"No refuting ... the Soviet Story" -- an RBN exchange

[RoaminLam]

Regarding this link at RBN's website
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=6594
and the lengthy response (pasted below) to my original statement, I post the following because it develops a thesis I've long wished to air addressing ill-founded remarks tossed off in otherwise right-minded commentary by John Kaminski, guests on Rick Adams' program, and elsewhere.

*     *     *     *     *

Your points are well taken. I concede that my style was convoluted, and you've caused me to wonder if I acted properly by putting my foot into this at all. My wife was annoyed with me yesterday too – for being absorbed by the Internet instead of attentive to her. Perhaps the here and now is all that really matters, and these discussions are just an exercise in vanity.

But there's no escaping that I'm passionate about the historical issues – obviously you are too – and about interpreting our own troubled times through an understanding of the past. Moreover, I feel a commonality with the other readers of forums like this, however disembodied the relationship, and could not resist making an offering of what I think I know. I sense that none of us has a complete picture, that most of us are earnest about these explorations, and that by putting our various perspectives together we may somehow profit in the greater sum of their parts.

You are correct to suggest that the brief mention of Katyn was accurate in its larger, broad-brush sense. In fact, it represents an advance because the topic was taboo for so many years, on both sides of the Iron Curtain. So, on the one hand, it was tendentious of me to make an issue of it. On the other hand, though, the formulation **was** extremely sloppy, even wildly inaccurate on a strictly factual plane. A reader who happens to be informed on this one topic might wonder what else the author is fuzzy-headed about. And what's wrong, after all, about being on the money with facts like this? Since when is plain and simple accuracy not worth the trouble? All other things being equal, conscientiousness in such matters inspires confidence, strengthens an argument, and generally elevates the level of any discussion. In the final analysis, it may not be overly pedantic to insist on as much.

I did not watch the documentary; I was only responding to the written review. But your description of it raises some interesting points.

I've traveled quite a bit in the eastern half of Europe, over about 30 years, as far east as Kazan but mainly in Poland and Romania. I am not qualified to pass judgment on the incredible tangle of animosities, but what you've said about the corruption, compound injustices, and the human flotsam of a washed out empire stranded among hostile natives sounds accurate to me. It's my impression that Russian nationalism is feared and despised by subject nations of the former empires, both Tsarist and Soviet, while I think most would acknowledge that the common Russian people are good hearted and long suffering. All of this makes fertile ground for demagogues and troublemakers, of which there never appears to be any shortage. Such chaos may have been intended, for it's consistent with blueprints put forth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and with the Illuminist watchword, "Order out of Chaos." I do not trust Putin. I'm inclined to agree with Daryl Bradford Smith of <iamthewitness.com>, who maintains that ostensibly maverick opponents of the rapidly consolidating New World Order (other examples being Ahmadinejad of Iran, Chavez of Venezuela and Ron Paul in the US) are in fact, most probably, dialectical agents of the same, all-encompassing New World Order deception.

At this point, it's worth mentioning Jim Condit's documentary, "The Final Solution to Adolph Hitler," since it raises penetrating questions about conventional understanding of the Hitler era. While I don't blindly subscribe to Condit's hypothesis, he does assemble an impressive body of material, and I think his angle of inquiry deserves a place in any serious examination of those times. You mention the Polish strongman Pilsudski, who took over in 1926, as the Polish republican experiment was foundering amidst its many challenges, including German and Soviet subversion. Pilsudski was not a Polish nationalist, in the chauvinistic sense. He tried to create a federation of Central European peoples that would have  been strong enough to resist both German and Russian domination. Immediately after Hitler came to power in 1933, Pilsudski agitated for a preemptive war against Germany, in order to remove him. The refusal of his Western counterparts to allow Hitler's removal, when it would have been a relatively bloodless intervention, since Germany had not yet rebuilt a powerful army, is another significant fact supporting Condit's argument, one that he may not be aware of.

It might be more accurate to say that Hitler's Nazism and the Soviet terror state were both "totalitarian," rather than "Marxist." The "message" here may have lost coherence, again, through sloppy diction. But, like I say, I didn't see the film. The two systems were opposite in that Nazism exalted the German people, whereas Communism pretended to serve all nations. Personally, I find them both abhorrent. I am puzzled that so many self-styled American "patriots," who lament the passing of our Bill of Rights, are seeking a model for salvation in Hitler's legacy. I think the core ideal of our late, lamented US republic was individual liberty in the context of strictly limited government, and this is where I peg my own philosophy.

