I am concluding the "Hitler versus Communism" series with the conclusion of the "Black Book" book review that appeared in Insight, Feb 28, 2000. You will be treated to additional Talmudic contortions.
Through these gyrations the authors are trying to lessen and partly excuse the monstrous thing called Communism, unleashed first on the Aryan peoples (and others of Europe) and then the Chinese, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Malayans etc. And now it is here, on our continent, in its various disguises and "hate laws".
How is it done? How are the waters muddied? By playing that old fiddle: The specter of the Charlie Chaplin-like buffoon, the German Führer - who, after all, should be the model for all times of what "dictators" were really all about - ". . . and don't you dare think differently!"
After all, whose brain child was Communism - and whose agenda did it serve? And aren't our universities still spiked with Marxist professors? Aren't our courts now championing that same agenda with "truth is no defense" decrees?
For Oxford University professor Alan Ryan, whose review appeared in the New York Times on Jan. 2, 2000, the Black Book's condemnation of Communism is long overdue: "This is the body count of a colossal, wholly failed social, economic, political and psychological experiment. It is a criminal indictment, and it rightly reads like one."
But Ryan quickly moves on to argue that Lenin (had he lived longer) and Leon Trotsky (had he not been driven from power by Stalin) "probably" would have come to understand that mass terror and murder only caused people to hate them and would have stopped government-sponsored terror. But Stalin, who was "thought by Trotzky to be a paranoid maniac, and may well have been so by the end of his life," says Ryan, didn't end mass murder because he was. . . crazy.
Even more amazingly, Ryan claims that "so long as a shred of Marxist intelligence remained to Communist practice, it was not in itself an exterminationist project." What he seems to be saying is that Communism in the 20th century simply wasn't true to its Marxist's roots, and if it had been, it never would have turned violent - a claim that ignores Karl Marx's own often violence-laden rhetoric and his championing of such events as the French Revolution and the Paris Commune.
More specious is Orlando Figes' argument in his review of The Black Book in The Times of London on November 25. 1999. "The Germans killed the Jews for no other reason than they were Jews," a statement with which no one could disagree. But then Figes, whose specialty is the Russian Revolution, goes on to write that we must regard the victims of Communism as facing less evil than the victims of Nazism because "the victims of Communists were killed as an effect of disastrous policies or murdered in the rush to achieve the goals of a misguided revolution."
It's as though Figes is arguing that the 100 million victims of Communism would have had totally justifiable deaths if they had been the victims of a successful (rather than "disastrous") government programs or if they had been murdered in "the rush to achieve the goals" of a revolution whose aims were carefully guided (rather than "misguided").
For Figes, the evils of Nazism and that of Communism don't equate because under Communism "there was no class genocide to equate with the destruction of a race." For him, the "Holocaust was something else, something that defies all human values. That is why we shall always see it for the unique form of evil that it was."
For the authors of The Black Book, Communism is a unique evil, too, that defies all human values and deserves our condemnation along with Nazism, but it may be a while before this view is widely accepted. As Malia writes in The Black Book's introduction: Seekers "after historical truth should gird their loin for a very long march indeed before Communism is accorded its full share of absolute evil."
Well, that is why we have Revisionists - to shorten that "very long march."
Read on what Hitler had to say as he beheld the coming Marxist New World Order.
* In his closing speech to the Party Congress at Nuremberg, delivered on 12 September 1938, Hitler said:
"(T)he Party which stood for a new community of the people was greeted with no affection by the Jewish wirepullers of the proletarian world revolution. (...)
"More than once in the German Reichstag we could witness the shameful spectacle of a united front arrayed against us, ranging from the extreme Right to the extreme Left. There was talk at that time of the necessity to safeguard the interests of the German people, of the necessity to fight for its freedom, but action was directed against the sole movement which was in fact in a position to fight for such ideals and, if necessary, to realize them. (...)
"We are experiencing now on a large scale very much what we had to experience at home in our ten-years struggle. Since the day when we took over power, we have been faced with a solid front on the part of the outer world. And just as at home the gilded capitalistic democracy of our parliamentary parties went hand in hand with Marxism whenever it was a question of fighting National Socialism, so we see today on a large scale the same conspiracy between Democracy and Bolshevism to make war on the State of the National Socialist community of the people. (...)
"It was a spectacle whose infinite dishonesty could cause nothing but disgust. And the same feeling comes over us to-day when we see how the so-called international world-democrats, the champions of freedom, brotherhood, justice, the people's rights to self-determination, and all the rest of it, go hand in glove with the Bolshevism of Moscow. (...)
"Insincerity starts from the moment when the democracies represent themselves as a government of the people, and the authoritarian States as dictatorships. I believe that I can say quite dispassionately that at the present time there are in the world only two countries which, as Great Powers, possess a government which has behind it 99 percent of the people.
"What declares itself to be democracy in the other countries is in most cases nothing but the fooling of public opinion by clever manipulation of Press and finance, and by artful exploitation of the results so reached. But the complete dishonesty of these democracies, in their essential character, comes out most sharply in the attitude which they adopt, as occasion demands, towards their neighbors. We have learnt by experience that when it suited their book, these democracies could actually glorify a really tyrannical regime in a small country, and could even declare themselves ready to fight for that regime if required, whereas on the other hand the greatest demonstrations of confidence in such States as were not pleasing to the democracies were simply passed over in silence, misinterpreted, or given an exactly contrary meaning. And that is not all: if it is politically expedient, these democracies go so far as to glorify the Bolshevist form of State, even though it declares itself to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words: the true-born democracies are actually prepared to give the name of 'dictatorships' to countries which can point to a Government based on the consent of 99 per cent of its people, while other countries again, which the Governments themselves declare to be dictatorships, and which can exist only with the help of mass-shootings, executions, torturings, and the rest, are admired as highly respectable democratic institutions. (...)
"Just as in Germany we have seen this close alliance between Jewish Capitalism and theoretical Communist anti-Capitalism, just as in this country 'The Red Flag' , the 'Vorwärts', and the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' used always to go hand in hand, so it is in the whole of the rest of the world. The Bolshevism of Moscow is the honoured ally of Capitalist Democracy!"
(Hitler then went on to illustrate the inconsistency of the democracies, which defended the rights of small nations, but which for 15 years denied "a people of 75 million Germans" the most primitive right of man.)
"They complain in these democracies of the boundless cruelty with which Germany - and now Italy also - seek to rid themselves of their Jewish elements. All these great democratic empires taken together have only a handful of people to the square kilometer. Both in Italy and Germany there are over 140. Yet formerly Germany, without blinking an eyelid, for whole decades admitted these Jews by the hundred thousand. But now, when at last the complaints became too great, when the nation is no longer willing to be sucked dry . . . on every side one hears nothing but laments. But lamentations have not led these democratic countries to substitute helpful activity at last for their hypocritical questions; on the contrary, these countries with icy coldness assured us that obviously there was no place for the Jews in their territory! Thus they expected that Germany, with 140 people to the square kilometre, would easily be able to continue to support her Jews, but the democratic world empires, with only a handful of people to the square kilometre, could under no circumstances take on such a burden. So no help is given, but morality is saved! (...)
"For the rest, I openly acknowledge that I find it always more tolerable to be insulted by someone who no longer has the power to rob me, than to be robbed by someone who praises me in return. We are insulted to-day. But we are - thank God - now in a position to ensure that Germany shall no longer suffer robbery and violence."
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Even if we Jews are not bodily with you in the trenches, we are nevertheless morally with you. This is OUR WAR, and you are fighting it for us."
(Les Nouvelles Litteraires, February 10, 1940).