Thursday, June 27, 2019
Finally, we need a reform in the area of art, literature and theater. The government must take care that its folk is not poisoned. There is a higher right, which is based on the realization, what harms a folk. And what harms a folk, must be eliminated.
Speech of April 27, 1923 in Munich
Whoever is chosen by Providence to reveal the soul of a folk of the present time, to make it resound in tones or to speak in stone, he suffers under the force of the almighty compulsion dominating him, he will speak its language, even if the present time does not understand him or does not want to understand him, he will rather accept any distress than to even just once be untrue to the star, which inwardly guides him.
Speech of September 1, 1933 in Nuremberg
It is not necessary to first discover the musically talented people as race, in order to entrust them with the care of music, rather music discovers the race, in which (people) it finds the ability.
Speech of September 3, 1933 in Nuremberg
One of these men. who embodies the best nature of our folk within himself, who has risen from national, German greatness to international significance, is Richard Wagner, the greatest man of this city (Leipzig), the most mighty master of the tones of our folk!
Speech of March 6, 1934 in Leipzig
When I for the first time stood before Wagner's grave, my heart swelled with pride!
Speech of March 27, 1924 in Munich
With the genuine oath to correspond to the wish and the will of the great master, to continue to nurture his immortal works in eternal, living beauty, in order to also drawn future generations of our folk into the miracle world of this mighty poet of tones, I set this cornerstone of the German National Monument for Richard Wagner as eternal witness and ongoing admonishment.
Speech of March 6, 1934 in Leipzig
Monday, June 24, 2019
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Did you ever wonder why the Jews are such great proponents of democracy? Whether in Indonesia or Pakistan or Serbia or you name it, whenever there is some threat to universal suffrage, the Jews are ready to send the U.S. armed forces in to bomb and kill until everyone is permitted to vote.
Why is that? Why can't the Indonesians have an Islamic theocracy if they want? Why can't the Pakistanis have a military dictatorship? Why can't the Serbs run their own country the way they prefer? What is the appeal in making sure that people whose minds have been wasted by Alzheimer's Disease vote? Well, let's not beat around the bush: the appeal of mass democracy lies in the fact that in essentially every country in the world today, the number of persons unable to think for themselves is substantially larger than the number able to make independent decisions. Those unable to think for themselves have their thinking done for them by the people who control the mass media. Which is to say, democracy is the preferred system because it gives the political power to those who own or control the mass media and at the same time allows them to remain behind the scenes and evade responsibility for the way in which they use that power. And the more inclusive the democracy is -- that is, the more Alzheimer's sufferers and Mongoloid cretins and paranoid schizophrenics and people who live in empty packing cases in alleyways and Jamaican immigrants and football fans are able to vote -- the more certain is the grip of the media masters on the political process.
Those voters who buy astrology magazines at the checkout stand and spend their time watching soap operas, game shows, and Oprah absorb their general attitudes on things through the television screen. They learn which ideas are fashionable and which are not by noticing the facial expression and tone of voice of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather when the news is announced each day. Their opinions on specific issues are formed as they view televised sidewalk surveys taken by reporters. The only uncertainty about these people is whether or not they'll be able to pry themselves loose from their couches long enough to vote for the designated candidates. That's why it's important to have lots of them.
And wherever there are lots of them, the men who control the mass media also will control the outcome of elections. It's a much surer way of controlling governments than bribing corrupt dictators or slipping seductive whores into the king's bedroom a la Esther and Ahasuerus -- or Monica and Bill.
Believe me, one day soon the Jews on both sides of the great water will institute a web-TV voting system that allows the couch potatoes and the ball game fans to vote without having to get up from their couches, just by clicking their remote controls at their TV screens to select the next President or prime minister. That will be real democracy.
You know, back close to the beginning of this century, around 1901 or so, a book first was published containing the text of what became generally known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The publisher was a Russian academic, Professor Sergei Nilus. Nilus himself allegedly had obtained The Protocols from a Russian official, who had obtained the text from a patriotic Russian noblewoman, who in turn had purchased the material from a Jew in Paris about 15 years earlier.
The Protocols purports to be a collection of minutes or reports of meetings held by the leaders of the world Jewish community, at which they summarize the progress they had made to that time in their quest for world subversion, world ownership, and world power and outline their plans for continuing the process in the future. They talk about gaining control of the banking systems of various countries, about fomenting wars and revolutions to weaken and destroy Gentile power, about corrupting music and art and education, about subverting various Gentile institutions, about taking over the press everywhere and controlling the flow of information to the masses, about undermining the family and bringing family values into disrepute, and so on. The Elders of Zion really are a satanic bunch of schemers. Reading The Protocols makes one's flesh crawl.
We should remember that when The Protocols began circulating in Russia in the first decade of this century, that country had not yet fallen victim to Jewish Bolshevism, but that wasn't for lack of trying on the part of the Jews. The Jews were generally recognized as a dangerously subversive element in Russia, as the schemers and string pullers behind every attempt to damage or upset the established order in Russia, and so Professor Nilus' publication of The Protocols found a ready market among the Russian public. After the Jewish Bolshevik revolution of 1917 overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship in Russia, anyone found with a copy of The Protocols was liable to be summarily shot. The text already had been translated into a dozen other languages and distributed far and wide outside Russia, however.
Since then it has been published in virtually every language which has a printed form and has been read by tens of millions of people around the world.
The Jews have been claiming hysterically since The Protocols first appeared that the text is "a forgery." I guess that's their way of saying that it's not what it purports to be: namely, the actual minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders discussing their plans for world domination. The great American industrialist and automaker Henry Ford was very strongly impressed by The Protocols and helped circulate the text in the United States. When told by newspaper reporters in 1921 about the Jews' claims that The Protocols was "a forgery," Mr. Ford responded that all he could say about the material was that it fit what was actually happening in the world and had been happening ever since the The Protocols first appeared in print.