The notion that Hitler's way was right seems to be based, in its widest appeal, on his vaunted opposition to the Jews. Soviet Communism was essentially a Jewish enterprise. For more on this, in case it's necessary, see the Sep/Oct 2008 issue of The Barnes Review, which is completely devoted to a summation of the second volume of a work by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 200 Years Together, about the relationship between the Jewish and Russian peoples. Volume One covers the pre-Soviet period, Volume Two the Soviet period. The Barnes Review articles are based on a recent German translation. I find it quite telling that this important work, by a Nobel Prize-winning author, has never been published in English.

It is my perception that, broadly speaking, "the descendents of these psychopathic [Soviet] killers are firmly in control of America today." I am referring to the Ashkenazi Jews, who have their roots in Eastern Europe, and have attained preeminent power in the USA. You asked for elaboration on this argument, but I can't believe it's really necessary. I will simply refer you to forums like the one already cited, by DB Smith, to <texemarrs.com>, <henrymakow.com>, <johnkaminski.info>, <theinfounderground.com> and some of RBN's own hosts, like Rick Adams and MC Piper. Michael Hoffman's massive Judaism Discovered gives a rich background on the diabolically perverted mindset of Talmudic Judaism. I also find the scholarly writings of Kevin MacDonald highly persuasive and insightful – and not in the least "anti-Semitic," or hate inspired, as his Jewish critics maintain. They are merely accurate, and thus embarrassing to the people they expose.

It therefore follows, according to a certain logic, that if Christian Russia was bled and tormented by the commie Jews, and if America's sorry predicament today may be essentially attributed to subversion on the part of organized Jewry, then Hitler's loud and fierce opposition to Jewish power, and to Jews in general, was the proper course. I don't buy this line of thought. While I accept that Jewish civilization has a lot to answer for, to all the rest of us, I'm very shy of violent methodologies, as I think they play into the hands of the elites (however you want to designate them) who constitute the core oppressive force, and I suspect that a sounder strategy would be to offer rank-and-file Jews a place at the table with the rest of humanity, though caution is certainly in order since the Jews are (so often) masters of deceit, with a solid track record as parasites and traitors to the nations that have hosted them over many centuries.

I also don't buy into Nazism because of its ethnically chauvinistic character. Why would anyone who isn't German accept the second-class status – or worse – to which non-Germanics were relegated in Hitler's scheme? Why would decent Germans look down their noses at other human beings, not merely out of personal prejudice but as a precept of aggressive national policy? And why should **real** Americans, who are an amalgam of peoples, look for solutions to their current woes in the narrowly nationalistic, xenophobic revival of a single European nation? Frankly, I suspect this meme has been sown among us as a way of fomenting division among American dissidents, as a device for smearing and discrediting the White/European majority, and as a tactic for scaring rank-and-file American Jews into greater insularity.

Moreover, it's curious how similar Nazism is in its "Master Race" mentality to the "Chosen People" underpinnings of Jewish Zionism. This observation reverberates with Jim Condit's line of questioning, and it tallies with critiques developed in such works as Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, by Bryan Mark Rigg, and The Pink Swastika, by Lively and Abrams. The messianic Ashkenazi land grab in Palestine bears a startling resemblance to Hitler's land grab in Eastern Europe. This, in fact, was at the heart of Hitler's program. It runs much deeper than the "hugely unjust Versailles Treaty," to which you refer. Hitler had a positive agenda, building his 1000-year Reich. The grievances of the German people merely supplied a driving force. On this point, you and I are in clear disagreement. It was Hitler's stated intention to enslave and gradually depopulate the Slavic East, while settling these fertile lands with "superior" German people. I believe this is a fact, and you are wrong to sweep it under the rug, or simply deny it. German policy in the East during WW II was consistent with this intent, being more than just "brutal"; it was murderous in the most extensive meaning of the world. It was also thieving. And it bristled with deceit, through its political machinations, in the false-flag attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz that supplied an immediate pretext for invading Poland, through the notoriously masterful propaganda of Goebbels, the "Big Lie" technique, and much more. Some people admire the cleverness in this kind of gamesmanship, they're thrilled by the exercise of raw power, and titillated with the glitter of militarism. There's no accounting for taste, and such people are welcome to their predilections. But for my part I want none of it, I believe the Nazi paradigm has nothing of value to offer us, and that it constitutes a major pitfall in the landscape of US "patriot" discourse.

