Historical Causes of Nazi Germany and Implications in Ukraine (Part III)
Sunday, April 6th, 2014 | Posted by Jonas E. Alexis
Historical Causes of Nazi Germany and Implications in Ukraine (Part III)
Bryan Mark Rigg’s book, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, created a historical stir when it first came out.
It was well received by historians of various stripes, including late British military historian John Keegan, Michael Berenbaum of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Nathan A. Stoltzfus of Florida State University, Norman Naimark of Stanford, military historian Dennis E. Showalter, military historian Geoffrey P. Megargee, Jonathan Steinberg of the University of Pennsylvania, etc.
Yet one scholar who dismissed Rigg’s study without an iota of evidence was the late Raul Hilberg of the University of Vermont. Hilberg was one of the first individuals to have written about the Holocaust and has been extolled as, “the world’s pre-eminent Holocaust scholar… His magisterial three-volume study, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), has informed such diverse Holocaust projects as Claude Lanzmann’s nine-hour Shoah documentary (1985) and Jonathan Littell’s prizewinning novel, Les Bienveillantes (The Benevolent Ones, 2006).”
Hilberg declared that Rigg’s book was “preposterous,” claiming it “is not a bombshell” because Holocaust writers like himself “have known that there were thousands of [Mischlinge] in the German army.”
Rigg is not an unruly scholar. During his graduate years at Yale and doctorate program at Cambridge, he went to great lengths to collect archival documents, oral testimonies of at least 400 soldiers in the Nazi army, collect army papers, personnel files, government letters, diaries, and all kinds of documents which had never been examined before.
Some of his professors were even discouraging him from doing it. Henry Turner, one of his professors at Yale who happened to write Hitler’s Days to Power, told him point blank: “I told him he was wasting his time.”
But other professors were impressed by his intellectual rigor and honest research. Paula E. Hyman, another professor at Yale who died at the end of 2011, was shocked at one point when she realized that Rigg even went to Washington to get original documents for his term paper. Hyman chuckled and then said, “Most undergraduates don’t do that. That was when I realized that he was very serious about his research.”
Unlike Goldhagen, Rigg did not fabricate those documents. Yet all of that work is dismissed by Hilberg with one word: “preposterous.” David Cesarrani, a professor of modern Jewish history at Southhampton University and editor of The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation, agreed. Rigg’s study, he said, is “of little significance to either the Third Reich or the persecution and mass murder of the Jews.”
In a similar vein, Jewish historian Peter Gay, author of My German Question: Growing up in Nazi Berlin, declared, “I can’t imagine what difference [this research] would make.”
When Rigg argued that at least 150,000 people of Jewish descent were in the Nazi army, Hilberg declared,“This mathematics escapes me. Great caution is required here.”
Now Hilberg was not that stupid. He spent page after page desperately trying to tabulate the number of Jews who died in concentration camps, but Riggs’ mathematics escaped him! (Riggs consulted with mathematicians and statisticians in order to get accurate figures.) Instead of giving credit where it is due, Hilberg moved on to say that Riggs’ research is “publicity stunt.”
If the job of the serious historian is to report and explain what actually happened, as A. J. P. Taylor put it, why didn’t Hilberg report this historical fact in his three-volume set The Destruction of the European Jews, which is more than one thousand pages?
Why did Hilberg and others leave the inquiring mind in suspense for years and then attack those who actually said the obvious? Well, the stakes are too high.
Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California argues indirectly that Jewish history in many instances has been hoodwinked by ideology precisely because many Jewish historians tend to either exaggerate the actual accounts or fail to give a fair balance of the historical data. This point is not far-fetched.
For example, Russian Jewish historian Oleg Budnitskii of the International Center for Russian and Eastern European Jewish Studies declared on the very first page of his book that
“From 1918 to 1920, Russian Jewry suffered persecution and devastation on a scale that had not been seen since the Khmelnitskii Uprising in the seventeenth century. Of all the tragedies in the annals of Jewish History, only the Holocaust would surpass this period in savagery and wanton murder.”
Budnitskii on some occasions does talk about Jewish participation in revolutionary movements, but more often than not he prefaces his remark by implying that they were reacting to anti-Jewish provocations or pogroms. For example, he writes that
“From 1901 to 1903, Jews composed of 29.1 percent of those arrested for political crimes. From March 1903 to November 1904 more than half of those investigated for political activity were Jews. This fact can most easily be explained as a reaction to the Kishinev and Homel pogroms.”
The fact is that many Jewish historians do not want to carry the responsibility that Jewish revolutionaries and subversive movements are largely responsible for anti-Jewish reactions.
Admitting this point would indeed overshadow their weltanschauung: book sales will go down, propaganda would be almost impossible, and perhaps the perpetual war machine will cease to have political power over us.
Budnitskii, with little evidence, declares that
“Nearly all the Jewish political parties, socialists included, severely disapproved of the Bolshevik coup. The Jewish population found little good in the Bolsheviks’ program of liquidating private property and religious institutions, and the Red Army was hardly without sin when it came to pogroms against Jews.”