Of course, what Mr. Ford had especially in mind when he made that remark were two momentous things which had happened during the previous decade. One was the Jews' success in taking over Russia and imposing communism on the Russians, and the other was the recently ended First World War: a horribly fratricidal and senseless war, which had destroyed the old order in Europe, had spilled the blood of millions of the best Europeans, and had weakened all of Europe's long-established institutions, leaving every European country open to all manner of social, political, and cultural ills -- in particular, to the further spread of communism.
Well, Henry Ford was a very hard-headed, practical sort of man, and it's easy to understand his attitude. He had no way of knowing whether or not The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was actually what it purported to be, but he was quite impressed by the fact that the plan for world subversion and domination by the Jews outlined in the book seemed to be happening pretty much as described.
I'll go a step further than Henry Ford was willing to go in assessing The Protocols. I think that they very likely are not what they purport to be. In the first place the text of The Protocols doesn't ring true. It's too straightforward, too open. It doesn't use the sort of deceptive, weasel worded, self-justifying language that Jews customarily use in expressing themselves, even to one another. When a group of Jewish leaders get together to discuss their plans for the destruction of a host nation, they don't use straightforward expressions such as "encouraging miscegenation" and "leading the goyim to the slaughter." They use weasel-expressions, such as "building tolerance," "increasing diversity," and "eliminating inequality." In the second place, it's difficult for me to imagine the head Jews laying out such a complete, self-contained, and pat explanation of what they're up to. It's just too convenient for those of us who aim at alerting our people as to what the Jews' intentions are and then putting a monkey wrench in their gears.
I wouldn't call The Protocols "a forgery," as the Jews do whenever the book is mentioned. I'm inclined to believe Professor Nilus was an astute observer of the Jews and also was a patriot. He wanted to warn the Russian people of what the Jews were planning to do to them, and so he imagined how the Jews' plan might look if it were all laid out in straightforward language. I believe that he wrote the text he published, but that he believed it was a reasonably accurate description of what the Jews actually were doing. And the reason that The Protocols ended up being translated into hundreds of languages and read by millions of people is that many people, like Henry Ford, saw that they fitted what was happening.
Sometimes I have tried to imagine what Professor Nilus might have written if he were writing today instead of a century ago -- and if he were writing still in the straightforward sort of language he used earlier. A 1999 version of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion might read something like this: Greetings, my fellow Elders of Zion! Today I am happy to report to you that our plan for the destruction of the hated Gentiles and the acquisition of their remaining wealth is practically complete. There remain only a few loose ends to tie up, and then the struggle in which we have been engaged for thousands of years against the filthy goyim against the Nations, against all the non-Jewish peoples of the world, finally will be victorious, and we will be able to devour everything they have created, as Yahweh, the god of our tribe, has commanded us.
Everywhere we already rule behind the scenes, with puppets completely under our control in the offices of power. In Russia, where they resisted us for so long -- where the ordinary people always hated us as exploiters, as moneylenders and tax collectors and purveyors of alcohol and merchants in the sweet, white flesh of their daughters and sisters, and where the aristocrats also hated us, as subversives and troublemakers, and kept us confined to only certain areas of the country, so that we could not exploit all of the people -- in Russia we used the doctrine of our dear, departed Elder of Zion, Karl Marx, to divide the Russian people against themselves and get the power into our own hands, where it remains to this day. We butchered their Czar and his whole family like the Gentile cattle they were. With the help of the common people we slaughtered all of the Russian aristocrats and took their wealth.
And then we turned on the common people. First we murdered their leaders -- their writers and teachers and intellectuals and military officers -- so that there would be no one able to turn them against us, and then we began murdering the common people themselves, the farmers and workers, first by the millions and then by the tens of millions in labor camps and death camps all across Russia. And most of them never did understand what was happening to them. One of them, who had been studying to become a Christian priest, we corrupted and made into our ally.
His name was Stalin. Later, like the pharaoh who knew not Joseph, Stalin tried to turn against us, but one of our women was his doctor, and we poisoned him before he could harm us.
When the system based on the theory of our departed Elder Marx had bled the Russian people dry, we launched a "privatization" scheme, which put most of the remaining wealth which had belonged to the government directly into our hands. Their gas and oil, their forests and their lumber industry, their mines and factories -- and especially their television broadcasting facilities -- are now owned by us acting as capitalists. Today we have a drunken, sick, old Russian clown, Boris Yeltsin, as the nominal leader of the Russians, but one of our people, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, tells him what to do and keeps him under tight control through bribes.
In England, the country from which all of us were expelled by the king as exploiters and troublemakers just over 700 years ago, we now have another puppet, Tony Blair, in place as the nominal leader of the English, but like Yeltsin he is completely under our control. One of our people, Michael Levy, finances his election campaigns and controls his purse strings. Another of our people, Jack Straw, controls his domestic policies.
America, however, is the prize example of our success. Just as in England and in Russia, also in America we have been able to put a totally corrupt Gentile politician into the position of nominal power and then to surround him with our own people, who wield the real power. Actually running the American government, our people are in charge of America's State Department, America's Defense Department, America's Federal Reserve System, and America's Treasury Department. When one of our people, Robert Rubin, retired recently as secretary of the treasury, we simply moved another of our people, Lawrence Summers, into that position. Clinton appoints to every high office in the American government, whether the Supreme Court or his own cabinet, only those people we suggest to him, and the totally corrupt politicians of the Senate dare not disapprove anyone we suggest, lest we label them as "anti-Semites." We have gained nearly complete control of America's educational system, from kindergarten through the universities. No ideas or facts may be taught unless we have given them the stamp of Political Correctness. We have made it impossible for anyone in an American university to contradict anything we have claimed, no matter how preposterous, about what happened to us during the Second World War. We now have the American government, just like every government in Europe, paying us "reparations," because not enough was done for us during the war.
We have succeeded in corrupting and then dominating America's art and music and literature.
We have made degeneracy the touchstone for American culture. We own the art galleries and set the standards for painting and sculpture. We have the Americans lining up and paying admission to see a "work of art" which consists of animal dung smeared onto a crude painting of a Negress, which we tell them is their Virgin Mary. They read the depraved and trashy novels we tell them to read and believe that these novels are "literature." Their children listen to Negroid rhythms and chant Negroid "rap" ditties, because we control the popular music industry.
