What do you think?
Rate this book
Useful Enemies: America's Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals
How the United States protected John Demjanjuk: “A richly researched, gripping narrative about war, suffering, survival, corruption, injustice and morality” (Kirkus Reviews, starred).
John “Iwan” Demjanjuk was at the center of one of history’s most complex war crimes trials. But why did it take almost sixty years for the United States to bring him to justice as a Nazi collaborator? The answer lies in the annals of the Cold War, when fear and paranoia drove American politicians and the U.S. military to recruit “useful” Nazi war criminals to work for the United States in Europe as spies and saboteurs and to slip them into America through loopholes in U.S. immigration policy. During and after the war, that same immigration policy was used to prevent thousands of Jewish refugees from reaching the shores of America.
The long and twisted saga of John Demjanjuk, a postwar immigrant and auto mechanic living a quiet life in Cleveland until 1977, is the final piece in the puzzle of American government deceit. The White House, the Departments of War and State, the FBI, and the CIA supported policies that harbored Nazi war criminals and actively worked to hide and shelter them from those who dared to investigate and deport them.
The heroes in this story are men and women such as Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and Justice Department prosecutor Eli Rosenbaum, who worked for decades to hold hearings, find and investigate alleged Nazi war criminals, and successfully prosecute them for visa fraud. But it was not until the conviction of John Demjanjuk in Munich in 2011 as an SS camp guard serving at the Sobibor death camp that this story of deceit can be told for what it is: a shameful chapter in American history.
Riveting and deeply researched, Useful Enemies is the account of one man’s criminal past and its devastating consequences, and the story of how America sacrificed its moral authority in the wake of history’s darkest moment.
John “Iwan” Demjanjuk was at the center of one of history’s most complex war crimes trials. But why did it take almost sixty years for the United States to bring him to justice as a Nazi collaborator? The answer lies in the annals of the Cold War, when fear and paranoia drove American politicians and the U.S. military to recruit “useful” Nazi war criminals to work for the United States in Europe as spies and saboteurs and to slip them into America through loopholes in U.S. immigration policy. During and after the war, that same immigration policy was used to prevent thousands of Jewish refugees from reaching the shores of America.
The long and twisted saga of John Demjanjuk, a postwar immigrant and auto mechanic living a quiet life in Cleveland until 1977, is the final piece in the puzzle of American government deceit. The White House, the Departments of War and State, the FBI, and the CIA supported policies that harbored Nazi war criminals and actively worked to hide and shelter them from those who dared to investigate and deport them.
The heroes in this story are men and women such as Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and Justice Department prosecutor Eli Rosenbaum, who worked for decades to hold hearings, find and investigate alleged Nazi war criminals, and successfully prosecute them for visa fraud. But it was not until the conviction of John Demjanjuk in Munich in 2011 as an SS camp guard serving at the Sobibor death camp that this story of deceit can be told for what it is: a shameful chapter in American history.
Riveting and deeply researched, Useful Enemies is the account of one man’s criminal past and its devastating consequences, and the story of how America sacrificed its moral authority in the wake of history’s darkest moment.
640 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
About the author
Richard Rashke
22 books74 followersRichard Rashke is a lecturer and author of non-fiction books, including The Killing of Karen Silkwood, Escape from Sobibor, Useful Enemies, A Boy Named Red: A True Crime Story, and The Whistle Blower’s Dilemma: Snowden, Silkwood and Their Quest for the Truth. His works have been translated into thirteen languages and have been the subject of films for the screen and television. Rashke worked with Sobibor survivor Esther Tenner Raab on a powerful play called Dear Esther, and he has recently released a new book for all ages, Wounded Wing.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 10, 2013
Disclaimer: I received a review copy via Netgalley.
History is messy. It isn’t just the battles or the thousand, millions, who die for the most stupid and phobic of reasons. It’s messy because of judgment. What seemed like a good or even just a necessary idea then becomes an abhorrent injustice. Sometimes those of us who make those hindsight calls experience doubts because of what we know that they didn’t.
Yet sometimes the question and judgment are far simpler if still messy.
It is no secret, today, that after the Second World War America and other allied countries recruited people regardless if they had been registered as Nazis, and functioned, in cases, as Nazi guards and so on. Richard Rashke, though the case of John Demjanjuk, examines not only the US door policy on former Nazis but also though comparison of US policy towards refugees from Nazi Germany and Europe.
