HumanRightsEssaysVIII

Human Rights Essays VIII

(Continued from "Human Rights Essays VII")

               World War II
A Conflict Between International Socialism
       And National Socialism

                        By Karl Hausner

             The United States (Continued):

The propaganda machine was already working for two years. American newspapers spoke of
atrocities by German and Austrian troops. In Belgium, it was reported that German troops
nailed the tongues of children onto tables and unbelievable even more stupid lies were
produced.   There were numerous books published on this subject, which will be listed in the
bibliography.

So, the United States was attacked, war was imminent, and thus, Wilson could send 1.2 million
troops into battle along with huge amounts of war material. In his fourteen points be
proclaimed to the American public. "This will be the war to end all wars. Every nation in
Europe will get the right of self-determinaton and independence." Yes, an ideal promise, but it
was not intended to be kept. The purpose of the war was to destroy the three monarchies,
Austria-Hungary, Germany and Turkey. As American troops entered the battlefield in France,
the war turned against the middle powers.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who at that time was Under-Secretary of the Navy, visited the
battlefield. It was reported that he was facinated with the dead bodies of horses and men, and
the suffering and pain didn't bother him. Actually, he wanted to join the active battle.

     The Armistice of 1918

What could have been the end of the war in 1916 by negotiation ended in 1919. In Versailles
and St. Germaine in 1919, Britain and France, supported by
the United States, demanded that both monarchies be
destroyed. Kaiser Wilhelm was cited as a war criminal, but
he was saved by staying in exile with his sister, the Queen of
Holland.

Germany was so destroyed that it had no future for esistence.
Austria, of course, was dismembered, the Sudetenland became
part of the new Czechoslovakia, South Tyrol was given to
Italy, and Hungary also lost a vast amount of land. The eastern part of Hungary was given to
Romania. To provide a balance of power between Hungary and Turkey, Yugoslavia was created.

Palestine was put under British rule, which led to the present day hostilities between Jews and
Arabs.

            The New Nations

Poland was created; one third to the East was Ukrainian and large areas to the West were
German territory, the Corridor, Gdansk, Upper Silesia, etc. Czechoslovakia received the
German region of the Sudetenland. A new multi-nation was created without any rights for the
minorities, Germans, Hungarians, Poles and Ukrainians. This was true in Poland and also in
Czechoslovakia.

The even more rediculoud of the blunders was the creation of Yugoslavia. To put so many
nations into one centralized government, such as the Serbian Nation, was inexcusably
irresponsible. This created only more conflicts and war. So, by the end of World War I, there
was again talk that the war would continue and would explode again. Twenty years later we had
World War II.

         The Great Depression

Americans are told that the Great Depression started in 1929. This, of course, is another lie.
The Great Depressions started during World War I and continued until Hitler took power in
Germany. The European Depression, which was so bad that, for
example, sixty percent of German workers had no work and those
who had work were often paid twice due to the high rate of
inflation. For example, one dollar, at the height of inflation in
Germany, brought one billion marks, not million, but billion.
Under conditions such as these, people are desperate.

In 1992, when we had seven-percent unemployment and a little
sluggish economy, Americans did not re-elect George Bush,
because they thought we had a poor economy. Whom would we
elect today if we had the circumstances that existed in Germany
and Austria after World War I?

The Soviet Union

After 1917 the Bolshevik Revolution started. The Czar of Russia made the mistake of getting
involved in World War I. He had hoped that the war would unitethe people, instead it gave the
Communists the opportunity to organize and use part of the Russian troops for their own
purposes. The Czar, along with his family, were executed. During the course of the Bolshevik
Revolution millions of Russians, including the clergy, the Futiles and the officers of the Czar's
Army, were murdered.

The United States did not recognize the Soviet Union until President Roosevelt was elected.
Between 1933 and 1939 over 100,000 Russian immigrants, mostly Jews, who had left Russia
around the turn of the century, because of persecution and prosecution, returned to the Soviet
Union and helped Stalin rebuild the economy, the army and the secret police.