Through the immigration policy we have imposed on America we are increasing the percentage of non-White minorities in every part of the country. Within the next few years we will succeed in making White Americans a minority in their own country.
Our success in America has been due to two things: our control of the mass media of news and entertainment, through which we control the ideas and attitudes of the masses; and the system of mass democracy, which ensures that the votes of the masses under our control determine which figurehead politicians actually make up the American government. Since the last part of the 19th century we have been gathering the power of the mass media into our hands. In those days many of us were only rag-pickers and dealers in used merchandise, recently off the boat from Russia or Poland, but whenever a Gentile newspaper got itself into financial difficulties, we were ready instantly to pool our resources and buy it out, so that henceforth it could be in the hands of one of our people.
In the 1920s, when radio was becoming a powerful medium of persuasion, we began buying broadcasting stations and putting together networks. At the same time we saw the potential for motion pictures and began moving into Hollywood. By working together with each other we were able to bankrupt or buy out every Gentile film producer except Walt Disney. We had to wait until he died to take control of his film company, but by then we already dominated the entire motion picture industry.
After the Second World War, when television became the most powerful medium of mass persuasion, we were ready to move in and dominate the TV industry from the beginning. Today no motion picture can be made and no television program can be broadcast in America without our approval. Only a few independent commercial radio stations, a few shortwave radio stations, and a handful of book and magazine publishers remain free of our control. But the American masses, for the most part, never see or hear anything we have not approved. They do not understand shortwave, and they are afraid to read any publication we have not approved, for fear that it might be "hate" material.
There is, of course, that pesky Internet, which is not yet under our control, but we are moving rapidly to deal with that matter. We expect soon to have our puppet politicians enact "hate speech" legislation in America, similar to that which we already have succeeded in having enforced in Europe, so that no one can say anything on the Internet that has not been approved by us. The couch potatoes will not object, because we will tell them that the new laws will make them safe from terrorism. By that time we also should have achieved our goal for the disarmament of the American population. And then, my fellow Elders of Zion, we can do to the American people what we did to the Russian people. With our power of television, we will have them voting for their own slaughter.
Long live our mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the power of triumphant Zion!
Monday, June 17, 2019
By Daniel W. Michaels
Ronald Radosh, Mary R. Habeck, Grigory Sevostianov (eds.), Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War, Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2001, 576 pp.
Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism, Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2004, 400 pp.
The received legend about the Spanish Civil War tells the story about an embattled democratic republic crushed by reactionary forces at home and the intervention of Fascist forces from Germany and Italy. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of many of its State records, several important revisionist works have appeared in Spanish, French and English that reveal for the first time the full extent of Communist influence and ultimate control of the Spanish Republic. The Yale University series “Annals of Communism” continues to lead the field in revealing the true nature and aspirations of international communism in the 20th Century. The findings of the university’s researchers today differ sharply from the image of the Soviet Union and its activities presented to the American public during the Roosevelt Administration.
Two new works from Yale have now corrected many generally held misconceptions about what actually transpired in Spain in the 1930s. The first book, Spain Betrayed, is a collection of 81 previously unpublished documents from the Russian Military Archives – reports from Soviet agents and advisers in the field during the civil war. Each document is accompanied by a commentary by one of the editors. Two of the more interesting of these documents are report (Doc. 60) by General Emilio Kleber (aka Manfred Stern) and that by Georgy Dimitrov, Bulgarian Communist leader, excerpts of which are given below.
The second book upon which this review is based, is The Spanish Civil War, by Stanley G. Payne. In it the author synthesizes, updates, and draws further conclusions both from the materials obtained from the Russian Federation, as well as from other previously overlooked sources, including Alien Wars: The Soviet Union’s Aggressions against the World, the Spanish volume Queridos camaradas, and the French source The Passing of an Illusion, the Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century.
On the basis of the above-listed references, the Spanish Civil War is best described today as having been a revolutionary-counterrevolutionary civil war. It was revolutionary in the sense that the Spanish government – the Republic, which was loosely composed of social democrats, Bolsheviks, anarchists, anarchosyndicalists, Trotskyites, and other left-wing factions, was gradually taken over and run by Stalinist Bolsheviks under direct orders from Moscow. It was counterrevolutionary in that the conservatives, landowners, the Army, the Church, and the Falangists rallied their forces to successfully retake the government from the Stalinists. Anarchy, bickering, and political assassinations had characterized the Republic in the decade before the actual civil war broke out. In fact, Spain was the only country in the world with a mass movement of anarchists – the disciples of Bakunin. The main weapon used by the left during this period was the general strike; the weapon favored by the right was the pronunciamento– tantamount to mobilization – declared by the military establishment. Moderation and compromise seemed not to be a part of Spanish nature in those turbulent days. The actual civil war on the battlefield broke out in July 1936 and did not end until April 1939 after some 500,000 people had died in battle or by other means and another 400,000 were forced into exile.
The first general election of the Second Republic (there were three, each successive one more Bolshevized than the one that preceded it), gave a majority to a broad coalition of the Republican Left – a middle-class radical party led by Manuel Azaña. In September 1936 Largo Caballero, called the Spanish Lenin, became prime minister of the wartime government, but by May 1937 was removed from office by the Communists who installed Juan Negrín, nominally a Socialist but actually a Stalinist stooge. Moreover, Negrín was known to be married to a Russian woman. On the Nationalist side, Franco, generally called el caudillo (the leader), assumed leadership. Franco had a reputation as a highly professional combat soldier. Commissioned in the army at the age of eighteen, he had volunteered for service in Morocco, where he distinguished himself in battle and won the respect of his subordinates. At the age of thirty-nine, he had become the youngest general in Europe since Napoleon Bonaparte. Perhaps the closest political analog to Franco would be the estimable Antonio Salazar who governed (1932-1968) Portugal concurrently with the Spanish ruler.