This is not the case. In 1919, the Jewish Chronicle boasted that “the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”
Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine notes that a number of Russian Jewish intellectuals wrote a collection of essays in 1923 entitled Russia and the Jews, in which they argued throughout that Jews committed a “bitter sin” in the Revolution. I. M. Berkerman, one of the contributors, lamented that
“It goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews, but what is equally obvious is that disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”
But then Budnitskii presents the perennial contradiction, which is inherent in many Jewish historical studies. He writes that “Jews were active participants in the political processes taking places on both sides of the front [the Reds and the Whites].”
If “nearly all the Jewish political parties severely disapproved of the Bolshevik coup,” who were those people who actually supported the political process? And why did ten thousand Jews from London strongly desired to return to Russia soon after the October 1917 Revolution took place, according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn?
Joseph Bendersky notes that there was “a remarkable unanimity of opinion in favor of the Russian Bolshevist movement,” and that Jews in general were “dazzled by the sudden access to power of their race.”
In 1907, Lucien Wolf of the Jewish Committee in England wrote a letter to Louis Marshall of the American Jewish Committee, declaring that “the only thing to be done on the whole Russo-Jewish question is to carry on persistent and implacable war against the Russian Government.”
The pro-Bolshevik attitude even reached America. Bennett Cerf, Jewish founder of Random House, “suggested withdrawing books critical of the Soviet Union” during World War II.
When the Soviet Union was literally starving its people to death, Stalin’s apologist in the Anglo-American world Walter Duranty wrote, “There is no famine or actual starvation, nor is there likely to be,” a statement that was met with praise.
“He received a Pulitzer Prize, the Pulitzer panel commending him for his reports, ‘marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment and exceptional charity.’
“Meanwhile, British writer Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine that peasants there were in fact starving: ‘I mean starving in its absolute sense; not undernourished as, for instance, most Oriental peasants…and some unemployed workers in Europe, but having had for weeks next to nothing to eat.’
“Muggeridge was vilified and was unable to get work as a writer, after his dispatches from the Soviet Union, and was so financially strapped that he, his wife and two small children had to move in with friends.”
Incredibly, Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution writes, “There is no need to believe that there was any conspiracy among editors or journalists to silence and ostracize Malcolm Muggeridge, nor a conspiracy necessary for successfully filtering out things that do not fit the prevailing vision—either then or now.”
A conspiracy may not be necessary, but Sowell, who keeps writing in the Jewish World Review that Iran will more than likely become nuclear, does not even have the intellectual courage to tell us why Muggeridge was blackmailed.
Since the Soviet Union was largely controlled by Jewish revolutionaries, many Jewish-run publishers, newspapers, and magazines at the time did not want to portray the Soviet Union in a negative light. And Muggeridge was not the only one who was speaking out.
Despite intense Communist leanings during the early years of the nineteenth century, and marriage to Russian Communist Arcadi Berdichevsky, Freda Utley changed her mind when faced with the consequences of Stalinism.
“In Moscow she speedily became disillusioned with the Soviet regime but managed to keep control of her tongue throughout her years in ‘the Hell of Communist tyranny.’ Then on 11 April 1936 her husband was arrested and was sentenced to five years in prison.
“Freda never saw her husband again and left the USSR ten years later ‘with my political beliefs and my personal happiness shattered.’” When Soviet ambassador Konstantin Umanskii landed in the United States, “he declined forcefully even to see Freda in Washington (‘That bitch! Never!’).”
All of that history does not get a fair hearing in Budnitskii’s book. The thrust of his argument is that anti-Semitism ran deep in the Tsarist government and that if Jewish revolutionaries happened to get involved in subversive movements, it was because they were provoked.
What we are seeing here is that history is being hijacked. And we know who the hijackers are. Had Hilberg shown the actual evidence, it would have provided a deathblow to the prevailing definition of the Holocaust: that the Holocaust was “the annihilation by physical means of the Jews of Europe during the Nazi regime between the years 1933 and 1945.”
Moreover, if Hilberg had pointed this out, The Destruction of the European Jews would probably be just a footnote in the cannon of historical knowledge.
We will address Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews in a future article, but the questions before us here are simply these: how can one get a closely accurate portrait of Adolf Hitler?
How did he plunge into a form of racialist/pagan ideology which is always tempting when the state or intellectuals or politicians abandon the traditional and theological teachings of the Church with respect to revolutionary movements?
Was Hitler a psychopathic god, as historian Robert G. L. Waite—who mightily attempted to use Freudian psychoanalysis to explain Hitler’s behavior—erroneously argued in the late 1970s? Let us take a brief look. A word of caution: here and in subsequent articles I will be explaining what happened and why. I am in no way giving my stamp of approval of what happened.
Hitler himself “had had personal experience with Jews serving in the German army and had received his EKI during World War I because of the nomination given by a Jew. Hitler had even told his army adjutant captain, Gerhard Engel, that he knew about several Jews who fought valiantly during World War I.”
The driving force behind Hitler’s radical and racialist approach was Jewish participation in subversive movements. For Hitler, Communism, Marxism, and Bolshevism, were on the brink of destroying Germany; therefore those who espoused such views must be dealt with.
