Unlike Mr. Froehling, I do not threaten my opponents with prison terms. I employ the more effective tactic of destroying their arguments. Since Hans Froehling, trapped in the Falaise pocket of his own stupidity, cannot deal with this tactic, he instead invokes the Inquisition and hurls anathema at me. Very impressive, Hans.

I have news for you, Mr. Froehling. The general Pattons of historical revisionism are already shooting down your orthodoxies and ramming steel bayonets of facts into your pious guts. Your stormtroopers of intellectual conformity are being butchered by fast moving, fast thinking Audie Murpheys of quick shooting intellectual marksmanship – and your clumsy, slow moving ivory tower Panzer will not save you.

It is a marvel to read the sophistries by which learned historians try to “explain away” the overwhelming Jewish involvement in communism. Several classic examples occur in Andre Gerrits book “The Myth of Jewish Communism”. On pp. 140-141 he writes:

“The new political order in East Central Europe, not yet fully communist but under the political control of communist parties and their foreign masters, offered Jews unforeseen and unprecedented opportunities. Apart from their physical security (for which Jews depended on the communist-dominated governments) they profited in particular from the unique possibilities for social mobility, employment and political emancipation which the new order offered. Abel Kainer (pseudonym of Stanislaw Krajewski) emphasizes that few Jews as Jews chose for the communist regime in Poland. Those who participated in the new order (a minority among the Polish Jews who had survived the war, but the majority, most probably, of those who ultimately decided to stay) did so as individuals, mostly assimilated and, as Kainer asserts, often convincingly communist. Kainer lists a series of variables that can be read as partial explanations for why Jewish survivors were above average with respect to their receptivity to communist rule. Under post-war conditions, communism meant more than just acceptance by a community of non-Jews. Considering the situation in which most Jews found themselves immediately after the war (lacking housing and employment and boasting few relatives to fall back on), many relied heavily on support from the communist authorities…Jan Gross adds that: “They (Jews) certainly considered the Communist-dominated government as a natural ally, given the hostility of the social environment.”

On p.147 Gerrits writes:

“Immediately after their moment of greatest grief and disaster, Jews attained what they never attained before: formal positions of political power. At a time of almost existential crisis for most countries of the region – from the ravages of war and occupation to the subjugation to Soviet rule – Jews had returned with a vengeance, or so many believed. There were fewer Jews than ever but they seemed more powerful than ever. Jews appeared to be the main beneficiaries of the new order, profiting from the misfortunes of the East European nations…the notion of Jewish Communism appeared to have lost most of its pre-war mythical qualities. With the conspicuous role of Jews in most of the communist regimes, it seemed far more real than ever before – as biased and malevolent as this interpretation of communist rule my have been.”

Here we have the stereotypical effort to explain away the huge preponderance of Jews in communism as the product of particular circumstances, not as an inherent Jewish tendency. One might cynically comment that anyone who actually believes this should be looking for the proverbial bridge in Brooklyn to buy. It is no different, in essence, than the claims that Jews participated in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 because they had been oppressed by the Czar and therefore, communism offered the best opportunity for liberation. Jews were simply availing themselves of the protection of a power which had saved them from the Nazis. Under the circumstances of the time Jews had to do business with the system which could clothe, house and feed them, so naturally they had to put on commissars uniforms. What else could they have done, as Messrs. Gerrits, Gross and others tell us? The Poles lacked the literacy to fill the upper level positions in the government, just as the Russians so lacked it in 1917, so the government just had to fill the positions with Jews. What did any Jewish pre-disposition for communism have to do with it?

This sort of apologia is utterly unconvincing. When juries in courtrooms hear these kinds of arguments from defense attorneys, they vote to convict. The Jews did not turn to communism because they were persecuted or because circumstances in individual countries made it conducive to their economic betterment. They turned to it because of their hate filled Talmudic tradition. Communism was never anything other than what the anti-Semites said it was – a Jewish attempt to tear down the non-Jewish world and to bathe it in blood. Andre Gerrits and similar academic hacks write endless pages trying to ascribe every possible motivation to Jewish participation in communism other than the real one. The intellectual gymnastics make for interesting reading but do not establish the case.

“The Myth of Jewish Communism” by Andre Gerrits is the latest academic attempt to explain away some well-known but highly sensitive facts about the Jewish overrepresentation in communism. Gerrits doesn’t try to explain away the facts outright as that would be impossible. Instead, he engagingly asserts that the documented facts about Jewish involvement in communism tells less about Jews than about the psychological dimensions of anti-Semites. The basic parameters of Gerrits approach is laid out in the opening paragraph of Chapter Three. He writes:

“Jews have played a role out of all proportion to their numbers in the socialist and communist movements in Europe. Their participation in the early communist regimes of post-1917 Russia and the countries of Eastern Central Europe after the Second World War, in particular, bolstered anti-Jewish sentiments. The myth of Jewish Communism became one of the most powerful and destructive political stereotypes in Europe during the first half of the twentieth century. The most crucial feature of a (xenophobic) myth, as discussed earlier, is that it renders the abstraction of the group as more real than any of its specific, individual components. On this basis, one could argue that the actual involvement of the Jews in the communist movements is of only minor importance for the study of Jewish communism. The myth of Jewish Communism tells us more about anti-Semites, and perhaps communists, than it does about Jews. It should be considered, first and foremost, in the tradition of politically motivated anti-Jewish thinking. If the question of Jewish communism is basically a chimera, a political fantasy, there would seem to be little need for historians to tread beyond either its mythical or fantastic dimensions. The problem is compounded by the fact that Jewish participation in the communist movement lacks a reliable, empirical basis. Figures are fragmentary and limited and therefore difficult to assess. Jewish communism is as controversial as it is elusive. No wonder then, that so few historians have risked burning their fingers by it.”

Let us analyze what Professor Gerrits has just said. He begins by admitting the basic fact under dispute – that Jews were very disproportionately involved in Communist movements everywhere. He then asserts that this fact has no significance in itself but tells us more about the anti-Semites and their evil mind set than it tells us about the Jews, those eternally innocent people. Thus, he converts a factual dispute already settled into an attempt to pathologize those who reason from facts to justifiable conclusions (e.g., the Jews did it). This short essay does not intend to review “The Myth of Jewish Communism” in its entirety but merely to indicate the general approach of the book. It is certainly not without merit. The volume covers a vast amount of material which, although not all-encompassing, provides more than enough evidence of where the “myth” of Jewish communism came from. However, the volume most definitely follows the usual apologetic techniques of trying to ascribe Jewish involvement in communism to particular circumstances rather than to inherent characteristics of the Jewish people as a whole.

“The Myth of Jewish Communism” is hardly unique in the general approach it employs. But it must be said that Andre Gerrits does an exceedingly good job in trying to explain away the unexplainable. The book is well written and superficially plausible. The slant is obvious, however. Despite the slanting all kinds of inconvenient facts keep popping up. Thus, Gerrits has to admit that various Jewish authors such as Jaff Schatz, maintain that there were important similarities between Jewish messianic ideology and communist ideology. He also takes note of “anti-Jewish” academics like Albert Lindemann, Kevin MacDonald and Yuri Slezkine who have written extensively on the Jewish involvement in revolutionary socialism. Andre Gerrits basic problem, as anyone who reads the book can tell, is that the facts are simply against him.

No matter how masterfully he writes, it turns out that “The Myth of Jewish Communism” was the “Reality of Jewish Communism”. Too many people saw the face of the murderous tyrrany up close for there to be any doubt. Andre Gerrits “The Myth of Jewish Communism: An Historical Interpretation” is an important book because it shows that a century old charge has yet to die. It never will die because the evidence in support of it is simply too vast to be explained away. The fact that the Jews feel compelled to produce an expensive academic paperback rebutting the charge shows how concerned over it they are even to this day. “The Myth of Jewish Communism” may be a response to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together”; it may be a response to massive Internet publishing on the Jewish-Communist connection; it may be a combination of these things. It is unlikely that a better job of attempted refutation of the Jewish communist charge can be penned than “The Myth of Jewish Communism”. If the rebuttal fails – and it does – then the charge must be conceded as true. Andre Gerrits has given the subject his best shot. The reader who perceives the deficiencies of his account will have no further illusions on the subject of Jews and communism.

Whether Mr. Foehling likes it or not, the fact is that two world wars were a disaster for western civilization. Continuing to pound on the Germans as the “sole cause” of these wars and applying Article 234 of the Treaty of Versailles to Adolf Hitler the same way it was applied to Kaiser Wilhelm does not make for honest history; it merely constitutes groveling before the propaganda of the victors. Mr. Froehling lives in a society where bootlicking of victors history is a legal requirement.

Speaking of Mr. Nolte, perhaps Mr. Froehling should read Professor Andre Gerrits recently published book, “The Myth of Jerwish Communism”. There he will learn that the charge of Jewish Communismwas substantially true, despite Professor Gerrits best efforts to whitewash this fact.

Let’s hope I or other Germans will never know your true identity. The sentence “Adolf Hitler was not a man of peace but he was the better alternative to what actually happened” will cost you a minimum of 7 years in prison if you ever decided to enter the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Should I ever know who you really are, be assured that the “Deutsche Amt fuer die Verfassungssicherung” will know of you and your pro-Nazi opinions. I used to work for them when I was still in Germany in the area of counterterrorism. Your unreflected rambling is shameful from an historical point of view and luckily criminial in modern Germany. My suggestion: Stay in the US or keep your mouth shut in case you decided to visit Germany. With your big mouth you’ll be faster in prison than you can even imagine!

Hitler’s key passages in regards to WWII and Britain are part of volume 3 of “Mein Kampf” which has never been translated into English. To my knowledge there is only one copy available in the Library of Congress. So research skills and skills in German language do make a big difference when dealing with such a sensitive topic as attempting a full-scale revision of history. A simple trip to Washington would have saved Buchanan quite a bit of scorn from professional historians like myself.