General Franco had propagandistically been presented to the English-speaking world as a fascist. In fact, Franco, was a conservative Catholic who rejected the Falangists (a movement founded by José Antonio Primo de Rivera and his father Miguel) and put limits on their power. Franco’s authoritarian rule, called Franquismo, was totally free of the anti-Semitism and racialism that usually accompanied typical fascist movements. Ironically, it was the Republic practiced the only racism displayed in the Spanish War. Posters and pamphlets issued by the Republic depicted Franco’s Moorish troops as “thick-lipped, hideously grinning, powerful turbaned figures attacking defenseless white women and bayoneting white children,” and worse.
Some observers still consider the Spanish Civil War to have been the first battle of World War II. Rather it seems now, with these new studies, to have been yet another incident of revolutionary-counterrevolutionary civil war in the post-WWI and inter-war period instigated by Communist attempts to subvert and overthrow the legitimate governments of Europe. The civil war in Russia, in which the revolutionaries emerged victorious, was the prime example and the only such civil war in which the revolutionaries prevailed. Similar revolutionary attempts were made in Finland, Bavaria, and Hungary, but were thwarted by counterrevolutionary patriots in each of those countries. Moreover, further factors that separate the Spanish experience from World War II were that during the Spanish Civil War, Great Britain and France both maintained non-interventionist foreign policies, while the United States was still in a state of shock having fallen from the frenzied heights of the “Flapper Age” to the depths of the Great Depression. Also, Spain remained neutral during World War II. And, finally, the weaponry and tactics used in the Spanish Civil War more resembled those of WWI than those of WWII. The Second World War only began when Britain and France – in the firm expectation that the US and the USSR would soon join them – declared war on Germany over a border dispute in Eastern Europe resulting from the terms of the Versailles Treaty.
Five days after the fighting began, Georgy Dimitrov, secretary of the Comintern, spelt out the basic Comintern and Soviet policy in the Spanish Civil War:
“We should not, at the present stage, assign the task of creating Soviets and try to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in Spain. That would be a fatal mistake. Therefore we must say: act in the guise of defending the Republic. When our positions have been strengthened, then we can go further. […] The war cannot end successfully if the Communist Party does not take power in its own hands.”
Part of the tragedy of the Spanish Civil War, of course, was the fact that many honorable and decent men in the Republic’s government – socialists, liberals, and the like – were gradually swallowed up by the extreme Communist left. For example, the Spanish Socialist Minister of the Navy and Air Force, Indalecio Prieto (Doc. 45), described a Communist as, “not a human being – he’s a party; he’s a line, a person with an unseen committee behind his back.” About the only glue holding the left together was their common anti-fascism, and even that was specious. The Republic was not only at war with the Nationalists, it was at war with itself.
To add to the general chaos, concurrently as Stalin and the USSR was aiding the Republic, the Soviet tyrant and his Bolsheviks was plotting and warring against the Trotskyites and other political enemies at home and in Spain, where they were still quite influential.
Because Spain in the 1930s was a very poor and troubled country whose limited resources were sorely depleted by a succession of Moorish Wars and The Great Depression, both warring parties invited and welcomed foreign intervention. Although Spain remained neutral in both world wars, the Spanish Army was constantly engaged from 1909-1926 against Abd al Krim’s Riff Berbers in Morocco. The Soviet Union came to the aid of the Republic while Italy and Germany responded by helping the counterrevolution. As in Europe generally after World War I, Fascist parties promoting extreme nationalism were formed as a reaction to Communist takeovers or to thwart attempted Communist takeovers. With regard to Spain, the USSR was the only foreign power to intervene politically in Spain before the Civil War. Historian Payne states explicitly: “The USSR was the only power that had been intervening systematically in Spanish affairs before the beginning of the Civil War, operating its own political party within the country and at long last achieving some success.”
The first official Marxist Party in Spain was the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) established in 1879; the [Stalinist] Communist Party of Spain (PCE) was formed in 1920 by amalgamating several of the smaller left-wing parties. An anti-Stalinist Trotskyite Workers Unification Party (POUM) was hastily assembled in 1935. As early as January 1919, with Lenin still alive and ruling, the first Comintern agent, Mikhail Borodin (aka Mikhail Gruzenberg), arrived in Madrid accompanied by his assistant Jesús Ramírez (aka Charles Phillips, an American socialist) to organize the many splintered left-wing groups.
Under Stalin, Soviet personnel assigned to Spain were chosen with care, although many of them could not rightly not yet be called Stalinists. The Great Terror and purge of Trotskyites was just getting underway in the mid-1930s and would be reflected in the fate of some of Stalin’s appointments in Spain. (Those that were not able to defect to the West were executed when they returned to the USSR). Stalin appointed Marcel Rosenberg, who had been a delegate to the League of Nations, as ambassador to Spain. General Jan Berzin (aka Peteris Kjusis) headed the military staff dispatched to Spain. Berzin, who was the head of the GRU from 1924 to 1938, Soviet Military Intelligence, arrived in Madrid in 1936 and became commander of Soviet Forces in the Spanish Civil War. Major General Walter Krivitsky (aka Samuel Ginzberg) as NKVD rezident in the Netherlands was responsible for Soviet military intelligence throughout Europe.
Aleksandr Orlov (aka Leiba Feldbin) filled the most important post of NKVD intelligence chief and security control. As NKVD rezident in Spain, Orlov was charged with both intelligence collection and counterintelligence. Orlov established the Servicio de Investigación Militar in which he trained agents for the Soviet Union. The American spy Morris Cohen was one of his students.
Stalin, who always prized the importance of writers and filmmakers in shaping public opinion (he called them ‘engineers of the mind’), assigned his personal friend, Mikhail Koltsov, as the Pravda correspondent in Spain. Ilya Ehrenburg, another agitprop star, moved between Paris and Madrid. Much of the propaganda coverage issued from Moscow was picked up and echoed by Western journalists who either sympathized with the Communists or were blind to what was going on. Thus, the propaganda, echoed and reechoed in the world press, soon became the myths and legends of today. And were it not for a small group of revisionist scholars, the myths and legends would have become history.