Stalin crushed the resistance in the Ukraine in the winter of 1933 by means of starvation. His
troops would confiscate all the food reserves from the peasants, and by so doing, force them to
participate in the collective farming system. Since many returnees were well educated and had
political clout in the Roosevelt Administration, it was no secret that great friendship between
the Roosevelt Government and the Soviet Union was established and maintained, even though
the average American knew little or nothing about it.

Thus, international socialism had reached the height of its existence. It could not collaborate
with the National Socialists, but because both were socialists, there were some major
differences. However, the world powers, the colonial powers, Britain, France, and even the
United States, felt that this was a means of collaboration for global government.

Fascism and National Socialism

Benito Mussolini is credited with inventing Fascism. He was the editor of a radical communist
paper. When he realized that hem wanted to move upwards, he knew that Italy was not ready
for Soviet style Communism. In Italy there were many small farmers, small business people
and, of course, the church. Thus, Mussoline amended his Marxist ideology to what became
known as Fascism: which meant that private ownership was under government control.
Besides, he was a Nationalist.

Adolf Hitler, under similar circumstances, realized that Germany had many small farmers and
business people, almost like Italy. In addition, the Communist International Movement had
been around for almost one hundred years. As a result of the dictates of Versailles and St.
Germaine, many German people felt that the Allies had betrayed them and that, of course,
was true. This supported Nationalism. So Hitler, like Mussolini, proclaimed a form of
socialism, National Socialism, with the Fascist economic system.

Even though Hitler and Mussoline are mentioned as the only Fascists or National Socialist, they
were certainly not the originators. Dr. Eduard Benes and even perhaps Thomas Gyrik
Mazaryk, the Czech leaders, were National Socialist or Fascists.

In Poland the government proclaimed to be democratic but was national socialistic. That was
true in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and even the Slovaks, under Dr. Hlinka, were National
Socialists or Fascists. Thus, the quarrel began between the Socialist. On one hand, the
International Socialists, who were not just headquartered in Moscow, but in Paris, London and
New York, and the so-called Social Democrats were then and are still now internationally
oriented. On the other hand, the National Socialists were fascists under Hitler and Mussolini.

         The Collapse of Austria

Austria, for hundreds of years, was a large powerful, influential country. In 1918/1919 the
Allies amputated it beyond survival. The Industrialized Sudetenland, with 3.5 million German
people, was forced into the Czechoslovakian Republic. The region of South Tirol was given to
Italy. When Yugoslavia was created, a large segment was given to that country. The German
people in Banat in Transylvania were, of course, no longer part of Austria.

Industrially speaking, and economically as well, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary and all these
other nations were one economic system. Now this was gone. The large capital of Vienna, with
a heavy socialistic population and the conservative region in the countryside, had very little
economy or industry. In 1938 Austria elected to join Hitler's Germany, which they were almost
forced to do.

The Sudetenland and the Munich Accord

For six or seven hundred years the Sudeten Germans lived in their homeland which was the
Kingdom of Bohemia and the adjacent regions of Moravia and Silesia. All of the cities in the
present Czech Republic, excluding Tabor, were founded and developed by German people and
not by the Czechs. Prague today is the capital of the Czech Republic, but it is not a Czech city,
it is a Bohemian city. Prior to World War I, in most Czech cities, the German population was
fifty percent or more. The Czech people were primarily farmers in the lowland. Most of the
industry was developed and operated by German people.

The Czech leaders, Mazaryk and Benes, when the Republic was created in Pittsburg in 1918,
with the blessing of the American government, proclaimed that this country would be a second
Switzerland with full autonomy rights for the minorities. This was a lie. The American
politicians either did not understand or were not objective and permitted the forceful
integration of the Sudeten Germans, the Magyars, the Ukrainians, and the Poles into their
country. Even the Jews, in most cases, were persecuted. That is why most Jews in
Czechoslovakia sided with the German people and consided themselves Germans, rather than
Czechs.

The economic situation and the radical persecution of the Sudeten Germans brought about a
strong nationalistic reaction of the Sudeten German people, even though they were divided into
Social Democrats, Communists, Christian Democrats and Nationalist. But when this
persecution continued, all but the Communists and the Social Democrats combined their
efforts under Conrad Henlein into the Sudeten German Parties.