Because of the look at the different policies, it also is a rather depressing and anger inducing read. The scope of the book, a long book at over 500 pages, not counting notes, is not just America and post-War Europe but also Israel and post-Cold War Europe. The trials are described in detail – not just the courtroom battles but the posturing and arguments that occur outside of the courtroom. It is the outside posturing and reaction that make the book interesting. The politicians, judges, and various groups’ reactions and determination make engrossing reading. It is to Rashke’s credit that he is able to do so without demonizing the defense attorneys for the various defendants. It’s true, he doesn’t make you want to invite them out to tea, but they are not the devil incarnate. In fact, Rashke does an extremely good job of letting the reader reach conclusion as opposed to reaching conclusions for the reader. ’s other is a lack of intimacy that existed in Rashke’s Escape from Sobrior. No doubt this is due to the darker subject matter. And this is to Rashke’s credit. To become overly emotional, no matter how rightly called for, would weaken the book.
This isn’t to suggest that the book is all depressing and disappointing government stories, for there are heroes here as well. There is Elizabeth Holtzman who dug and dug and fought and fought to do what she knew was the right thing. There is prosecutor after prosecutor and judge after judge who battle to do what should have been done. There are those who face the enemies of the past in order to bring justice for the future.
The book, however, does make a reader think without preaching, something that few books are able to do today. Rashke does pose questions at the end of his work, but the questions are one that the attentive reader anticipates these questions. Rashke, however, does dispel some of the misconceptions that exists around the events. In many ways, this makes the book more of damning indictment of the policy and later day rejections to it.
And that is what makes the book readable, because while there is shame there are also things to be proud of. It is the answer to the question to take the good with the bad.
History is messy. It isn’t just the battles or the thousand, millions, who die for the most stupid and phobic of reasons. It’s messy because of judgment. What seemed like a good or even just a necessary idea then becomes an abhorrent injustice. Sometimes those of us who make those hindsight calls experience doubts because of what we know that they didn’t.
Yet sometimes the question and judgment are far simpler if still messy.
It is no secret, today, that after the Second World War America and other allied countries recruited people regardless if they had been registered as Nazis, and functioned, in cases, as Nazi guards and so on. Richard Rashke, though the case of John Demjanjuk, examines not only the US door policy on former Nazis but also though comparison of US policy towards refugees from Nazi Germany and Europe.
Because of the look at the different policies, it also is a rather depressing and anger inducing read. The scope of the book, a long book at over 500 pages, not counting notes, is not just America and post-War Europe but also Israel and post-Cold War Europe. The trials are described in detail – not just the courtroom battles but the posturing and arguments that occur outside of the courtroom. It is the outside posturing and reaction that make the book interesting. The politicians, judges, and various groups’ reactions and determination make engrossing reading. It is to Rashke’s credit that he is able to do so without demonizing the defense attorneys for the various defendants. It’s true, he doesn’t make you want to invite them out to tea, but they are not the devil incarnate. In fact, Rashke does an extremely good job of letting the reader reach conclusion as opposed to reaching conclusions for the reader. ’s other is a lack of intimacy that existed in Rashke’s Escape from Sobrior. No doubt this is due to the darker subject matter. And this is to Rashke’s credit. To become overly emotional, no matter how rightly called for, would weaken the book.
This isn’t to suggest that the book is all depressing and disappointing government stories, for there are heroes here as well. There is Elizabeth Holtzman who dug and dug and fought and fought to do what she knew was the right thing. There is prosecutor after prosecutor and judge after judge who battle to do what should have been done. There are those who face the enemies of the past in order to bring justice for the future.
The book, however, does make a reader think without preaching, something that few books are able to do today. Rashke does pose questions at the end of his work, but the questions are one that the attentive reader anticipates these questions. Rashke, however, does dispel some of the misconceptions that exists around the events. In many ways, this makes the book more of damning indictment of the policy and later day rejections to it.
And that is what makes the book readable, because while there is shame there are also things to be proud of. It is the answer to the question to take the good with the bad.
Read
June 12, 2020I had read Escape From Sobibor and appreciated the immense amount of work that had gone into it. It’s clear that Useful Enemies is no less of a labour of love. Beyond that, it is very difficult to compare the two books. They tell very different stories. Although both are biographical works surrounding time in the camps, the circumstances are so very different that I found it best, for the sake of clarity, to try not to think back to my reading of Escape From Sobibor.