The American media and “intellectuals,” with few exceptions, were openly sympathetic to the Republic, and succeeded in misleading many Americans into sharing their sympathies. They were and remain heartbroken when the Communist revolution in Spain was squelched. To this day, General Francisco Franco receives only negative commentary in America. Famous journalists like Walter Duranty (N.Y. Times, Herbert Matthews (N.Y. Times), and Louis Fischer (The Nation), who were better propagandists than journalists, were very influential in disarming American opinion about the threat of Communism. In literature and the motion picture industry, the reality is, Payne notes, that if the Louis Jordan of Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls had ever existed, he would have been working for the NKVD. “Mountains of mendacity,” was Paul Johnson’s phrase describing the pro-Soviet lies that circulated about the Spanish Civil War. “No episode in the 1930s has been more lied about than this one.” Fortunately, better minds in the U.S. Defense Department recognized the true value of Spain and Franco to the defense of the West and hastened to include Spain in NATO in the 1950s.
Much has been written about the International Brigades, totaling about 40,000 men recruited by the Communist Parties in the West. In the early 1930’s Stalin had not yet removed Trotskyites and other undesirables from his government. The Comintern was still very active and Stalin, under its influence, supported the Popular Front movement in Europe and the Americas. Communist Parties were asked to recruit volunteers to support the Republic and demonstrate Communist solidarity. General Emilio Kleber, a Soviet Commissar, acted as liaison between the Spanish Minister of Defense and the French Communist Andre Marty, who was in charge of recruiting the International Brigades in Albacete.
In the United States, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was at first made quite popular in the press as aiding the Republic. Some of its members, after having experienced reality in Spain, returned home disillusioned and later honestly reported what was actually happening. One such was the novelist William Herrick, who wrote quite frankly: “Yes, we went to Spain to fight Fascism, but democracy was not our aim.” During the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade further disgraced themselves by following Communist Party orders to oppose United States’ entry into the war. When Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the Brigade again raised the Red Banner. Shortly after WWII, the Lincoln Brigade was put on the U.S. Attorney General’s list of subversive organizations. From Britain the renowned George Orwell and other notables learned about Communism the hard way in Spain.
What lessons did the major interventionist powers draw from the Spanish Civil War? Surprisingly, the authors tell us, the Soviet Union devoted an extraordinary amount of time in reviewing the lessons learned there with respect to weaponry, tactics, and strategy, assuming the Spanish experience would be the model for future revolutionary wars. The Soviet Ministry of Defense published numerous books, training manuals, and articles for the Red Army on their experience. On the other hand, the German command concluded that the Spanish conflict was a special kind of war from which it would be a mistake to draw any major new conclusions or lessons. In the reviewer’s opinion, it would be wrong to conclude that the USSR placed that much importance on the Spanish experience. Perhaps, the Trotskyites did consider Spain important, expecting similar revolutions in other Western countries, but Stalin and the Soviet Armed Forces under Marshal Zhukov were already employing large-scale, deep penetration and encirclement tactics, such as would be used in WWII, in the late 1930s in Manchuria against the Japanese.
The Spanish Civil War, historian Payne asserts in conclusion, was fought between extreme rightist and leftist forces, neither of which wanted to create a modern liberal state. “The left lost the military struggle but more often than not won the propaganda war.” Through the successful propaganda war in which for many decades the Republic was depicted as representing democratic government, Communists and Soviet intelligence agents were able to operate almost without suspicion, especially in Britain and the United States.
The veteran Stalinist NKVD official Pavel Sudoplatov explained:
“Stalin in the Soviet Union and Trotsky in exile each hoped to be the savior and the sponsor of the Republicans and thereby the vanguard for the world Communist revolution. We sent our young inexperienced intelligence operatives as well as our experienced instructors. Spain proved to be a kindergarten for our future intelligence operations. Our subsequent initiatives all stemmed from contacts that we made and lessons that we learned in Spain. The Spanish Republic lost, but Stalin’s men and women won.”
Author Payne confirms this assessment:
“The Soviet institution that most benefited from involvement in the Spanish war was the NKVD, which used the war for deep penetration into the military and the political structures of the Republic. They created cells, which they planned to expand significantly in order to increase secret operations in other European countries and the United States.”
By way of providing a consensus of opinions based on a close review of all these recent investigations and access to Soviet sources, historian Payne lists some of the main conclusions of individual researchers:
The Soviet documents, Spanish historians, and Payne all agree that Stalin – proceeding in his usual cautious manner – intended by his intervention in Spain to convert that tortured nation into the first Western “Peoples Republic,” a forerunner of the Peoples Republics he later established in Eastern Europe. At times Western analysts have mistaken Stalin’s innate cautiousness for a change in Soviet policy. In reality, he rarely deviated from his ultimate intention even if it meant, “One step backwards, two steps forward.”
The editors of Spain Betrayed (Radosh, Habeck, and Sevostianov) conclude:
“As some historians have long suspected, the documents prove that advisers from Moscow were indeed attempting to ‘Sovietize’ Spain and turn it into what would have been one of the first ‘Peoples Republics,’ with a Stalinist-style economy, army, and political structure.”
Antonio Elorza and Marta Bizcarrondo, ending their careful study of Comintern policy, write, “the process is well-known and was clearly outlined in the Spain of 1937. Thus, without complete institutional similarity, it can be said that the policy of the Comintern in Spain pointed, without doubt, to the model of the ‘Peoples Democracy’.”
François Furet writes of the Spanish Civil War:
“I do not consider it accurate to write, as Hugh Thomas does, that after the anarchist defeat of May 1937 and the formation of the Negrín government, “two-counterrevolutions “ faced each other: that of Franco and that led by the Spanish Communist Party, in the shadow of the new prime minister. This definition suits Franco, but not the other side. It is true that the Communists suffocated a revolution in Barcelona, but only to substitute one of their own. They suffocated the popular revolution, annihilated the POUM, subjugated Catalan separatism, regimented anarchism, split the left and right of the Socialist Party – that is, Caballero and Prieto, respectively, obliged Azaña and Negrín to follow them. But with that the Spanish Republic had lost its spark. […] What was being tested in Spain was the political technique of ‘Peoples Democracy’, as it would be practiced in Central and Eastern Europe after 1945.”