In the spring of 1938 Lord Runcinon, from the House of Lords in Britain, was sent to the
Sudetenland to study the situation. He reported back to the British Government that the
Prague Regime had persecusted the Germans, and at the time there was no other solution but
to annex the German region to the Third Reich. In August of 1938 the Governments of
Britain, France, Italy and Germany signed the annexation agreement and shortly thereafter,
German troops occupied the Sudetenland, without resistance from the Czech Army.

Since the Slovaks also declared independence from the remaining part of Czecoslovakia, Benes
resigned and went into exile in London. Thus, the remaining regions of Czechoslovakia,
Bohemia and Moravia became the Protectorate of Hitler's Germany.

For details o this subject, I recommend the video documentation entitled "Brothers in the
Storm" produced by the Truman State University. Dr. Paulding did an outstanding job in
portraying the history and events up to the expulsion and destruction of the Sudetenland.

                        Poland

The Polish Government was willing to negotiate some kind of deal with the Hitler regime so
that Danzig (Gdansk) and Upper Silesia would again be reunited with Germany. Do you realize
that in order for Germans to travel from East Prussia to West Prussia, they had to travel
through a foreign government known as the Corridor. How would the United States act if the
people from Pennsylvania wanted to travel to Connecticut and had to go through Quebec, a
foreign country?

However, Britain and Fance quickly intervened, signed an agreement protecting the Polish
integrity and thus, there was no peaceful settlement between Germany and Poland.

The Molotov Ribbentrop Agreement

In August of 1939 the Hitler Government under Ribbentrop and the Stalin Government under
Molotov worked out a Friendship Agreement which set the stage for war. Hitler attacked
Poland from the West and Stalin attacked shortly thereafter from the East. Within three
weeks the Polish Army, which was not very modernized, had to surrender. Stalin incorporated
the Eastern Sector, also known as the Polish Ukraine, into his Soviet Union, while the Western
part of Poland came under German occupation.

It is interesting to note that as Germany attacked Poland, Britain and France declared war on
Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. Why not? Why the selective treatment of two
aggressors? Of courses, we know it would not have served to balance the power of politics of
Britain, and it would not have served the international approach to the world.

Although Hitler and Stalin never believed that they could co-exist, Hitler moved eastwards with
his troops and Stalin moved westwards. Thus, an intermediate benefit was provided for both
aggressors.

         The Baltic Countries

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, although not Russian, had been part of the Russian Empire for a
long time. However, after the collapse of the Russian Empire and the creation of the Soviet
Union, these three countries were granted independence. In 1940, Stalin simply occupied these
three countries.

Of course, Hitler did not do anything about this and neither did the Western Allies. No big
issue was made. Eastern Poland and the Polish Ukraine had been well integrated into the
Soviet hierarchy. The KGB (NQD) executed the most prominent Polish Officers and
Government Officials, and their bodies were thrown into mass graves in the forest of Katyn.
During the war, this was blamed on the Nazi Regime.

The French Government, after World War I, had built a huge range of fortresses known as the
Maginot Line, as did the Czechs in the Sudeten Mountains. Hitler, likewise, built the
Westwall, or as some called it, the Sieffried Line. All of these fortresses were of no value.
Hitler ordered his army through Holland, which was neutral and thus, entered France behind
these fortresses. France quickly surrendered. A large part of France was occupied by
Germany and the smaller part remained under a new French Government.

The Benelux countries, of course, were occupied quickly and the British Army, which was to
help the Europeans, retreated at Dunkirk. Hitler permitted them to retreat gracefully. For
one reason or another, he was in love with the Germanic people, and the English, of course, he
considered Germanic.

                        Racism

Most Amercans would say Hitler invented racism. Of course, if you don't know history and
believe propaganda, you would believe that. Racism is as old as mankind. In the Old
Testament on e can read about the struggles between races, namely the Jews and the
Egyptians, just to mention a few. In the United States, even though the Declaration of
Independence declared that man was created equal under God, the United States Supreme
Court, in 1850, ruled that Negroes and Indians were sub-humans and were not entitled to the
benefits of the Constitution. Apparently, the Supreme Court had not read the Declaration of
Independence.