As we have seen over and over, Hitler was not the only one to propose this. Europe was scared to death of Bolshevism and Communism. Churchill himself declared,
“It is sheer humbug to pretend that it [Bolshevism] is not far worse than German militarism.”
After listening to Churchill, Prime Minister David Lloyd George declared that Churchill “has Bolshevism on the brain [and] he is made for operations in Russia.” Churchill did not stop there. He continued to say that
“Bolshevism is not a policy, it is a disease…civilization is being completely extinguished over gigantic areas while Bolsheviks hop and caper like troops of ferocious baboons aid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims. I will not submit to be beaten by the baboons.”
England, Churchill added, needed to fight “against the foul baboonery of Bolshevism.” Moreover, those who supported Bolshevism were “typhus-bearing vermin.”
Referring to the Revolution, Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it “the most physically destructive revolution of the 20th century” that sought “to sweep away all religions or ethical codes, to tear down, overthrow, and trample all existing traditional culture.”
Dutch diplomat Oudendyke used similar languages. Hitler, throughout Mein Kampft, went further and started naming names. But again he was not an outlier. Fritz-Erich von Lewinski, known as Field Marshal von Manstein, a Jew who was one of the high-ranking and skillful officers in the Third Reich and who might be considered “the greatest operational genius, if not the best strategist, of World War II,” declared,
“The Jewish-Bolshevik system must be exterminated once and for all.”
Arno J. Mayer notes that “although there were scattered and spontaneous anti-Semitic incidents during Hitler’s first two months in office, his government and political movement concentrated on hounding leftists, not Jews.” In other words, if Jews turned out to be “leftists,” then they were on his list.
They were enemies because Jewish revolutionaries fomented activities which many Germans intellectuals and politicians saw as destructive to Europe in general. In fact, when Hitler looked at the Russian revolution, his eyes were opened, and he stated:
“In a few years [the Jew] will try to exterminate the national pillars of intelligence and, by robbing the peoples of their natural spiritual leadership, will make them ripe for the slavish lot of a permanent subjugation. The most terrible example of this is Russia.”
Was Hitler again paranoid when he reacted to Bolshevism and other subversive movements? Again, let us take a look.
Baruch Levy, one of Karl Marx’s correspondents, wrote long before Nazi Germany that
“in this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe…shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition…
“The government of the nations forming the Universal or World-Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands thanks to the victory of the proletariat…Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth.”
By the end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this ideology was already at work in many countries. In Poland, Roman Zambrowski led the Communist party; in Czechoslovakia, it was Rudolf Slanski, along with other Jews such as Josef Smrkovsky; in Hungary, Laszlo Rajk; in Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito. And Christian Rakovsky was fomenting revolutionary and subversive activity wherever he went.
That was not all. When the Tsar was governing Russia, Jewish banker Jacob Schiff plotted against the government, supplied millions of dollars to the Japanese to overthrow the Russian government, and called Russia “the enemy of all mankind.”
Incredibly, philo-Semitic historian Paul Johnson only mentions the idea that a number of Jews, including Jacob Schiff, sought to overthrow the Tsar’s government, and on another occasion mentions Schiff in a positive light.
Instead, Johnson tells us that during the tsarist government, “Everything was done to prevent Jews getting to university.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, the tsars were against subversive movements, in which revolutionary Jews played a major role. But they were not interested in marginalizing all the Jews in Russia, otherwise they would not have adopted programs for assimilation. Johnson’s book itself confirms this point
Jewish politician and Prime Minister of France Leon Blum wrote in 1901 that “the collective impulse” of the Jews “leads them towards revolution; their critical powers drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason.”
Well, the fear that Jewish revolutionaries would want to usurp Russia’s traditional values had always been a concern of the tsars—not because the tsars were inherently anti-Semitic, but because the traditional government in Russia, which was built on the Western intellectual tradition and the moral order, despised subversive activities such as Communism and Marxism.
Jews were about four percent of the Russian population at the turn of the twentieth century, yet they not only dominated the Russian Revolution but initiated the movement. Johnson himself writes,
“One list showed that, of thirty-one top Soviet leaders, all but Lenin were Jews [Johnson’s book came out in 1987; later documents revealed that Lenin was also a Jew]; another analyzed the members of the Petrograd Soviet, showing that only sixteen out of 388 were Russians, the rest being Jews, of whom 265 came from New York’s East Side.
“A third document showed that the decision to overthrow the Tsar’s government was actually taken on 14 February 1916 by a group of New York Jews including the millionaire Jacob Schiff.”
Yet Johnson plays down this involvement by saying that “these were Non-Jewish Jews.” Jewish historian Steven Beller said,
“It is well known that the leadership of the socialist party in Austria before and after the First World War was heavily Jewish. This was also the case for the group of theorists collectively known as the Austro-Marxists, the most interesting group of political theorists to emerge from the liberal bourgeoisie in Vienna. Of the major theorists in Austro-Marxism only Karl Renner was not of Jewish descent.”
Revolutionaries such as Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Alexander Parvus, and countless others were the movers and shakers of the Revolution. Moreover, the founders of the Gulag death camp operation were largely Jews. These revolutionary activities surely intensified the conflict between Nazism and Bolshevism and Communism.