Stalin’s favorite Spanish Communist, Dolores Ibárruri (aka La Pasionaria) wrote in her autobiography years later that in the Republican zone:
“The democratic, bourgeois Republic was transformed into a Peoples Republic, the first in the history of contemporary democratic revolutions.”
Senior Russian Army officers and military historians, Sarin and Dvoretsky, conclude:
“Judging from numerous papers that we have examined, Stalin began to see the Spanish government as some kind of branch of the Soviet government obedient to dictates from Moscow. […] In this unnecessary war, many hundred of young Soviet men suffered and died for no good purpose. Stalin and his team pursued an unrealistic goal: to turn Spain into a Communist country beholden to the Soviet Union as the first step to creating Communist governments in other countries of the western world.”
The Communist Party explained its defeat in Spain in terms of standard Stalinist shturmovshchina (policy of correcting mistakes made in planning and organization based on the belief that Stalinist Communism was infallible and any failure in policy had to be the result of human error or treachery), namely, that the PCE had been defeated by its own errors and failing to act with sufficient audacity. Among the many Stalin had executed for their failure were Ambassador Rosenberg, the Russian Military Attaché, Gorev, General Berzin, General Kleber, and countless unknown others considered “enemies of the [Stalinist] State.”
Other factors were considered to explain the Soviet intervention. Geopolitically speaking, a Communist victory in Spain would have militarily outflanked Germany and seriously weaken its position in Europe. Diplomatically, Stalin patiently renewed his attempts to enlist Britain and France in a triple alliance against Germany. Apparently, Britain at that time was not yet ready to conclude such an alliance, so Stalin entered into the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact which provided an additional two years for Stalin to put all his chips in order.
The Yale University “Annals of Communism” series with its Russian-American collaboration has provided the best insight into actual Communist plans and intrigues in the 20th Century. In the case of Spain, it appears that Germany and Italy were quite right to have intervened and upset Stalin’s plans.
 Radosh was a former Communist whose uncle fought on the side of the Republic; Habeck is an assistant professor of history and coordinator of the Russian Military Archive Project at Yale; Sevostianov is senior researcher at the Institute of Universal History in Moscow.
 Payne is Hilldale-Jaume Vicens Vives Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of fourteen books, mostly on aspects of Spanish history.
 O. L. Sarin and L. S. Dvoretsky. Alien Wars: the Soviet Union’s Aggressions against the World. Presidio, Novato, California, 244 pp.
 Antonio Elorza and Marta Bizcarrondo. Queridos camaradas: la Internacional Comunista y España, 1919-1939, Planeta, Barcelona, Spain, 1999, 532 pp.
 François Furet. The Passing of an Illusion: the Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999, 596 pp.
 Roger Griffin. Fascism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1995, p. 186.
Friday, June 14, 2019
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
By John Wear
In 1999 Albert Einstein was named Time Magazine’s person of the 20th century. This article will discuss whether Einstein deserved this award.
Albert Einstein is regarded by many people as the greatest physicist of the 20th century. His unique contributions are said to have revolutionized physics.
However, many physicists dispute the revolutionary nature of Einstein’s discoveries. Physicist Frank J. Tipler writes:
Most physicists now recognize that Einstein’s theory of relativity is not a revolutionary theory at all but a completion of classical physics. Einstein's most subtle biographer, Abraham Pais, has conceded this, but also maintained that Einstein's invention of quantum mechanics, in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, was still revolutionary.
I disagree. Einstein’s invention of quantum mechanics was, once again, a conservative innovation – conservative in the traditional sense of preserving the classical structure of Newtonian physics.”
Christopher Jon Bjerknes accuses Einstein of plagiarism. Bjerknes writes:
Many people knew that Einstein did not hold priority for much of what he wrote. He, himself, was keenly aware of it. It is not uncommon for grandiose myths to accrue to overly idealized popular figures, such as Albert Einstein. Theoretical Physics, as a field, was small, and not well known in the period from 1905-1919. Theoretical physicists were not well known, and, since those in the field knew that Einstein was a plagiarist, they largely ignored him…
Einstein evinced a career-long pattern of publishing “novel” theories and formulae after others had already published similar words, then claimed priority for himself. He did it with E = mc². He did it with the so-called special theory of relativity and he did it with the general theory of relativity.
While I don’t understand physics well enough to know if Bjerknes’s analysis is accurate, it is certain that many physicists had little regard for Einstein in his later years. Robert Oppenheimer, for example, visited the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in January 1935. In a letter to his brother Frank, Oppenheimer conveyed his reaction to the occupants of Fine Hall at Princeton: “Princeton is a madhouse: its solipsistic luminaries shining in separate & helpless desolation. Einstein is completely cuckoo…”
Oppenheimer also said in private that Einstein had no understanding of or interest in modern physics, and that Einstein had been wasting his time trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism.
Physicist Freeman Dyson was a colleague of Einstein’s from 1948 to 1955 at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Dyson had a strong desire to meet and know Einstein when he arrived at the Institute. However, after reading Einstein’s recent scientific papers, Dyson decided they were junk. Dyson spent the next seven years avoiding Einstein so that he would not have to tell Einstein his work was junk.
Physicist David Bodanis writes about Einstein’s later years: “Einstein’s peers regarded him as a has-been. Even many of his closest friends no longer took his ideas seriously.
Einstein Supported Zionism
In an article published in the November 26, 1938 edition of Collier’s magazine, Albert Einstein explained how the social creed and morality inbred in most Jews, which he attempted to live by, was part of a long and proud tradition. Einstein wrote: “The bond that has united the Jews for thousands of years and that unites them today is, above all, the democratic ideal of social justice coupled with the ideal of mutual aid and tolerance among all men.” Einstein later wrote that Karl Marx lived and sacrificed himself for the ideal of social justice.