Hitler's anti-Semitism and racism was pathological because the hybrid German, that the Nazis
envisioned, did not really exist in Germany. Hitler himself did not have blue eyes and blond
hair. As a matter of fact he looked more Romanic or even Semitic than those people in other
parts of Europe, such as the ukraine.

What is of interest is that Hitler's biological father is unknown. During his regimes such
things were never openly discussed. After the collapse of the Third Reich, why was this not
investigated ande brought out into the open. The rumor was then, and it still is now, that
Hitler's father was a well to do Jew. His name was not even Hitler until he became a teen-ager
and was adopted by his stepfather. His hatred for Jews could well be founded in that his
childhood was unpleasant.

However, there was a lot more of this intermixing. Over twenty Generals in the Nazi Army
were of mixed race with Jewish blod. Adolf Eichman states, in a recently published document,
that his wife's relatives were Jewish. He also mentions that Hitler's girlfriend, Eva Braun, had
Jewish ancestry. This is not surprising because the German Jew was not orthodox. He was
intermixed and was more German than Orthodox Jewish.

Whatever it is, racism regrettably exists and will continue to exist because the human heart is
simply not open enough for love. Even Christianity was not able to bring about the love
between two Christian people that the New Testament is commanding. Without this teaching
things can only get worse. We see it in the United States where fathers and mothers leave
their families and children shoot each other and their teachers. Our jails are filled because we
are not subscribing to the teaching of the Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ.

          The Morgenthau Plan

The Morgenthau Plan, which was enacted by the American and Western Allies in 1944, resulted
in the destruction of Dresden and many non-military targets. The starvation program after
World War II was even implemented under General Eisenhower by American, British and
French victors. This is sufficient evidence that the world and the people therein are not willing
to learn.

In 1938, even before the Holocaust had started, Theodore Kaufman, a Jew, wrote a book
entitled Germany Must Perish. This book was published by a prominent American publisher and
was well received by the most prominent newspapers, such as the New York Times and the
Washington Post. It outlined how twenty million Germans were to be killed. No
differentiation was made between Nazis or anti-Nazis. All Germans were guilty of crimes.

If you read American newspapers, which were published at that time, prior and especially
during World War II, one cannot believe that this writing was possible in a country of free
people. So, if we do not return to biblical teaching, the next century might be even bloodier
than the passing ones.

        Unconditional Surrender

Hitler knew he had many, many enemies. Thus, he built the concentration camps, Dachau,
Bergen-Belsen, Mauthausen, etc., which were, and are still to this day, claim to have been built
for Jewish inmates. This is not true! They were built to intern all enemies. In spite of this,
there were still many against the regime within the German Army. A number of assassination
attempts are evidence of that.

The prominent German Commander Erwin Rommel, who was forced to commit suicide by the
Gestapo in early 1945, would have participated in the assassination of Hitler if the Western
Allies had offered a conditional surrender after Hitler was eliminated. This was not granted.
The Allies demanded unconditional surrender. With such an arrogant, criminal demand,
millions of innocent people were sacrificed unnecessarily, including hundreds of thousands of
American soldiers. The same was true in Japan when we dropped the nuclear bombs. The
Government of Japan, six months earlier, tried to work out a surrender, which would have
saved the monarchy. Roosevelt denied this request.

The Teheran Yalta and Potsdam Agreements

In Teheran and Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin carved up tje world for domination by
each of them. Later, in Potsdam, after the war with Germany had ended, Truman replaced
Roosevelt, who had died. They agreed that the Soviets would occupy half of Germany, all of the
Baltic countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Was this stupidity? Or was
this in accord with international statehood? If we look at the United Nations, we have the
answer. "It would almost be laughable if it wasn't so pitiful, when the Allies trumpeted that we
were freeing the world from enslavement, when in actuality, at the end of hostilities, we freed
the world from the Nazis, and turned them over to Soviet Russia for systematic murders, and
perpetual slavery."

