About the Author

Jonathan Brent, editorial director of Yale University Press and founder of its distinguished Annals of Communism series, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and is writing a biography of the Soviet Jewish writer Isaac Babel.

Vladimir P. Naumov, a professor of history, has been executive secretary of the Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Repressed Persons in Moscow since its inception under former president Mikhail Gorbachev.

Reviews

These two publications deal with similar topics but have different areas of focus. In Stalin's Last Crime, Brent, editorial director of Yale University Press, which publishes the distinguished "Annals of Communism" series, and Naumov, executive secretary of the Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Repressed Persons in Moscow, have researched materials previously buried in KGB archives to make the startling but long-suspected assertion that Stalin was poisoned by Politburo members and allowed to die. Their focus is the "doctors' plot" that Stalin concocted to implicate Jewish doctors in the deaths of two top Kremlin leaders in 1945 and 1948. These incidents were tangled together with his paranoid suspicions that the Jews and the Americans were planning to invade Russia (and nuke Moscow), which he used as a cover to purge the MGB (precursor to the KGB). As Stalin fabricated the plot, he had concentration camps built to hold the Jews of Moscow and then all of Russia, and he planned to detain or deport the entire Jewish population. In contrast, Lustiger's Stalin and the Jews begins with the repression of the Jews from the time of Catherine II (the Great) through the tsars of the 19th century to the known anti-Semitism of Nicholas II as background for its own account of the "doctors plot "and the plight of the Jews in Soviet Russia. The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAFC) was established in 1942 to muster Jewish support for the war against Hitler's Germany. But its remarkable success was not enough to convince Stalin, who saw demons in the organization's leaders and, with forced confessions, false evidence, and compliant underlings, had the JAFC leadership murdered after a secret mock trial. Both books are well researched and complement each other. But while Brent and Naumov do a great deal of guessing, asserting what Stalin probably did, Lustiger-a survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald and an independent publisher and writer-is less interpretive. Both books are recommended for all libraries with Russian history collections.-Harry Willems, Southeast Kansas Lib. Syst., Iola Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.

Though the Great Terror of the late 1930s is widely viewed as the height of Stalin's purges, the number of arrests actually peaked in the early 1950s, and Stalin was planning hundreds of thousands more on the eve of his death in 1953. These arrests were spurred by the "doctors' plot," a supposed conspiracy among Jewish doctors to kill members of the government and destroy the U.S.S.R. at the behest of the Americans. Brent, the editorial director of Yale University Press, and Naumov, executive secretary of Russia's Presidential Commission for the Rehabilitation of Repressed Persons, trace how Stalin himself put together false evidence of the "doctors' plot," which was far more than a simple exercise in anti-Semitism and paranoid senility. According to the authors, Stalin intended to use the "doctors' plot" to accomplish several goals: to purge his Ministry of Security and upper ranks of government; to defuse the potential threat posed by Soviet Jews, many of whom had ties to the U.S. and the new state of Israel; and to provide fuel for an armed conflict with the U.S. Brent and Naumov provide a riveting view of Stalin's modus operandi: over the course of several years, he patiently and meticulously gathered forced confessions that would weave together unrelated events-the death of a top Party official here, the arrest of a Zionist doctor there-into a story of massive conspiracy. One of the reasons for his great care, the book contends, is that the popular mood had subtly shifted in the postwar era; revolutionary fervor had died down, there was a desire for legal legitimacy and, in contrast to their 1930s counterparts, top bureaucrats were loath to convict without evidence. One wishes that the authors had elaborated on fascinating points like these. Their narrative is a complicated one, full of minor characters and bureaucratic missives, and, by necessity, most of this narrowly focused book is taken up with close readings of documents. (Apr.) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.