I will grant that Germany got a raw deal at Versailles, but on the issue of lands ceded to Poland, which were most of the lands that Germany lost, I think you and I are again in disagreement. People sensitive to the wrongs done against Germany on this score are also remarkably callous about the injury of wiping Poland off the map in the late 18th century, and about the harsh oppression that Polish people endured under generations of German and Russian imperial rule. Is justice only for Germans, but not for their venerable eastern neighbors, a nation of some consequence in their own right? If this is your contention, then it's not really "justice" that we're talking about. Once more, a call for proper diction is indicated. If you wish to indulge in a chauvinistic mindset, that's your privilege, but let's not dignify such hypocrisy with the name of "justice." Exactly where the borders should have been drawn after WW I is another question. I have read, admittedly in Polish sources, that the plebiscites were run under conditions that favored Germany. The question was impossible enough at the time, since national groups in the old Polish lands were intermingled with great complexity, and it's without practical significance today. The majority of our readers, who put no emotional stake on the ancient wars between Germans and Poles, have no dog in this race anyhow. All that I would care to establish on this account is that, in these discussions touching on the WW II era and the assessment of Germany's role, presentations of **Poland's legitimate case** and the Polish experience are singularly absent. This particular lack of inclusiveness is ubiquitous in the many "truth-seeker" discussions that I've followed, and it's totally at odds with the "justice" we all purport to be seeking.

Again, there's a remarkable parallel here with the present-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Attendees to this forum are surely aware of the prejudice here in our Jewish-controlled media, and they might be disposed to perceive that the **real transgression** of the Palestinian people, in the deepest essence of the Zionist view, is that they exist at all. Likewise, in the chauvinistic Germanic view, this is precisely how the Polish presence is "unjust" – that these people have the effrontery even to exist, to take up space – and it accounts for the resounding silence around Polish opinions on the issues we're discussing here. I find this to be one of the two or three most egregious fallacies in the "patriot" forums that address what's gone wrong with America in the light of WW II events.

This brings us to the second error motivating my response to the editorial on the Latvian documentary – the reviewer's failure to mention Slavs (except for Serbs) among the untermenschen slated for disposal by the Nazis. This is truly a breathtaking lapse, as Slavs were by far the largest of all such groups, and thus it's less excusable than the badly garbled figure connected with Katyn. On some level, I believe the omission is deliberate, and that it's intended to mask the true malevolence of Germany's program in the East. On another level, of course, well-intentioned but uninformed people pick it up and pass it along.

Yes, you are right, the Germans were amateurs at mass murder compared to the Soviet Communists. But that's a pretty weak argument for Nazism, a brief that also lines up with why it's become fashionable in these circles to mention Katyn – because it was a Soviet, not a German, crime. The Germans still committed horrendous atrocities in the East, beginning in Poland, as early as September of 1939, and they were very deliberate about this policy. Even a historian like David Irving, who's clearly infatuated with the Nazis, makes a number of references to this policy in his study Hitler's War. The German professional soldiers, most prominently General Blaskowitz, were so sickened and appalled that they had to be transferred elsewhere, with the dirty work being left to Himmler's degenerates in the SS. Or google search the words "kill without mercy men, women and children of Polish language and derivation," attributed to instructions that Hitler gave his Death's Head units on the eve of war. "After all," he asked rhetorically, "who today remembers the Armenians?"

Your attempt to brush aside these grim realities is reprehensible. It may be shaped by willful blindness or wishful thinking. Weary and bewildered people reach too easily for simple, black-and-white constructs. But such roughshod, shorthand accounting doesn't serve our deeper motivations. If we are shocked, angered and moved to activism by violence against the Palestinians, Iraqis, victims of the Soviets, or for that matter casualties in the firebombing of German cities and the abuse of German POWs, its because these policies are cruel, sadistic and morally wrong – not because of who the perpetrators were. The savagery of Germans in the Second World War, above all in the East, is no less deserving of our condemnation, and it's no less wrong to pretend it didn't happen.

Yes, the German people loved Hitler. They fought for him to the bitter end. Stalin did not evoke this kind of loyalty. It's well known that masses of Soviet people defected, and even welcomed the Germans, in the early months of their invasion. But eventually they fought with just as much tenacity as the Germans did – for Mother Russia, and in response to German barbarism. This is also widely recognized.

The Germans' admiration for Hitler is a remarkable phenomenon, but he was nonetheless a tyrant. Some people love slavery; it's a sad fact of human nature. They find comfort in being shepherded, in surrendering their own autonomous responsibility for what they are. Nietzsche understood this, and he had deep contempt for the German bourgeoisie, precisely the kind of people who lined up eagerly in serried ranks for Hitler. In fact, Nietzsche claimed to be descended from Polish nobility. I think he was being tongue in cheek when he said that, not literal, but this is the opposition he was playing upon. If the truth be known, it is the Polish people – caught between Hitler and Stalin yet, against all odds, submitting to neither, even when abandoned and betrayed by their Western allies – who are a nobler model for Americans today in the epic tableaux of the last great war in Europe. Perhaps this is why their story is so little known in our world of discourse, where the opposition forums often appear as dubious as the New World Order tyranny we're trying to figure out and contravene.