Einstein wrote about the Jewish tradition: “The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, an almost fanatical love of justice, and the desire for personal independence – these are the features of the Jewish tradition which make me thank my stars that I belong to it.”
Einstein came to embrace the cause of Zionism. He wrote to a friend in October 1919: “One can be an internationalist without being indifferent to members of one’s tribe. The Zionist cause is very close to my heart…I am glad that there should be a little patch of earth on which our kindred brethren are not considered aliens.” Einstein further declared: “I am, as a human being, an opponent of nationalism. But as a Jew, I am from today a supporter of the Zionist effort.”
Einstein worked hard to promote Zionism and to establish the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He wrote to German/Jewish chemist Fritz Haber:
Despite my emphatic internationalist beliefs, I have always felt an obligation to stand up for my persecuted and morally oppressed tribal companions. The prospect of establishing a Jewish university fills me with particular joy, having recently seen countless instances of perfidious and uncharitable treatment of splendid young Jews with attempts to deny their chances of education.
Einstein traveled to America, Singapore and other places to help secure funding for Hebrew University.
Einstein was an enthusiastic supporter of Israel. He wrote after Israel was founded:
In this hour one thing, above all, must be emphasized: Judaism owes a great debt of gratitude to Zionism. The Zionist movement has revived among Jews the sense of community. It has performed productive work surpassing all the expectations any one could entertain. This productive work in Palestine, to which self-sacrificing Jews throughout the world have contributed, has saved a large number of our brethren from direct need. In particular, it has been possible to lead a not inconsiderable part of our youth toward a life of joyous and creative work.
Now the fateful disease of our time – exaggerated nationalism, borne up by blind hatred – has brought our work to a most difficult stage. Fields cultivated by day must have armed protection at night against fanatical Arab outlaws. All economic life suffers from insecurity.
Einstein ignored in this writing that Israel was formed through the ethnic cleaning of approximately 750,000 Palestinians who were ruthlessly expelled from their homes. Entire cities and hundreds of villages in Israel were left empty and repopulated with new Jewish immigrants. The Palestinians lost everything they had and became destitute refugees, while the Jewish immigrants stole the Palestinians’ property and confiscated everything they needed. This is why the “fanatical Arab outlaws” Einstein referred to arose to counteract these illegal Zionist actions.
Einstein also praised the great and lasting contributions of Rabbi Stephen Wise to the cause of Zionism. Einstein wrote about Wise: “There are those who do not love him, but there is no one who has ever denied him recognition and respect, for everybody knows that behind the enormous labors of this man there has always been the passionate desire to make mankind better and happier.”
Einstein was even invited by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion on November 16, 1952 to become President of Israel if elected by the Parliament. Einstein turned down this offer because the Presidential office required an understanding of human relations – something Einstein felt he was deficient in. Einstein wanted to deal only with science and nature.
Einstein Hated Germans
Albert Einstein hated the German people. Einstein wrote to an old Jewish friend in the summer of 1942: “Due to their wretched traditions the Germans are such a badly messed-up people that it will be very difficult to remedy the situation by sensible, not to speak of humane, means. I keep hoping that at the end of the war, with God’s benevolent help, they will largely kill each other off.”
In a tribute “To the Heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto,” Einstein wrote in 1944 that the Germans “deliberately used the humanity of others to make preparation for their last and most grievous crime against humanity.” Einstein held the German people responsible for electing Adolf Hitler and acquiescing in what Einstein felt was Hitler’s unutterable crimes. He could not find forgiveness in his heart for such “calculated moral degradation.”
Einstein believed in the official Holocaust story, and his hatred of Germans continued after the war. Jamie Sayen writes:
Personally, he could not bring himself to forgive the Germans for the crimes of the Nazis and he rejected all reconciliatory efforts. In 1951 President Theodor Heuss of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) invited Einstein to join the Peace Section of the old Prussian order Pour le mérite. Einstein had been a member prior to 1933 but, in accordance with his postwar refusal to be associated publicly with any German organization he declined Heuss’s invitation. “Because of the mass murder which the Germans inflicted upon the Jewish people,” he explained, “it is evident that a self-respecting Jew could not possibly wish to be associated in any way with any official German institution.”
Einstein was convinced that militarism was so deeply ingrained in the spirit of the German people that world peace was not possible while Germany possessed an army. He thought the Germans could not learn through experience because they always managed to rationalize their failures with irrational explanations. Einstein warned a woman about Germans after the war: “You will find them affable, intelligent, and they will seem to agree with you, but you must not believe a one of them.”
Einstein supported the Morgenthau Plan and wanted to see Germany transformed from an industrial nation into an agricultural country. He wrote to his Jewish friend James Franck: “I am firmly convinced that it is absolutely indispensable to prevent the restoration of German industrial power for many years…I firmly object to any attempt from Jewish quarters to reawaken the kind of soft sentimental feelings which permitted Germany to prepare a war of aggression without any interference on the part of the rest of the world – and this long before the Nazis came to power…”
Einstein would not even permit his books to be sold in Germany after the war. Einstein wrote to German chemist Otto Hahn: “The crimes of the Germans are really the most abominable ever to be recorded in the history of the so-called civilized nations. The conduct of the German intellectuals – viewed as a class – was no better than that of the mob.” Einstein also protested the American use of German scientists after the war to help in the “war on communism.”
Einstein’s national and tribal kinship became starkly clear in his own mind as World War II ended. He wrote: “I am not a German but a Jew by nationality.” In a letter dated October 12, 1953 to Jewish physicist Max Born, Einstein referred to Germany as the “land of the mass-murderers of our kinsmen.” This was Einstein’s opinion, and he never deviated from it.
Albert Einstein decided to live in the United States and not return to Germany after Hitler obtained power. He said in a widely reported public statement: “As long as I have any choice in the matter, I shall live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance, and equality of all citizens before the law prevail…These conditions do not exist in Germany at the present time.”
Einstein felt close to the American Friends of Peace and regarded himself as a pacifist. However, his emphasis shifted toward ensuring peace “through the creation of an international organization embracing all major states…with a sufficiently strong executive power at its disposal.” Einstein thought a world government was the best defense against fascism.
Einstein’s deep distrust of Germany caused him to forsake his alleged pacifism. Jürgen Neffe writes:
He imagined the country “Barbaria” capable of anything. A “uranium bomb” in the hands of Germans would be like an “axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.” He had not forgotten how consistently the Germans had adapted scientific achievements in employing poison gas for military purposes in World War I under the leadership of his friend Fritz Haber. He declared on the spot that he was prepared to go to the top level of the administration to warn of the danger.
Einstein wrote a letter in conjunction with physicists Edward Teller and Leo Szilard that President Roosevelt received on October 3, 1939. This letter warned of the possibility that an atomic bomb using uranium might be built. On March 7, 1940, Einstein followed up with a more-urgent second letter to Roosevelt which stated: “Since the outbreak of war, interest in uranium has intensified in Germany. I have now learned that research there is carried out in great secrecy and that it has been extended to another of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, the Institute of Physics.”
The fact that two atomic bombs later hit Japan and not Germany was in Einstein’s view a great catastrophe. Germany was the only country against which Einstein would have condoned using the atomic bomb. Any degree of force was acceptable to Einstein to defeat Germany--even the atomic bomb, even war to achieve peace. After Germany’s defeat, which Einstein regarded as a necessary conquest of the Germans collectively embroiled in guilt, the use of the atomic bomb was no longer justified.
Einstein returned to his alleged pacifism after World War II. Since the only justifiable war – the one against the Nazis – had ended, Einstein felt obliged more than ever to voice his advocacy for world peace.
Einstein was selected as Time magazine’s person of the 20th century primarily because of his contributions to physics early in his career. Many physicists, however, had little regard for Einstein as a physicist in the later part of his career. Also, several quantum physicists made major contributions to the advancement of physics and were as qualified as Einstein to be selected for Time magazine’s award.
Einstein made repeated racist statements about Germans while extolling the virtues of his Jewish tribe. With the exception of a few German scientists, Einstein considered all non-Jewish Germans to be a bad breed and referred to Germans as “the blond beast.” Einstein had hoped at the end of World War II that the Germans, with God’s benevolent help, would largely kill each other off. Einstein’s statements about Germans were deeply racist, yet Time magazine ignored Einstein’s racism and chose him to be its person of the 20th century.
Albert Einstein did not deserve Time Magazine’s award. The mass media has promoted Einstein into an almost God-like figure. Christopher Jon Bjerknes writes:
It appears that the physics community and the media invented a comic book figure, “Einstein”, with “E=mc²” stenciled across his chest. The media and educational institutions portray this surreal and farcical image as a benevolent god to watch over us…
To question “Einstein”, the god, either “his” theories, or the priority of the thoughts he repeated, has become the sin of heresy. “His” writings are synonymous with truth, the undecipherable truth of a god hung on the wall as a symbol of ultimate truth, which truth is elusive to mortal man – no one is to understand or to question the arcana of “Einstein”, but must let the shepherd lead his flock, without objection. Do not bother the believers with the facts!
 Lacayo, Richard, Albert Einstein: The Enduring Legacy of a Modern Genius, New York: Time Home Entertainment, 2011, p. 8.
 Fölsing, Albrecht, Albert Einstein: A Biography, New York: Viking, 1997, p. xi.
 Brockman, John (editor), My Einstein: Essays by Twenty-four of the World’s Leading Thinkers on the Man, His Work, and His Legacy, New York: Pantheon Books, 2006, p. 80.
 Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Downers Grove, Ill.: XTX Inc., 2002, pp. 158, 234.
 Schweber, Silvan S., Einstein & Oppenheimer: The Meaning of Genius, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008, p. 265.
 Ibid., p. 276.
 Brockman, John (editor), My Einstein: Essays by Twenty-four of the World’s Leading Thinkers on the Man, His Work, and His Legacy, New York: Pantheon Books, 2006, pp. 110-111.
 Bodanis, David, Einstein’s Greatest Mistake: A Biography, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016, p. xii.
 Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, pp. 445, 624.
 Einstein, Albert, Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950, p. 249.
 Einstein, Albert, The World as I See It, New York: Citadel Press, 1984, p. 90.
 Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 282.
 Ibid., p. 292.
 Ibid., pp. 293, 306.
 Einstein, Albert, Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950, pp. 262-263.
 Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, 1993, pp. 161-162.
 Ibid., p. 271.
 Holton, Gerald and Elkana, Yehuda (editors), Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982, pp. 294-295.
 Sayen, Jamie, Einstein in America: The Scientist’s Conscience in the Age of Hitler and Hiroshima, New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1985, pp. 145-146.
 Ibid., p. 146.
 Einstein, Albert, Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950, pp. 201-202.
 Sayen, Jamie, Einstein in America: The Scientist’s Conscience in the Age of Hitler and Hiroshima, New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1985, p. 146.
 Ibid., p. 188.
 Clark, Ronald W., Einstein: The Life and Times, New York and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 601.
 Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 506.
 Jerome, Fred and Taylor, Rodger, Einstein on Race and Racism, New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press, 2005, p. 105.
 Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 506.
 Born, Max, The Born-Einstein Letters, New York: Walker and Company, 1971, p. 199.
 Ibid., p. 200.
 Fölsing, Albrecht, Albert Einstein: A Biography, New York: Viking, 1997, p. 659.
 Ibid., pp. 683-684.
 Neffe, Jürgen, Einstein: A Biography, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007, p. 379.
 Ibid., p. 380.
 Ibid., pp. 384, 387.
 Ibid., p. 389.
 Lacayo, Richard, Albert Einstein: The Enduring Legacy of a Modern Genius, New York: Time Home Entertainment, 2011, pp. 8-9.
 Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His Life and Universe, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 409.
 Bjerknes, Christopher Jon, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, Downers Grove, Ill.: XTX Inc., 2002, pp. 161-162.