The book tells of John Demjanjuk who, after moving to the United States, was accused of being ‘Iwan the Terrible’ who had caused immense suffering to those under his supervision. In reviewing this, and Demjanjuk’s subsequent experiences once it had been determined that he was not Iwan the Terrible, the book really covers three main areas:
1) Demjanjuk’s life, role in WWII and the Holocaust and the morality of his own actions. It also raises many questions about the strain that the allegations and trials had on Demjanjuk’s later years.
2) The psychology of false memory, needing someone to blame, needing a sense of closure. Clearly the horror of living through the Holocaust is something that is unimaginable but the book – very carefully and sensitively – questions how reliable witnesses could be after facing so much trauma and then so many years having elapsed.
3) The fallibility – or perhaps even corruption – of a US government that seemed to fail at every single turn to prosecute those they had clear and damning evidence against (providing those people could be of ‘use’ in some way) but also turned away a great number of Jewish people through cold and calculating policies, designed – if only subconsciously – to make it easier for a Nazi to enter the country than a Holocaust survivor.
As a Brit, I feel compelled to say that we in the UK were far from blameless and sadly, as a nation, even our current attitude towards immigrants in need can be extremely callous. That said, the focus of the book is largely on US practices and Demjanjuk’s trial in Israel.
Prior to reading this, I had seen an hour long documentary on Demjanjuk and after reading this, I realised it barely even touched the surface of the intricacies of this particular tale. You might initially wonder why this book is so much longer than Escape From Sobibor, when that told the story of so many. Upon reading, it becomes clear that Rashke is telling a different kind of victim’s tale. This one is so morally complicated that it is hard to know whether or not Demjanjuk was victim, persecutor, scapegoat or demon. You’ll have to draw your own conclusions.
Where Escape From Sobibor was almost black and white in its stark – and fully accurate – portrayal of innocent and evil, Useful Enemies paints a much more abstract picture. I believe you could ask 100 people about this book and every one would give you a different answer about the questions it left them with or the opinions they have. I am inclined to think that Rashke has brought some questions to the surface that really must be considered, if never fully answered.
The book tells of John Demjanjuk who, after moving to the United States, was accused of being ‘Iwan the Terrible’ who had caused immense suffering to those under his supervision. In reviewing this, and Demjanjuk’s subsequent experiences once it had been determined that he was not Iwan the Terrible, the book really covers three main areas:
1) Demjanjuk’s life, role in WWII and the Holocaust and the morality of his own actions. It also raises many questions about the strain that the allegations and trials had on Demjanjuk’s later years.
2) The psychology of false memory, needing someone to blame, needing a sense of closure. Clearly the horror of living through the Holocaust is something that is unimaginable but the book – very carefully and sensitively – questions how reliable witnesses could be after facing so much trauma and then so many years having elapsed.
3) The fallibility – or perhaps even corruption – of a US government that seemed to fail at every single turn to prosecute those they had clear and damning evidence against (providing those people could be of ‘use’ in some way) but also turned away a great number of Jewish people through cold and calculating policies, designed – if only subconsciously – to make it easier for a Nazi to enter the country than a Holocaust survivor.
As a Brit, I feel compelled to say that we in the UK were far from blameless and sadly, as a nation, even our current attitude towards immigrants in need can be extremely callous. That said, the focus of the book is largely on US practices and Demjanjuk’s trial in Israel.
Prior to reading this, I had seen an hour long documentary on Demjanjuk and after reading this, I realised it barely even touched the surface of the intricacies of this particular tale. You might initially wonder why this book is so much longer than Escape From Sobibor, when that told the story of so many. Upon reading, it becomes clear that Rashke is telling a different kind of victim’s tale. This one is so morally complicated that it is hard to know whether or not Demjanjuk was victim, persecutor, scapegoat or demon. You’ll have to draw your own conclusions.
Where Escape From Sobibor was almost black and white in its stark – and fully accurate – portrayal of innocent and evil, Useful Enemies paints a much more abstract picture. I believe you could ask 100 people about this book and every one would give you a different answer about the questions it left them with or the opinions they have. I am inclined to think that Rashke has brought some questions to the surface that really must be considered, if never fully answered.