                   The Holocaust

It is interesting that the big players of World War II, Churchill, Eisenhower, deGaulle and
Montgomery wrote extensively about the World War II era. They mentioned the concentration
camps as a secondary issue (the name for concentration camps in the United States was
Internment Camps. The difference between the two names? There is none.). The word
"Holocaust" did not appear in their writings. The word "Holocaust" was trademarked twenty
years later and has become a most effective tool in marketing. Germany paid over 112 billion
marks to Israel, a country that did not even exist during World War II. Even Switzerland,
which for seven hundred years was neutral and certainly not pro-Hitler during World War II,
had to come up with about 1.5 billion dollars, and the Holocaust marketing continues.

Prominent Jews, like Rabbi Lapin and many others, are very much concerned that this
Holocaust propaganda will or may have negative results in the long run. We already know that
Russia has an anti-Semitic movement and many Jews are leaving. 1.5 million have already left
or want to leave. Many of those were high-ranking KGB officers or others who served in the
Soviet hierarchy. Yet, as Russia is economically in shambles, they are afraid of pogrom actions
which, of course have happened before.

Here again, why are we not opening up the files? Why are we not honest about it? Why do we
make up stories which so often cannot be substantiated or which have already been discredited
or withdrawn? Fifty years after World War II, the Holocaust story is practically alive in
politicians' and prominent Christian leaders' minds.

When the presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, in his book A Republic, Not An Empire, stated
that the United States should have stayed out of World War II and let Hitler and Stalin destroy
each other, he received brutal criticism, especially by certain Jewish groups. Why? Rabbi
Lapin in his book, America's Real War, points the finger in the right direction. This book
should be read by every person who believes in honesty, whether Christian or Jew or those who
have no belief.

                   The Casualties

Germany lost four million people during World War II in the battlefield and with bombs, and
seven million additional people perished after the war between 1945 and 1950 through the
expulsion, the slave labor camps and the starvation camps in the East and the West. The KGB
executed millions upon millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and
Romanians after World War II. Over one million former Soviet soldiers had joined the
German Army in the fight against Communism. America and Britain forcefully repatriated
these people, all of whom were executed.

Women, even children, were raped to death. Even in my hometown, with a population of 550 at
best, we had twelve murdered by the Soviet Army. One woman was raped to death and two
other women were raped and shot.

The German people have to carry the burden of Nazis atrocities, even those people who had
nothing to do with concentration camps. Even Poles, Ukrainians and Hungarians who served as
Kopos in the camps, though Jews, may have committed these crimes, yet the second and third
generations of German people have to pay for this. Aren't we Americans also responsible for
the atrocities that were committed by our Allies during and after World War II? Can we shift
this responsibility? Yes, of course, we can at this time, because we have won the war and
justice is not right or wrong. Justice is power.

Those of you who wish can read my essay, 1945 In Memory, where you will get documentary
details of what happened to my people and to myself after World War II by the so-called
liberating forces who were supposed to save humanity.

           Who Won World War II?

If this was not obvious right after World War II, it certainly is very clear now. International
Socialism came out of this struggle with success. Inititially, the Soviet Union gained the
greatest influence on a large part of Europe. Britain and France lost all of their colonies, and
the United States, after World War II, spent ten trillion dollars in military hardware
investment and virtually hundreds of thousands of men in the various wars which have been
fought under the flag of the United Nations.

Many will believe that the United Nations is an organization which is supposed to reduce
conflicts between nations, which of course is partially true, but the greater overruling ideology
is one world government and all of the other nations are to be its subordinates.

The economic system, which is now in the so-called industrialized nations, including the United
States, is fascistic, that is a form of socialism amended from the Marxist ideology. Under the
Fascist form of economy we have private ownership under government control. Here in the
United States we have fifty Federal Agencies governing or dictating the American economy.
The situation in Europe is the same, except in Eastern Europe there is, at this time, an
anarcistic economy.

NATO was initially a defense system against the Soviet Union, but as we see now, after the
Soviet Union collapsed, it still remains in existence, and has even expanded eastward to include
Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and a number of other countries who have applied for
membership.

United Europe is another step toward World Government. Of course, World Government
cannot be achieved in a short time. The planners of this ideologym are clever enough to know
this. Hitler tried to build a German Empire in a few years and failed. If he would have taken
time and done it more cleverly, as American politicians are doing, he would have been more
successful. Our political scientists certainly are at work planning this trend.