I believe you are right that Hitler issued no directive to liquidate the Jews, at least as far as we know. But the policy was still accomplished by his right-hand men –wherever you wish to place the exact figure, now so loudly in dispute, or whatever your opinion about the technical plausibility of mass execution by gas chamber, another distraction from the larger truth that millions of those people disappeared. Your apologetics for the "brutal German occupation ... ghettoes ... inhuman[ity] ... many deaths ... concentration camps ... human tragedies ... hunger and epidemics" are very, very lame. Your assertion that there is "little, if any, evidence of genocid[e]" sounds even more pathetic. Haven't you gotten just a bit carried away? Stand back, take a deep breath, and turn a sober ear to what you're saying.

The prevalence of opinions like these, among people who ought to know better, is what sparked my own tendentiousness and prompted my giving so much trouble to responding here.

I regard what I know, or think I know, as rather tentative. Deeply-rooted views that I held for decades have shifted radically in the past few years. I am 60 now, and stunned by this change in outlook. I've heard people say, over and over again, that they've been "on a learning curve," especially since 9-11, and above all in reference to that one critical event. Most of us have found our way to this forum out of deep concern, earnest goodwill, and an offended sense of justice – whatever our peculiar circumstances, our inevitable blind spots and conditioning. It's in this spirit that I invite you cordially to reexamine your defense of sloppy language, false generalities, and all your positive associations with the Nazis.

*   *   *   *   *

The Goy Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I am not sure if I follow you, sir.
Calling for "exchanging ideas with clarity" you are expressing yourself in such a way that the convoluted form is killing the message.
What are you talking about? Are you criticizing the article in "The Sun" or the documentary itself?
Does it really matter for an average American viewer whether the officers were shot in Katyn or several places and whether Chief Rabbi was among them or not?
Such a movie is not a scientific dissertation, after all.
What bothers ME is the heavily tendentious message of the documentary.
The author is a Latvian with a grudge. He very much wants to convince the viewer that the Soviets were more inhuman than the Nazis (but that the systems were otherwise comparable) and that the Soviet bestiality is alive and on the rise again.
I am afraid that an average viewer is left with a feeling that the Russia of today is to be feared again and that Putin is a new Stalin. This message reflects the realities of today's Latvia where there exists a latent state of hate of ethnic Latvians towards Russians living and thriving there. The Latvians would love to kick the Russians out but can't.
In Russia itself you have a rapidly growing Muslim population. The "black market" and mafia-like criminality are firmly in the hands of Muslims or, generally, people from the South, like Chechens. Which is provoking some fringe Russian groups to react in extreme fashion. Which in no way reflects the state of mind of average Russian, as far as I know from personal experience.
The other message of the film is that Hitler's Nazism was a brand of Marxism, a sort of national communism, which is BS. Just like Polish semi-dictator Josef Pilsudski left his early socialistic affiliations behind, so did Hitler ditch his own, and developed a nationalistic "middle class socialistic" dictatorship. I understand Nazism as a pathological, nationalistic reaction to hugely unjust Versailles Treaty and to a very real power of Jewish finance and Jewish "cultural establishment" in Germany.
Yes, Hitler was helped to power by both Stalin and "Wall St." but he was throughout his reign a truly loved and admired leader. Most Germans, I dare say, were firmly behind him, body and soul, which cannot be said of Stalin who was feared, nor of Obama and the present American Establishment which is, if anything, hated.
One more comment.
Whatever nationalistic and racial theories Hitler might have had, and however brutal the German occupation of Serbia, Poland or Soviet territories was, there is very little, if any, evidence that Germans attempted or planned anything approaching genocidal proportions.
Concentrating the Jewish population in the ghettoes was inhumane and led to many deaths but there was no documented, general plan to liquidate the Jewish population as a whole. The conditions in many concentration camps were harsh and the work was hard. However, most human tragedies were due to hunger and epidemics in the camps after a total collapse of transportation and food supply towards the end of the War, largely a consequence of indiscriminate bombing by the "Allies".
On the other hand, the Soviet "experiment" included very conscious liquidation of whole nationalities and very deliberate killing of millions for political reasons.
Thus, comparing Nazism and Soviet Communism seems very unjust – for the Nazis.
Finally, I cannot understand what you mean by saying that "the descendents of these psychopathic killers are firmly in control of America today". Can you elaborate, please?

[joeblow]

Threads dealing with pointless controversy do not belong in Current News, rather in Off Topic, stop placing them in the wrong place.

If you feel strong concerning this topic, then create a thread specifically dealing with it in the History section (without the back and forth comments).