Mayer writes that “although anti-Semitism was an essential tenet of the Nazi worldview, it was neither its foundation nor its principal or sole intention. Anti-Semitism was one of the several central creeds of an essentially syncretic ideology, the others being social Darwinism, the geopolitics of eastern expansionism, and anti-Marxism.”
Mayer is a Jewish historian at Princeton and his family fled Nazi Germany. Yet because he proposed the statement above, Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer writes that Mayer “is really engaging in a much more subtle form of Holocaust denial.” When Dachau was first opened in March 1933, “two hundred prisoners, all of them Communists,” were arrested and placed in the camp.
walter durantyJews among the early prisoners were arrested “for being left-wing politicians, lawyers, or literati.” Previously Goering “ordered the arrest of all Communists deputies in the Reichstag and the Prussian Diet in the capital.
He also ordered the closing of the offices, newspapers, and meeting halls of the Communist Party throughout Prussia. In the Reich as a whole, about four thousand Communist officials and party members were arrested within a matter of hours.”
We see a similar pattern in the fascist movement in Italy. Mussolini “repeatedly denounced the Jews for their involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.”
“While Jews of liberal persuasion were hostile to fascism, those with conservative convictions and economic interests supported Mussolini for his super-nationalism and anti-Communism.
“Accordingly, there were five or six Jews in the vanguard of Italian fascism, three of the early martyrs of Mussolini’s countermovement were Jewish, and there were some early Jewish paymasters as well.
“Over two hundred Jews are said to have participated in the March on Rome, and easily three times that number were registered party members soon thereafter. Aldo Finzi, a Jew, became under secretary of the interior in Mussolini’s first cabinet.
“In July 1932 il Duce made Guido Jung, another Jew, his minister of finance, thereby also raising him into the Grand Council…Gino Arias, a Jewish lawyer, wrote for Il Popolo d’Italia, the main party newspaper, and a number of military officers of Jewish origin served in important command positions, some of them in the Abyssinian campaign and the Spanish Civil War.
“It was not until 1938, when the government issued the Law for the Defense of the Race as well as a series of anti-Semitic decrees, that Jews began to be systematically barred and removed from high public office.
“But until the fall of 1943, when the Germans took over, none was put in prison, deported, or killed. In civil society, despite certain exclusionary measures, Jews remained unmolested up to that same moment…
“Like many Gentile Italians, Jews in fact benefited from the industrial growth stimulated by Mussolini’s diversionary and imperialist military ventures. By and large, especially considering the importance of Rome’s alliance with Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s attitude toward Italian Jews remained relatively benign.
“Ignoring his own hard-liners, the Duce left the exit doors wide open, and his military and civil administrators in annexed and occupied territories made a point of shielding both indigenous and foreign Jews.”
Hitler served in World War I, was wounded, and was awarded the Iron Cross. Yet “while at the hospital, he witnessed the Bavarian revolution of 1918, led by Kurt Eisner, the overthrow of the monarchy, the armistice, and the creation, in weakness and indecision, of the Weimar Republic—in his mind, all the work of the Jews.”
During the German Revolution of 1918-1919, there was a disproportionate number of Jews who joined the movement. Jewish historian Sarah Gordon agrees that this gave rise to anti-Jewish reactions during that period. It was in 1938 that Jewish assassin Herschel Grynszpan gunned down a German diplomat in Paris.
In addition, when he went to Vienna, he saw that the Jews largely controlled the prostitution business.
We must also keep in mind that Nazi Germany was filled with academics and intellectuals who were also aware of Jewish activity in the nineteenth century and further back.
For example, in Russia, two of the leading figures in the “Russian-Jewish revolutionaries since the days of Grigorii Peretts” were Veniamin Osipovich Portugalov and Lev Moiseevich Zelenskii. Portugalov was expelled from Kharkov University because of his revolutionary activity and left the school,
“to continue his studies—and subversive activity—at the University of Kiev. Besides initiating the formation of so-called literary student circles, he took advantage of the nascent Sunday-school movement to spread revolutionary ideas among common people seeking an elementary education.”
Portugalov and his revolutionary associates were eventually arrested and imprisoned. They were ultimately released within months, and Portugalov directed his energy somewhere else: he completed his medical training “and made himself a name as Russia’s foremost humanist physician by working among the urban and rural poor and campaigning for social health care and public hygiene.”
Yet even then he was strongly committed “to the cause of Jewish enlightenment and emancipation,” and became “a role model for Jewish nihilist youths who sought to follow ‘the example of the extremely popular…zemskii doctor Portugalov.’”
Portugalov and his people were merely some of the Jewish revolutionaries prominent during that era. Nikolai Utin and the Baskt brothers were among those who sparked revolutionary cells, and they were educated at the Zhitomir Rabbinical Seminary. Utin used his own party, “Utin’s party,”
“for circulating numerous proclamations and manifestos of decidedly revolutionary character, some of which were apparently printed by Osip Bakst who was a popular publisher in his own right.