The President of the United States spends more time abroad trying to solve problems than he
really spends here in the United States, and we have more problems and projects here than we
can afford. At the same time, whenever our government addresses a problem, it is socialistic.
More money for schools, more police, more jails, more controls, that is what we call free
economy. We have a market economy, and out politicians often use that language, which
means we still allow the free enterprise to adjust their activities within a range of prescribed
directions.

But this is not what, for example, Libertarians wouldm propose. Our liberals are not liberals,
they are fanatic, academic Socialists. Yet they are smart to toll the voting mpublic that they
have all the freedom they want, but that is deceiving. Adolf Hitler also told the German
people, "Nur die Freiheit, gehoert unser Leben", which means "only liberty is the purpose of
our life", and yet every few kilometers we had concentration camps and the Gestapo was
snooping all over the same populace. The Marxists, under Lenin and Stalin and others,
proclaimed "freedom for the proletariat", freedom for the people, freedom from oppression,
freedom from the Kings and feudals, and yet they treated their people worse than the most
ruthless Capitalists.

                Is There Hope?

There is no hope n government ruling as long as the majority of the people who either have no
interest in prospertity. When God is replaced by the dollar, by the almighty dollar, things can
and will only get worse. We see it in gambling, drug and alcohol addiction.   We see it in the
abortion clinics; over 30 million young Americans were killed before they were even able to see
the light of the day. And we call that freedom of choice. As long as we believe these things, it
can only get worse.

The only hope we have is to believe in and live by the teaching of the New Testament, which is
based on the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament.

References:

1.     Daniel Lapin, Lecture Series "The Biblical Blueprint for Life", Toward Tradition.
P.O. Box 58, Mercer Island, WA 98040.

2.     Rabbi Daniel Lapin "Interview with Dr. James Dobson", Focus on the Family, Colorado
        Springs, CO (Audiotape).

3.     Newsletter, Family Research Council, 801 G Street, Washington, DC 20001.

4.     Newsletter, Catholic League, 1011 First Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

5.     Newsletter, The Rutherford Institute, P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906.

6.     Arthur Ponsonby, Member of Parliament, "Falsehood in Wartime - Propaganda Lies of
        the First World War", 1928, London, George Allen and Unwin.

7.     Sheldon Richman, "The Failure of American Foreign Wars", Future Freedom Foundation,
Fairfax, VA.

8.     Ralph Raico, "Nazifying the Germans", January, 1997 paper.

9.     Theodore N. Kaufman, "Germany Must Perish", 1939, Argyle Press, Neward, NJ.

10.   Ralph Franlin Keeling, "Gruesome Harvest - The Allies' Postwar War Against the
German People", 1947, The Institute of American Economics, Chicago.

11.   "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace", 1953, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho.

12.   Arthur R. Butz, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century", 1976, England, Library of
Congress call number D 804.34.B88.

13.   David Irving, "Apocalypse 1945 - The Destruction of Dresden", 1995, Verotax Publishing
Co. Pty.

14.   David Irving, "Nuremberg - The Last Battle", 1996, Focal Point Publications, London.

15.   Karl Hausner, "1945 in Memory", The Great Expulsions of 1946", "Hitler's Cross", "Let
Bygones Be Bygones", " Concentration Camps, Myths and Realities".

16.   Dr. Erwin Lutzer, "Hitler's Cross", 1995, Moody Press, Chicago.

17.   Hermine Hausner, "May 17, 1945. The Day I Will Never Forget", 1998 D.A.N.K.

18.   "Documents on the Expulsions of the Sudeten-Germans", 1953, University Press, Dr. C.
Wolf & Sohn, Munich.

19.   "Dokumente zur Vertreibung der Sudetendeutschen", 1992, Sudetendeutscher Rat e. V.,
Muenchen.

20.   Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War", 1999, Multomah Publishers.

21.   Es gibt nicht zur ein Lidice, Sudetendeutscher Rat e.V., Muenchen, 1988.

22.   "Sterblichkeit ist Schein", Dr. Fritz Pendl, Sudetendeutsches Archiv, Muenchen, 1985.