Read
March 15, 2014It’s rare that I read a book that utterly floors me with what it reveals, but Useful Enemies: John Demjanjuk and America’s Open-Door Policy for Nazi War Criminals by Richard Rashke is one such book. I remember the furor that erupted around John Demjanjuk, a Ukranian immigrant living in Cleveland, when in 1986 he was deported to Israel and tried as an accessory to the murder of thousands of Jews, as he was believed to be “Ivan the Terrible,” a sadistic guard at the Treblinka concentration camp. Eventually acquitted and his U.S. citizenship restored, Demjanjuk was later deported to Germany in 2009 to stand trial again as an accessory to murder while serving as a guard at the Sobibor concentration camp; he died in 2012 while awaiting appeal.
For the rest of this review, please go here: http://wcplfineprint.blogspot.com/201...
Our Fine Print Blog http://wcplfineprint.blogspot.com provides suggestions from our well-read library staff. The perfect resource for finding your next great read.
For the rest of this review, please go here: http://wcplfineprint.blogspot.com/201...
Our Fine Print Blog http://wcplfineprint.blogspot.com provides suggestions from our well-read library staff. The perfect resource for finding your next great read.
May 15, 2013
An exhaustive account of the forces that led to the Demjanjuk incident and seemingly unending trial. I found the post WWII nationalist machinations of the US and Soviet Union fascinating. If you didn't feel cynical and concerned about what governments are capable of 'behind the curtain' this book won't set you mind at ease.
April 10, 2026
Not too long ago I watched the Netflix documentary The Devil Next Door about John Demjanjuk, which largely focused on his trial in Israel where he was accused of being a particularly sadistic death camp guard named Ivan the Terrible during WWII. While I don't think it was the best made documentary, I was still fascinated with the case and wanted more.
Richard Rashke uses what actually turns out to be the many, many trials of John Demjanjuk to frame the larger topic of how Nazis and Nazi collaborators made their way into the United States post-war, even though many should have been automatically barred due to their wartime activities, and how former Nazis were actively recruited and protected by agencies like the CIA and FBI.
I absolutely flew through this book. It was just so utterly fascinating. I wasn't reading it so much for the Nazis-working-for-the-US-government angle, though that was interesting enough on its own. I really wanted more about Demjanjuk, because you can cover much more in a book than in a 5-part documentary. And there was indeed so much more.
Rashke beings by laying out the policies that allowed for people to immigrate to the US after WWII. Some of this legislation favoured people from countries then behind the Iron Curtain. But here we're already seeing problems as thousands of Ukrainians, Belorussians and Balts acted as Nazi collaborators, rounding up and killing Jews.
But surely there must have been some way to bar or screen those individuals? There was. The Displaced Persons Act excluded those who lied on their applications, or, vaguely, anyone who aided in the persecution of another human being. By 1951 an official list of 'inimical' organizations was created. Members of these groups would also be barred. But we're still having issues here - was a member of one of these groups actually a member if they were forced into service? Many entered the US through these loopholes or by lying about their occupations and whereabouts during the war. All of this relates to John Demjanjuk.
I'm not going to go through all of Demjanjuk's trials because the twists and turns and little details are what make the book so good. The less you know going in makes the story that much better. Did he lie to get into the United States? Was he Ivan the Terrible? If not, did he still work at Sobibor and/or Treblinka? What exactly was he doing during the war? What kind of evidence do we have, and how specific and believable is it? We go to the US, Israel, Germany. Reading how these trials unfolded was riveting.
There's also that previously mentioned thread running throughout: what actually makes someone a collaborator or volunteer? Is anyone who did anything with or for the Germans guilty? Is there a difference between voluntary and involuntary labour? If the only other option is death - is there really a choice at all? What if the individual isn't explicitly told what he's volunteering for or being forced into doing? Does doing something like driving a truck in a concentration camp bear the same amount of guilt as physically killing someone? Does an individual have some moral obligation to allow himself to be killed for refusing orders if they know (or don't know) that they may be involved in the persecution or death of others?
Some of my negative comments are that sometimes Rashke's writing felt a little too casual; I wasn't always a big fan of his language or word choice. Also, the prologues to each part were often far too long, and while I understand they were still very much on topic, they ultimately disrupt the flow of the story. They often introduce tons of new information and people that are never brought up again. Most of these prologues could have been extremely cut down.