“Agitated by these inflammatory leaflets, as well as the fiery speeches of Utin, the students took to the streets on 26 and 27 September. Here they were met by tsarist troops and police who arrested almost 300 protesters, including Utin and his brother Evgenii, who together with still another 6 Jews were very active in the student movement.”
When riots broke out, tsarist officials were not fixated on race, but “were above all concerned with control, law, and order.” During 1880 and 1881, where joblessness was quite high in Russia and where many Russians could not even feed themselves,
“some tried to get arrested so that they would at least have food and shelter in jail. Anti-Semitism may not have been primary for such men; Jewish shops and homes were simply natural and easy targets.”
Utin was released within a short time, and his followers began to taste “the revolutionary excitement—and ‘martyrdom’—of opposing a government which seemed to be determined to return to pre-1855 regimentation.”
During the winter of 1862, Utin was associated with a political movement that sought “close cooperation with the Polish insurrectionists.” Fearing that he would be arrested again, he fled to London “several days before he was meant to be captured.”
The revolutionary spirit lay dormant after his departure, and only one Jew between 1864 and 1868 “had been linked to revolutionary activity in Russia.”
Yet cultural and political insurrections sprang back to life; it was “when a new wave of student disorder erupted in St. Petersburg and Moscow that Jewish radical involvement made itself again noticeable and, in fact, became the take-off point for a sustained and substantial participation in Russian revolutionary activity.”
Many universities in Russia constituted colonies of Jewish revolutionary activity, but when Mark Natanson set foot in St. Petersburg in August 1868 and enrolled at the Academy there, revolution had a new spirit.
Within a short time, Natanson became a rising star among his fellow freshmen, who “elected him to be their spokesman in dealings with the academic and administrative staff of the Academy.”
Inevitably, Natanson began to put his talents to work by creating a “‘sub-library of revolutionary-socialist literature’ to meet the ever growing need of students like himself to acquire more knowledge about socialist ideas and revolutionary history.”
His approach here was “moderate” in that it did not follow the radical approach of his predecessor, Russian radical Sergei Nechaev. But later on his Jewish friend Pavel Akselrod noted that “Natanson, a person steeled in revolutionary work…lived for one purpose only: to gather again the scattered forces and resume revolutionary work.”
Historian Erich E. Haberer writes that “Jewishness in Natanson must not be seen as a function of promoting consciously Jewish aspirations, rather it must be comprehended in terms of how ethnicity shaped his theory and practice of revolution.”
Yet Haberer argues against that premise in the following pages, saying that Natanson’s contemporaries referred “to his Talmudic bend of mind in retaining encyclopaedic information and approaching any given problem from all possible angles of interpretation. Even his sense of social responsibility and ‘striving for moral ideals’ has been attributed to his religious upbringing.”
If that is the case, then it stands to reason that consciously or unconsciously, Natanson was following age-old subversive movements which his predecessors had made possible. Haberer goes on to declare,
“During Natanson’s adolescence these traditional Judaic values were revitalized by the finest representatives of midnineteenth-century Lithuanian Jewry, Rabbi Israel Salanter and Rabbi Isaac Elhanan.”
Natanson’s revolution, in Haberer’s view, was a secular version of the Protestant Reformation, and Natanson lived in a time where “the father of modern Hebrew prose, Abraham Mapu…strongly defended the virtues of secular knowledge, ethical idealism, and Jewish-socio-economic self-improvement.”
In a nutshell, Natanson was influenced primarily by two schools of thought: Judaic Talmudism and Jewish Enlightenment.
It is therefore safe to say that he was drawn to revolutionary nihilism—which he saw as “an ideology of salvation” and himself as a “nihilist personality”—because he wanted to be enlisted in the war against the political and moral order. Natanson’s contemporaries recognized both nihilism and Jewishness “in shaping Natanson’s personality,” and others saw that his approach to
“revolutionary affairs was due to his upbringing in a Jewish merchant household, his intellectual perseverance bordering on dogmatism derived from his Talmudic studies.”
Natanson’s other ideas were “possible only because of his Jewishness.” After many years of struggle, Natanson eventually built a party that was considered revolutionary in spirit and action between the years of 1876 and 1879. The party was named “the Society of Land and Freedom,” or “Zemlia i Volia.” Haberer writes,
“The historical significance of Zemlia i Volia was far reaching. It laid the foundation for two subsequent ‘parties,’ the People’s Will (Narodnaia Volia) and the Black Partition (Chernyi Peredel), both of which were of great importance for the evolution of modern Russian revolutionary politics.
“Indeed, by stepping into the ‘revolutionary vacuum’ of 1874-75, Natanson initiated a process that eventually led to the formation of three political parties—Liberal, neo-Populist, and Marxist—which seriously challenged tsarism in 1905 and destroyed it in 1917.”
After Natanson, revolutionary colonies like the Chaikovskii circle began to reach their zenith in Russia, and spread like wildfire among young Jewish intellectuals and political activists such as Pavel Borisovich Akselrod, Grigorii Evseevich Gurevich, and the Levental brothers.
Revolutionaries like Samuil Kliachko were agitators “for the radical student movement emanating from St. Petersburg in the late 1860s,” and Jewish-led revolutionary activity was well-known to academics and scholars in the era that followed it in Europe.