23.   Ein Mythos zerbricht: Bene's. Sudetendeutsche Stiftung, Muenchen, 1991.

24.   The Sudeten Question, Brief Exposition and Documentation, Sudeten German Council,
Munich, 1984.

25.   Landskroner Not und Tod, Franz J.C. Gauglitz, Selbstverlag Heimatkreisbetreuer Franz
Gauglitz, 97353 Wiesentheid. 1997.

26.   Sudetendeutscher Atlas, Association for the Protection of the Sudeten German Interests,
Munich, 1954.

27.   Heimat Zwischen Oder und Mohra, Hausner Foundation, P.O. Box 322, Hinsdale, IL 60523.

28.   Hoelle im Zentrum von Ostrava - Hanke Lager, by PhDr. - Dr. Tomaes Stanek.

29. Miroeschau/Mirosov oestlich von Pilsen - ein tschechisches Todeslager nach dem Krieg,
herausgegeben Heimatkreis Mies-Pilsen e.V. in Dinkelsbuehl.

30. "Crimes and Mercies" by James Bacque, Institute for Historical Review.

31. "Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44" by
Thomas E. Mahl, Washington D.C.; Brassey's, 1998.

32.   Resolution No. 557, October 9, 1998, and Resolution No. 562, October 13, 1998, U.S. House
of Representatives.

33.   Peter Novick, "The Holocaust in American Life", Houghton Miffein Company, Boston -
New York, 1999.

34.   Patrick J. Buchanan, "A Republic Not an Empire", Regency Publishing, Inc., Washington
DC, 1999.

35.   Wolfgang Juchem, "Truth and Justice versus Lies and Hatred", Heimat Publishers,
Toronto, Canada, 1997.

36.   Malcolm Ross, "Christianity versus Judeo-Christianity", Stronghold Publishing Co., Ltd.,
Moncton N.B., Canada, 1997.

37.   James Bacque, "Other Losses", Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1999.

38.   Alfred M. de Zayas, "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau 1939-1945", University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1995.

39.   Alfred M. de Zayas, "A Terrible Revenge", St. Martin's Press, New York, 1994.

40.   Rudi Maskus, "Auch das geschah damals", Verlag R. Maskus, Giessen, 1999.

41. Rudi Maskus, "Die Vertreibung der Deutschen", Verlag R. Maskus, Giessen, 3rd Edition,
1999.

42.   John Sack, "An Eye for an Eye", Bsic Books, Inc. 1998.

43.   James E. Paulding, "Brothers in the Storm", Video Documentary about the Sudetenland,
Truman State University, Kirksville, MO, 2000.

Book Review by Richard M. Ebeling

The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, by Francois
Furet (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1999); 596 pages; $35.

Even now, though it is less than 10 years since the end of the Soviet Union, it is hard to
imagine that in the 20th century, millions of people believed in and dedicated their lives to the
triumph of communism. For those who accepted the Marxian promise of a better, more
beautiful future, there was only one shining light in the world: The Soviet Union, the first
experiment in socialism and the planned economy. In Soviet Russia, a new man and a new
society were being built.

Why did so many people turn their backs on the Western ideal of democratic, limited
government and a market economy based on private ownership of the means of production?
This is a central theme of French historian Francois Furet in his recently translated work, The
Passing of an Illusion, originally published in France in 1995. Furet died in 1997.

The emerging "bourgeois" civilization of the 19th century was hatred by both those who looked
bakcward to the precapitalist society of status and privilege and the radical utopians inspired by
the French Revolution. What both the European conservative "right" and the revolutionary
"left" detested in capitalist society were individualism, its cosmopolitanism, and its network of
voluntary market relationships.

The new, free society ended the bondage of traditional community in which the individual's
station in life determined by the accident of birth. Each individual was now at liberty, to a far
greater extent than in the past to find and make his own place in society. At the same time,
the principle of liberty made all men free citizens of the world, regardless of nationality,
religion or social background. And in the market economy, the leading indicator of success
and reward was the extent to which each best served his fellow men in the increasingly global
system of division of labor.

What both the "right" and the "left" wanted was a return to a collective sense of identity and
belonging, which would include shared values and common goals that would connect and direct
all the members of society. This higher conception of "community" made the "money nexus"
of the market economy appear as an alientating force that reduced men and their relationships
to some hollow and dehumanizing ledger book of expenditures and receipts.

Furet insightfully diagnoses, therefore, the rise of both communism and fascism out of the
disaster of World War I. Both forms of collectivism revolted against classical liberalism, the
market economy, and democratic government. Both called for a revolutionary transformation
of man and society. Both insisted that the individual had to be subservient to the state. Both
demanded a planned economy rather than the "anarchy" of the market. Both argued that
society's remaking needed political leadership to which the masses must be made to conform.
Both, therefore, called for dictatorship. Both offered people the illusion of recreating the world
on the basis of a transcendent understanding of the nature of things.

Both Mussolini and Lenin had been revolutionary socialists before the First World War. But in
the aftermath of the Great War what they offered as universalistic ideals became different.
Lenin, remaining loyal to his Marxian roots, insisted on the universal truth of international
class conflict. Mussolini hearing a different voice, declared the universal truth to be the
conflict among nations, with individuals of all classes within the nation bound together with a
common interest against competing nation states.

Furet argues that fascism's appeal to a sense of national identity has been found to be the
stronger attraction in our time. But communism has been the greater danger. Italian fascism
and German National Socialism could unify all Italians and Germans, but they could never
appeal to other nations or peoples whose place in a fascist or National Socialist world would be
subservience and enslavement to the superior nation or master race. Communism, on the
other hand, offered a community and equality of all men, regardless of nationality. Thus
communism's appeal was global and ecmenical in nature. It would appeal to the "oppressed" of
all nations.

The story that Furet tells about the period before the Second World War is partly one of how
the most sophisticated intellectuals in the 1930s were sometimes duped but most often were
self-deluded in believing that the Soviet Union was the land of the future and that Comrade
Stalin was the wisest, kindest, most caring leadedr of the world proletarian movement, to
whom all allegiance was owed.

Only the Soviet Union could lead the world out of poverty and chaos of capitalist degeneration.
Only the Soviet Union could serve as the rallying point around which an anti-fascist movement
might be formed to stop Hitler, that agent of the most violent and last stage of capitalist
development (as Soviet propaganda claimed).

The first earthquake to shake the foundation of support for the Soviet Union in the West,
Furet says, was the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, which resulted in the joint dsmembership of
Poland by the two totalitarian powers and enabled Hitler's armies to conquer western Europe.
But Comrade Stalin was once more placed on the pedestal of being the "best friend" of every
downtrodden people when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. As a result of the war,
Stalin and the U.S.S.R. shined brightly as the liberators of the victims of fascism.

And for most of the postwar period, until Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union maintained
its image of being revolutionary and progressive. Only in 1956, says Furet, did there occur the
second earthquake, from which he says the intellectual appeal of the Soviet Union never fully
recovered: Krushchev's "secret speech" in which he "revealed" and denounced the crimes of
Stalin" and his "cult of personality." The strong aftershock in 1956 came when the Soviets
brutally crushed the Hungarian revolution.

Who are the heroes in Furet's account of the rise and fall of communism as an idea and a
movement in the 20th century? They are basically those on the political left who resisted or
turned agains the Soviet form of socialism - those who believed in and defended democracy as
well as "social justice".

But the nature of the Soviet Union, the dangers from communism and fascism as totalitarian
systems, and the bankruptcy of socialist planning had been clearly explained by the classical
liberals of the period between the two world wars - political economists such as Ludwig von
Mises, Friedrich A . Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and William E. Rappard, and Western
correspondents such as William Henry Chamberlin, Eugene Lyons, and Malcolm Muggeridge,
who had reported from Moscow in the 1930s. But the political left had been deaf to them.

The most important and lasting arguments concerning both the danger from collectivism and
the possibilities for a free society were made by these classical liberals and others like them.
But Furet's failure to even mention them demonstrates how deaf many on the politidal left
remain, even after the end of the worker's paradise.

Professor Ebeling is the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College,
Hillsdale, Michigan, and serves s vice president of academic affairs for The Future of Freedom
Foundation.