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 fascinated 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.