Iankel-Abel Finkelstein planted revolutionary ideas in Russia among Jewish radicals. Finkelstein started to work on his subversive activity at the Vilna Rabbinical Seminary, which was a “centre of revolutionary propaganda.” From there he spread his wings into other venues such as “illegal socialist literature.”
Even while he was in school, Finkelstein was known for his “rebellious personality,” and “found himself constantly in trouble with the school authorities.” Finkelstein left his Talmudic shackles in favor of fundamental atheism, which is compatible with the revolutionary Jewish mindset.
Many Jews during that era in Russia felt the same way—that Judaism and Talmudic mores created a stumbling block for progress. For that reason, many “had no intention of continuing their work in a Jewish setting.”
Finkelstein was expelled from the Rabbinical seminary for “bad expressions demonstrating his disrespect for Christian and Judaic Religion,” and other “numerous offenses” such as setting up a “library of socialist literature” and “organizing an illegal ‘educational society.’”
Eventually the tsarist authorities began to keep an eye on Finkelstein and subsequently deported him “to his native Vladislavov where he was to be kept under police surveillance.” When he escaped to Konigsberg, Finkelstein
“enrolled as a medical student at the local university. But instead of earning a medical degree he won for himself the name of the ‘red postmaster’ who, operating from Konigsberg, began to handle the ‘red mail’ of the revolutionary movement, particularly of the Chikovtsy, across the Russo-Prussian frontier.”
Finally, it was Jewish Bolshevik Yakov Yurovsky, along with a group of fellow Bolsheviks, who murdered the last Tsar and his family in 1918. Rakov, who went to a Talmudic school, saw his act as a form of revenge. After his father had been sent to a Jewish settlement for theft, Yurovsky developed an undying hatred for the Tsar.
As historical accounts have discovered, Yurovsky was one of Lenin’s willing executioners. German historian Joachim Hoffmann notes that both Lenin and Trotsky issued the order to assassinate the Tsar.
After seventy-two years, even the New York Times was willing to admit this incontrovertible fact.
Even Richard Pipes agreed that Lenin “ordered the execution of the imperial family.” Pipes wrote,
“It can be established that the final decision to ‘liquidate’ the Romanovs was taken personally by Lenin…One could have inferred this fact much from the knowledge that no provincial soviet would have dared to act on the matter of such importance without explicit authorization from the center.”
Trotsky, Lenin’s collaborator, wrote in his diary that Lenin himself ordered that the imperial family be assassinated, and the order was carried out by his regime.
Yet in examining the history of anti-Jewish attitudes during the Tsar period, Jewish historian Heinz-Dietrich Lowe does not even mention any of the complex issues which dominated the political landscape, including the many Jewish revolutionaries who created havoc for the government. Not only that, he states that Jewish revolutionary movements during that time were a reaction to Jewish oppression and anti-Semitism!
Put simply, German intellectuals and academics were not oblivious of the “Jewish question.” For example, the Revolution of 1848, in which Jewish revolutionaries such as Karl Marx and Moses Hess played a major role, was well known among intellectuals and academics. Jewish poet Heinrich Heine himself noted,
“No one does more to further the revolution than the Rothschilds themselves…and, though it may sound even more strange, these Rothschilds, the bankers of kings, these princely pursestring-holders, whose existence might be placed in the gravest danger by a collapse of the European state system, nevertheless carry in their minds a consciousness of their revolutionary mission.”
According to Heine, “the Rothschild ‘system’ is also potentially revolutionary in itself” because since it
“possesses the moral force or power which religion has lost, it can act as a surrogate for religion—indeed, it is a new religion, and when the old religion [Christianity] finally goes under it will provide substitutes for its practical blessings strangely enough, it is once again the Jews who invented this new religion.”
Heine saw James Rothschilds as “a powerful destroyer of patrician privilege, and the founder of a new democracy.”
In the late 1870s, the Jewish press was used as a weapon in cultural warfare: “Members of the Gentile lower-middle class encountered malicious caricatures of themselves in the liberal Jewish press, mockery of the traditional, petty-bourgeois values they cherished, often accompanied by a complete lack of sympathy for their dilemmas and insecurities.”
Karl Kraus, a well-known Viennese Jewish journalist at the time, believed that “Viennese anti-Semitism was without a doubt the result of justified resentment by Gentiles concerning the outrageous antics of Jewish journalists.” Friedrich Austerlitz saw the same thing, arguing that
“the Jewish-owned press was concerned to serve Jewish interests, to cover up misdeeds by Jewish capitalists, and to shower with abuse anyone who criticized Jews. Jewish press supremacy, he later observed, ‘was a conspiracy in favor of the Jews; the legend of the solidarity of all members of the people of Israel was at that time a reality.’”
Leon Blum, who was a prominent figure in the French socialist movement,
“gloried in the messianic role of the Jews as social revolutionaries, and earlier talked about “the collective impulse of the Jews [that] leads them towards revolution; their critical powers…drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason.”
He did not hesitate to declare that revolutionary activity—in this case socialism—is one of the fruits of Jewish revolutionaries.