And don't let that block quote I included lead you to believe that Rashke is on Demjanjuk's side. I thought he was quite fair in his covering of the trials. And he shows that without a doubt Demjanjuk lied about what he was doing during the war to enter the United States. Whether or not he was Ivan the Terrible is inconclusive. What we're left with are moral questions about what makes someone guilty during times of war.
Richard Rashke uses what actually turns out to be the many, many trials of John Demjanjuk to frame the larger topic of how Nazis and Nazi collaborators made their way into the United States post-war, even though many should have been automatically barred due to their wartime activities, and how former Nazis were actively recruited and protected by agencies like the CIA and FBI.
I absolutely flew through this book. It was just so utterly fascinating. I wasn't reading it so much for the Nazis-working-for-the-US-government angle, though that was interesting enough on its own. I really wanted more about Demjanjuk, because you can cover much more in a book than in a 5-part documentary. And there was indeed so much more.
Rashke beings by laying out the policies that allowed for people to immigrate to the US after WWII. Some of this legislation favoured people from countries then behind the Iron Curtain. But here we're already seeing problems as thousands of Ukrainians, Belorussians and Balts acted as Nazi collaborators, rounding up and killing Jews.
But surely there must have been some way to bar or screen those individuals? There was. The Displaced Persons Act excluded those who lied on their applications, or, vaguely, anyone who aided in the persecution of another human being. By 1951 an official list of 'inimical' organizations was created. Members of these groups would also be barred. But we're still having issues here - was a member of one of these groups actually a member if they were forced into service? Many entered the US through these loopholes or by lying about their occupations and whereabouts during the war. All of this relates to John Demjanjuk.
I'm not going to go through all of Demjanjuk's trials because the twists and turns and little details are what make the book so good. The less you know going in makes the story that much better. Did he lie to get into the United States? Was he Ivan the Terrible? If not, did he still work at Sobibor and/or Treblinka? What exactly was he doing during the war? What kind of evidence do we have, and how specific and believable is it? We go to the US, Israel, Germany. Reading how these trials unfolded was riveting.
There's also that previously mentioned thread running throughout: what actually makes someone a collaborator or volunteer? Is anyone who did anything with or for the Germans guilty? Is there a difference between voluntary and involuntary labour? If the only other option is death - is there really a choice at all? What if the individual isn't explicitly told what he's volunteering for or being forced into doing? Does doing something like driving a truck in a concentration camp bear the same amount of guilt as physically killing someone? Does an individual have some moral obligation to allow himself to be killed for refusing orders if they know (or don't know) that they may be involved in the persecution or death of others?
As a very ordinary young man captured by the Germans and facing a high probability of either starving to death, dying from overwork and disease, or being routinely executed, John Demjanjuk poses a final question that goes to the heart of the human condition--a question that only an ordinary man like John 'Ivan' Demjanjuk could ask: If you had been me in 1942, what would you have done?
Some of my negative comments are that sometimes Rashke's writing felt a little too casual; I wasn't always a big fan of his language or word choice. Also, the prologues to each part were often far too long, and while I understand they were still very much on topic, they ultimately disrupt the flow of the story. They often introduce tons of new information and people that are never brought up again. Most of these prologues could have been extremely cut down.
And don't let that block quote I included lead you to believe that Rashke is on Demjanjuk's side. I thought he was quite fair in his covering of the trials. And he shows that without a doubt Demjanjuk lied about what he was doing during the war to enter the United States. Whether or not he was Ivan the Terrible is inconclusive. What we're left with are moral questions about what makes someone guilty during times of war.
Read
July 16, 2023During WWII, the US was slow to take in Jewish refugees, partly because of antisemitism at all levels of society and partly because the US didn't see admitting refugees as essential to winning the war, which it wanted to do for geopolitical reasons — though, of course, antisemitism was embedded in the geopolitical problem. Fighting antisemitism couldn't be cleanly separated from fighting the war. The US did admit nearly a half-million refugees. And so what if 1 in 100 refugees had been Nazi collaborators? Again, this was not a primary concern for U.S. policy. In later decades, more effort was made to identify them. This is a huge book that goes into a lot of detail.
February 14, 2025
I watched a documentary about John Demjanjuk on Netflix and saw this book featured in it. This book goes way beyond that case with a lot of background information and other people involved in the atrocities committed during World War II.
