statutes.
  3. The laws of the Talmud, which are quoted and published in Der Stürmer are exact quotations from the Talmud.
  4. The laws of the Talmud are in harsh contradiction to German morals.
  5. The Jews of today are being taught from the Talmud.

With this verdict Der Stürmer brought about the first big breech in the Jewish-Roman Administration of justice, which was given the job before the National Socialist Revolution to protect Judaism and its government. The Jews, of course, became greatly agitated about it all. But for Der Stürmer this success was an omen of the victory yet to come. Of course, Der Stürmer does not stop half way. It knows what must be done. It is our duty to frustrate the gigantic murder plot of Judaism against humanity! It is our duty to brand this nation before the whole world, to uncover its crimes and to render it harmless! It is our duty to free the world from this national pest and parasitic race!

Der Stürmer will fulfill its mission. It will light up the darkness with the truth that shall rule the world. And it will always direct itself according to the following proverb: „He who knows the truth and does not speak it truly is a miserable creature. ”

The Teachings of Julius Streicher

  1. Jews concentrate in certain occupations such as doctors, lawyers, money-lenders, merchants, entertainers, etc. Thus they gain a disproportionate share of the wealth. They control the large monopoly department stores thus putting the independent Gentiles out of business.
  2. Jews pay low wages often forcing poor workers into crime and some women into part-time prostitution.
  3. Jews are not true creators of wealth. They avoid physical labor and are rarely farmers, masons, factory workers, etc. Their religion teaches that it is shameful.
  4. Jews hate Jesus Christ but have turned His birthday int a source of great profits. As Rabbi Jacob Wise said: „It is better to have Christmas than smallpox. Besides, if the crucified one had a brother born in the summertime it would have given us two such profitable holidays. “
  5. Jews exploit sex for financial gain through their control of the theater and publications.
  6. Jews are parasites who secretly gain wealth by exploiting the unwary host people.
  7. Jews gain power by first pleading for „tolerance and brotherhood. “ They coddle political leaders of a nation by making themselves useful – ingratiating themselves until they become the power behind the throne.
  8. Jews give to charities in order to gain respectability.
  9. Even if a Jew undergoes Christian Baptism he remains a Jew because they are a race.
  10. Jews concentrate themselves in the large cities where they promote socialism and decadence.

Julius Streicher’s favorite saying:

„He who knows the truth and does not speak it is a miserable coward. “

Streicher Arrested And Tortured By Jews, Blacks

Streicher’s wife died in 1943. Several weeks before the war’s end, he married his life-long secretary Adele. They then fled their home before the advancing U. S. Army. On May 23, 1945, a Jewish U. S. Army Major Plitt recognized Streicher and took him into custody. He was hailed as a hero and flown back to New York City where an official „Major Plaid Day“ was declared. Jews celebrated in the streets, cheering the arrest of the man they called, „The World’s No. 1 Jew Baiter. “

Streicher passed a note to his lawyer, Dr. Hans Marx, describing how Jews and Negroes had tortured him in his cell. A photograph backed up his charges, showing him standing naked with black and blue marks and a sign around his neck proclaiming, „Julius Streicher, King of the Jews. “

The note read:

„Two niggers undressed me and tore my shirt in two. I kept only my pants. Being handcuffed, I could not pull them up when they fell down. So now I was naked. Four days! On the fourth day, I was so cold that my body was numb. I couldn’t hear anything. Every 2 – 4 hours (even in the night!) Niggers came along under command of a White man and hammered at me. Cigarette burns on the nipples. Fingers gouged into eye-sockets. Eyebrows and chest hair pulled out. Genitals beaten with an oxwhip. Testicles very swollen. Spat at. „Mouth open“ and was spat into. When I refused to open, my jaws were pried apart with a stick and my mouth spat into. Beaten with a whip – swollen, dark-blue whelps all over the body. . . Photographed naked! Jeered at wearing an old army greatcoat which they hung round me. “

When Her Marx protested the mistreatment of Streicher to the court, the inquisitors erupted with outrage. They immediately ordered that the motion be struck from the trial record as „highly improper. “ Streicher twice brought up his being tortured and rather than ask for an investigation, the judges ordered his statements deleted from the record. They held him in contempt of court for even revealing the matter.

Experts Questioned Validity of Streicher Case

Telford Taylor, a member of the U. S. prosecution staff at the trials, published his The anatomy of The Nuremberg Trials in 1992. In this 700-page book, he writes that many among the prosecution staff questioned the legality of trying Streicher because he was a publisher of a privately owned newspaper not connected with the government. Streicher had nothing to do with military decisions and had been a political nonentity since 1940. He had been an important force in sowing the seeds of anti-Semitism but was that an international crime?“

British prosecutor Sir. Hartley Shawcross is quoted by Taylor as stating:

„I and many others thought Streicher’s case was the most debatable. “

Taylor further stated that the Streicher case presented the court with their most serious problem because „there was no accusation that Streicher himself had participated in any violence against Jews. “ During Streicher’s two-day cross-examination, he was questioned only about articles and cartoons from Der Stürmer!