So when Nazi Germany looked at all the cumulative evidence, they recognized a pattern: they saw Jews spreading subversive ideas. When they looked at the 1870s, they observed that “Jewish radicals made up a significant component” of it. The Nazis used their observations to create a completely radical ideology in order to counterattack Jewish revolutionary activity.
This was another reason why Hitler spoke strongly in Mein Kampf. But Hitler’s ideologies were primarily contingent on the revolutionary Jewish activities which he saw as destructive to civilization. The Black Book of Communism tells us that Hitler started World War II, but Stalin and his regime was largely responsible for it.
Stalin feared that the disproportionate number of Jews in the Bolshevik regime would give the anti-Semites ammunition. When Vladimir Lenin’s sister Anna found out that their maternal grandfather was Jewish, the regime announced that this fact was “inappropriate for publication” and must be “kept secret.” Stalin’s response to the news was that it should be kept “absolutely quiet.”
Arno J. Mayer notes that “if Hitler’s worldview had an epicenter, it was his deep-seated animosity toward contemporary civilization, and not his hatred for Jews, which was grafted onto it. Just as anti-Semitism was not the core of Hitler’s presumption, it did not have precedence over his other dogmas, particularly anti-Marxism and anti-bolshevism.
“Although infused with Jew-hatred, they were not mere screens or surrogates for it. Hitler was obsessed with two imagined threats: the Marxistcum-Bolshevik ‘octopus’ and the Jewish world conspiracy. He did not put one ahead of the other. They were twins, if not identical twins. Both were at one and the same time incarnations and agents of decay, and both were to be extirpated.”
Hitler to some extent was echoing many Jewish bankers who declared that the revolutionary Jew was up to something. Hirsch wrote,
“All our misery comes from Jews who want to climb too high. We have too many intellectuals. I want to prevent Jews from pushing ahead too much. They should not make such great strides.”
Hitler witnessed how Stalin’s regime was overwhelmingly Jewish and how they began to oppress and wipe out a large section of the Russians. For example,
“One of Stalin’s closest collaborators, to the end of his life, was Lazar Moissee Kaganovich, chiefly responsible, in addition to other persons, for ‘an unprecedented act of genocide’—the carefully planned murder of seven to nine million Ukrainian farmers during the 1932-1933 famine.
“Kaganovich was ‘responsible for the death of an entire generation of intellectuals,’ and personally signed execution orders for 36,000 people.”
Jewish historian P. Medvedev wrote that Kaganovich had
“‘his hand in the murder of millions,’ and had more crimes on his conscience ‘than the men hanged at Nuremberg in 1946.’”
The men who ordered the execution of 15,000 Polish officers at Katyn were Voroshilov, Molotov, Mikoyan, Kalinin, Kaganovich, and of course Stalin. It is also a fact that the NKVD was largely Jewish.
In the final analysis, the Zionist and neocon world do not have a problem with Hitler or Nazi Germany. They did have a problem when Nazi Germany stepped on their toes. (In fact, Zionism and Nazism had a kindred spirit in the past.) If they actually despised Nazi Germany, why in the world would Jewish neocon Victoria Nuland work with neo-Nazis and Fascists in order to destroy the government in the Ukraine?
Why would the U.S. spend at least $5 billion to create chaos in the region and then directly and indirectly blame it on the current government and Vladimir Putin? Why were the CIA, George Soros, the National Endowment for Democracy, funding Ukrainian NGOs?
“All of them were working hand in glove with the International Monetary Fund. The goal was to load the Ukraine down with debt and then take over Ukrainian assets when they defaulted on their loans. That playbook was described convincingly in John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
“The recipient country is burdened with loans from agencies like the IMF. If the Economic Hitman is successful, ‘the loans are so large that the debtor is forced to default on his payments after a few years. When this happens, then, like the Mafia, we demand our pound of flesh.
Clinton and members of the Pussy Riot
“‘This often includes one or more of the following: control over United Nations votes, the installation of military bases, or access to precious resources such as oil or the Panama Canal. Of course, the debtor still owes us the money—and another country is added to our global empire.’”
E. Michael Jones recently writes that
“Taken together, the US and EU-financed NGOs constituted a fifth column which was determined to hand over the assets of the Ukraine to the financial interests in the West.
“The protests were organized by the NGOs in exchange for funding. Sometimes NGO activity was disguised as ‘education programs,’ sometimes as ‘building democracy,’ sometimes, as in the case of Pussy Riot and Femen, as cultural terrorism….
“As if to prove that politics continue to make strange bedfellows, Israeli soldiers were also involved in the Maidan square demonstrations fighting alongside the Ukrainian fascists.
“In an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, an officer in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade of the IDF explained how he headed a force of 40 men and women, ‘including several fellow IDF veterans,’ in violent clashes with Ukrainian government forces, clashes which eventually brought down the government.”
The IDF officer had this to say about working with the Nazis in the Ukraine:
“I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish, and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother.’ What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.”
This is just the beginning:
“Many of the demonstrators at Maidan Square in Kiev had been fighting in Syria on the side of Salafist and ‘al-Qaeda-linked groups such as the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).’ When they returned to the Ukraine, to continue themayhem there that they had been wreaking in Syria, the demonstrations became progressively more violent.”
Just recently, Hillary Clinton met the Pussy Riot, took some pictures, and then declared that they are “strong and brave young women, who refused to let their voices be silenced.”
In other words, Hitler was wrong from 1933 to1945, but working with Stalin was right. Now Hitler’s spiritual children are right in Ukraine, and Putin is wrong. Trotsky was wrong, but praising and working with members of the Pussy Riot, who are staunch Trotskyites, is noble.
If that is not chaos in the metaphysical sense, nothing is. And if you cannot solve that puzzle, call Nuland and Clinton for an explanation.
 Lawrence Joffe, “Raul Hilberg: Historian Prepared to Risk His Career to Expose the Holocaust,” Guardian, September 25, 2007.
 Danny Postel, “Were There Jews in the Nazi Army?,” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30, 2002.
 Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11997), ix-xi, 308.
 Oleg Budnitskii, Russian Jews Between the Reds and the Whites, 1917-1920 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 1.
 Ibid., 35.
 Ibid., 1.
 Quoted in Timothy P. Weber, On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 135.
 Yuri Sleskine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 183.
 Budnitskii, Russian Jews Between the Reds and the Whites., 2.
 See Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 733.
 Daniel J. Flynn, A Conservative History of the American Left (New York: Crown Forum, 2008), 214.
 Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society (New York: Basic Books, 2009), 122-123.
 Ibid., 123.
 Thomas Sowell, “How Foreign Is Our Policy?,” Jewish World Review, April 1, 2014.
 Hugh Cortazzi, Britain and Japan: Biographical Portraits, vol. 4 (London: Taylor & Francis, 2002), 364.
 Ibid., 366.
 This idea has been around for centuries, but it was placed in a pagan context by mystic Helena Blavatsky. Helena P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy (IL: The Theological Publishing House, 1993), 18, 22, 84, 86, 93, 105, 140, 163, 167, 170-171, 191.
 Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 1977).
 Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, 80.
 Quoted in Giles Milton, Russian Roulette: A Deadly Game—How British Spies Thwarted Lenin’s Global Plot (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2013), 243.
 Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Relentless Cult of Novelty,” Catholic Education Resource Center
 Benoit Lemay, Erich von Manstein: Hitler’s Master Strategist (Havertown, PA: Casemate, 2010), 1. For other studies, see also Mungo Melvin, Manstein: Hitler’s Greatest General (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010).
 Gordon, The “Jewish Question,” 278.
 Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 114.
 Quoted in Ernest Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism (New York: Holt, 1965), 406.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1066.
 Quoted in Naomi Cohen, Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership (Hanover: Brandeis University, 1999), 38.
 Johnson, A History of the Jews, 459.
 Ibid., 369.
 Ibid., 424.
 Ibid., 451-452, 452-53.
 Ibid., 458.
 Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 105.
 Johnson, A History of the Jews, 459.
 Ibid., 452.
 Steven Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 17.
 Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 90.
 Yehuda Bauer, “A Past That Will Not Go Away,” Berenbaum and Peck, The Holocaust and History, 15.
 Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 125.
 Ibid., 125.
 Ibid., 119.
 Ibid., 54.
 Ibid., 54-55.
 Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, 14.
 Gordon, The “Jewish Question,” 52-53.
 David Irving, Hitler’s War, xxiii.
 Eric Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 19-20.
 Ibid., 20.
 Ibid., 20-21.
 Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 68.
 Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia, 22-23.
 Ibid., 23.
 Ibid., 29-31, 53-55.
 Ibid., 31.
 Ibid., 32.
 Ibid., 31-33.
 Ibid., 120.
 Ibid., 39-40.
 Ibid., 40.
 Ibid., 41.
 Ibid., 42.
 Ibid., 117-147.
 Ibid., 118.
 Ibid., 56-73.
 Ibid., 53.
 Ibid., 74.
 For a story on a similar issue, see Kimberly Winston, “Judaism Without God? Yes, Say American Atheists,” USA Today, October 26, 2011.
 Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia, 84.
 Ibid., 74.
 Ibid., 75.
 Helen Rappaport, The Last Days of the Romanovs: Tragedy at Ekateringburg (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009), 131-133.
 Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 195-196.
 Bill Keller, “Cult of the Last Czar Takes Root in Russia,” NY Times, Nov 21, 1990.
 Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), 770.
 Heinz-Dietrich Lowe, The Tsars and the Jews: Reform, Reaction, and Anti-Semitism in Imperial Russia, 1772-1917 (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 1993), chapter 3.
 Ibid., Chapter 8.
 Ferguson, The War of the World, 214.
 Ibid., 213.
 Ibid., 214.
 Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 195.
 Ibid., 425-426.
 Ibid., 426.
 See Kramer, Murphy, Werth, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).
 Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 245-246.
 Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, 107-108.
 Bermant, The Jews, 39.
 Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 196-197.
 Ibid., 197.
 See for example Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine (Danvers, MA: Dialog Press, 2009).
 E. Michael Jones, “Crimea River: The Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Culture Wars, April 1, 2014.