Having known about Operation Paperclip this book goes into more detail about how the US government actively brought over Nazi collaborators to the US after the war because of what they could get from them while totally ignoring the crimes they committed.
It's a good, detailed book but the subject matter will frustrate you because it feels like the bad guys win for the most part.
Having known about Operation Paperclip this book goes into more detail about how the US government actively brought over Nazi collaborators to the US after the war because of what they could get from them while totally ignoring the crimes they committed.
It's a good, detailed book but the subject matter will frustrate you because it feels like the bad guys win for the most part.
January 13, 2015
It is hard to read about the brutality of the concentration camps. No doubt there were many former guards who made their way into the US after the end of the war. Given the chaos in Europe from all the devastation, with thousands of displaced people, it would have been impossible to thoroughly check the background of everyone who immigrated. But not always was this the case: Werner von Braun appears to have used slave laborers in the brutal construction of a V2 factory.
Late in life, John Demjankuk was arrested and tried for crimes he may or may not have done. The evidence against him was not very convincing. Did it do any good to prosecute him after so many decades, especially when the evidence against him was sparse at best? Did putting him on trial do anything other than give the US the chance to clear its conscience a bit? Probably not.
Late in life, John Demjankuk was arrested and tried for crimes he may or may not have done. The evidence against him was not very convincing. Did it do any good to prosecute him after so many decades, especially when the evidence against him was sparse at best? Did putting him on trial do anything other than give the US the chance to clear its conscience a bit? Probably not.
August 11, 2018
Incredible book -- much of it was a revelation to me. I find myself urging this book on multiple people in my life. I think we need to know that in the aftermath of World War II, the role of the United States wasn't as pure, altruistic and high minded as we have been led to believe. I confess this book was very hard for me to get into because the first few chapters challenged my preconceptions.
The other important theme running through the book is the story of John Demjanjuk. How quick we are to condemn people without knowing their story. What would we do in the same situation? How do we decide who is a Nazi criminal and who is not?
Rashke manages to treat with some extremely challenging and complex topics in this book without descending into editorial. His objectivity is admirable and his research is solid.
The other important theme running through the book is the story of John Demjanjuk. How quick we are to condemn people without knowing their story. What would we do in the same situation? How do we decide who is a Nazi criminal and who is not?
Rashke manages to treat with some extremely challenging and complex topics in this book without descending into editorial. His objectivity is admirable and his research is solid.
October 31, 2020
This is an amazing book about a shameful episode in our history. I hesitate to call it an episode as it was spread over decades. This is all about the lengths that branches of our government , CIA, FBI, Army, Navy and State Department, went to to help Nazis gain citizenship. Failing that, they obscured the pasts of these men and women, making it harder or impossible for them to be brought to justice. The only saving grace is that Germany's record of prosecuting Nazis is worse than ours.
March 29, 2026
I remember hearing about this guy when I was younger since he was from Seven Hills, but I didn't know a lot of the details. It was really interesting to see the different sides of the trial. This book really goes in depth about his trial and it was a really good read, especially if you are interested in WWII
November 18, 2016
Holocaust read
If the legal wrangling had been toned down, would have give more stars. It was fascinating to understand how America, Britain, France, and Russia used known war criminals as spies. I learned several amazing facts that I did not know. The author was diligent in his following of one particular case, and its legal journey thru 3 trials in 3 countries over lengthy period of time.
If the legal wrangling had been toned down, would have give more stars. It was fascinating to understand how America, Britain, France, and Russia used known war criminals as spies. I learned several amazing facts that I did not know. The author was diligent in his following of one particular case, and its legal journey thru 3 trials in 3 countries over lengthy period of time.
June 6, 2013
Well-written and easy to read. There are five main chapters. The first one describes the US's complicity in allowing and even pursuing Nazis to come to the United States. Everyone is dirty: FBI, CIA, DOJ, INS... the list goes on and on. It really, really makes one angry. The other four chapters cover the various trials of John Demjanjuk (may his name be erased).
April 1, 2017
I got way more than I bargained for with this book. It's a must-read if you want to understand the U.S.'s approach to immigration, and is most apropos for our current times. I'm not sure I like our government as much as I did before I read it, however. I thought the U.S. was morally superior to other countries but I now I'm not sure. Our current behavior is not very reassuring.
Should you read it? Absolutely.
Should you read it? Absolutely.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews