…by Jonas E. Alexis
David Duke’s The Secret Behind Communism begins with a quotation from Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which reads in part:
“The October Revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution. It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my country men suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation in the entirety of human history. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”
Here Solzhenitsyn is implicitly squaring off with the entire Holocaust establishment, which posits the historically risible claim that the Holocaust is unique. This doctrine simply states that nothing in the history of mankind can be compared to the Holocaust. The late Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner declared that “the Holocaust…was unique, without parallel in human history.” Daniel Goldhagen made similar claims in his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, a completely fraudulent piece of propaganda that has been widely discarded and debunked by competent scholars. French Jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet espoused similar views.
Many Jewish writers indirectly advocate this form of doctrine in one way or another. For Deborah Lipstadt, downplaying the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust is to be a Holocaust denier. German historian Ernst Nolte made the mistake of comparing the Holocaust to other crimes that have committed in history, such as Stalin’s extermination of the Russian people, the Armenian genocide, and Pol Pot’s crimes against humanity.
For this, Lipstadt labeled him a Holocaust denier. Historian Joachim Fest defended Nolte on historical and rational grounds, and received the same treatment. Some Jewish historians, however, does not subscribe to this view.
Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer, while declaring that the Holocaust is an important chapter in human history and that “the depth of pain and suffering of Holocaust victims is difficult to describe,” admits that “the Holocaust is certainly not unique, because ‘indescribable’ human suffering is forever there and is forever being described.”
What we are saying here is that the “uniqueness” doctrine is an ideology, one that has no foundation in historical scholarship, but only exists in the minds of people like Lipstadt. It is maintained not because it is intellectually and morally satisfying and historically plausible, but because it seeks to preserve certain ideological inaccuracies.
Paul Hollander, a Jewish scholar and writer who fled his native Hungary because of political persecution, subscribes to the same ideology, declaring that the Nazis should never be compared with the Soviets on “moral equivalence” because, among other things, “Communist regimes, unlike the Nazis, did not seek to murder children.” Hollander knows better, and here is what he never told his readers.
By 1937, two years before Hitler came to power, Stalin had already starved and executed as many as ten million peasants. This period in history—from 1929-1937—is known as the Red Holocaust. By 1938, a total of 9.7 million perished, and from 1939 until 1953, another 9 million lost their lives.
From 1937-1939, Stalin executed 50,000 clergymen alone. Stalin’s terrorism began as early as 1918, when “he ordered the execution of all suspected counter-revolutionaries. Stalin burned villages in the countryside to intimidate the peasants and discourage bandit raids on food supplies a decade before he became Red tsar.”
Even after World War II, Stalin did not stop terrorizing the peasants. Minority groups such as the Greeks, Germans, Turks, Orthodox Christians, Lithuanians, and Vlasovites also fell prey to Stalin’s ethnic cleansing.
There is no way that the “uniqueness” doctrine can square historically with Stalin’s Red Holocaust. As Rosefielde notes, “Communism is indelibly stained by the Red Holocaust. Nonetheless, the will to deny, blur, soften, mitigate and pardon communist high crimes against humanity persists for complex personal, partisan, academic, cultural, political and pragmatic reasons.”
According to Rosefielde, Stalin was involved in the ethnic cleansing of the peasants by violent means, including executions, terror, and starvation, beginning with an attempt in 1917. As he puts it, “The peasantry was the Bolsheviks’ first and primary target, because it did not fit Lenin’s Marxist paradigm, founded on the criminalization of private property, business and entrepreneurship.” We see the same pattern in Communist China, where Mao “forcibly collectivized the peasantry.” In the end, Communist China was responsible for the death of at least forty million.
It is clear by now that the “uniqueness” doctrine holds no historical validity. Yet by espousing it, people like Lipstadt, Hollander, Neusner, and others open themselves up for various cultural interpretations which say that Jewish blood is more important than Gentile blood. This harmonizes with Talmudic reasoning, and there are examples of rabbis who espouse and even practice that belief system:
“Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: ‘Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.’ Rabbi Ido Elba: ‘According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.’”
On another occasion, the rabbi declared, “If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, and is thus part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…If a Jew needs a liver, can he take the liver of an innocent non-Jew to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something more holy and unique about Jewish life than about non-Jewish life.”
Historically and intellectually, this “uniqueness” doctrine is an abomination, and even Jewish author and journalist D. D. Guttenplan thinks that the argument works against those who promote it. But ideologically it is useful, since it puts Jewish suffering above any other suffering in human history, giving Jews a power no other ethnic group has. If you don’t think that this ideologically is intellectually crippling academe, then consider this.
When noted historian Norman Davies challenged the accepted views of both the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland and the Stalinist regime in Soviet Union, he was ultimately denied tenure at Stanford University. His accusers were mainly Jewish historians Lucy S. Dawidowicz and Abraham Brumberg. A Stanford University article reads:
“Davies’s works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz (author of The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945) who said they felt Davies minimized historic anti-Semitism in Poland and tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust. Davies’ supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939. Davies had sought $3 million in damages from the university for what he called fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, discrimination and defamation.”
Davies eventually moved to England, where he taught history at the University of London and later became a fellow at Oxford.
Davies is not an obscure historian. His scholarly works include God’s Playground: A History of Poland (in two volumes); Europe: A History; No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945; and Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland’s Present.
Yet in 2005, Davies dropped a historical bomb that has devastated the Holocaust establishment, writing a sharp critique of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, which was published by the Sunday Times.
Davies, like many other historians, demolishes the “uniqueness” doctrine. This particular thesis has no moral or ethical value other than to pursue ideological and political interests. It is not about historical truth, but about pursuing or preserving a completely false premise that has no factual foundation—only those who need the Holocaust to be unique consider it so and will fight to the death to protect it.
This became clear in 2011 when “Jewish leaders and political groups in Germany condemned a proposed national day of remembrance for the 12 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after World War II.”154 The Black Book of Communism tells us that Communism is responsible for taking the lives of approximately one hundred million people.
So can the Holocaust establishment truthfully document that the Holocaust is unique? No. In that sense, Alexander Solzhenitsyn has a point. He was brave enough to point out who was behind the Russian invasion. This is one reason why Jewish historians like Richard Pipes do not like Solzhenitsyn that much. If Solzhenitsyn is right, then Pipes’ book, The Russian Revolution, could have easily been put under the label: The Jewish Revolution in Russia.
A few years before Solzhenitsyn’s death in August 2008, Pipes attacked him in print. Regarding Solzhenitsyn’s Deux Siecles Ensembles: Juifs et Russes avant la Revolution (“Two Hundred Years Together: Jews and Russians before the Revolution”), which has only been published in France because no publisher will print it in the English-speaking world, Pipes has nothing good to say about the book other than that it was “something more than a personal statement yet less than a work of scholarship.” Not only that, he stated that the charge of anti-Semitism leveled against Solzhenitsyn “was not entirely unmerited,” based largely on how Solzhenitsyn treated the Jewish characters in his novels.
As a well-known historian, Pipes should know better; to characterize a man such as Solzhenitsyn as an anti-Semite bears no resemblance to true and honest scholarship whatsoever. Unfortunately, this charge would certainly stop certain individuals from reading Deux Siecles Ensembles for themselves, simply dismissing it as the work of an anti-Semite.
The simple fact is that Solzhenitsyn’s observations about Jews during the Russian Revolution have been confirmed, even by Jews. Ginsberg writes, “In [Communist] Russia, Jews commanded powerful instruments of terror and repression.” Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine entitles his book The Jewish Century, and describes Jews in the twentieth century as iconoclasts who participated in many revolutions, mainly the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
There is nothing in Solzhenitsyn’s writings to suggest that he was against the Jews as a people. He even proposes “patient mutual comprehension” between Russians and Russian Jews in the hope that this would open “mutually agreeable and fruitful pathways for the future development of Russian-Jewish relations.” What he disagreed with, as he clearly states, was the ideological basis of Judaism—“not in the racial sense, but in the sense of the Jewry as a certain worldview.”
Solzhenitsyn was convinced that the simple step of a courageous man is not to deliberately and consciously take part in a lie. As a committed Christian, he could not stay silent about what was happening in Russia. The torture and crime against humanity in the Soviet Union after 1917 was so horrible that Solzhenitsyn was obliged to write that both Jews and Russians would have to answer not to other people but to their own consciences and to God.
In an interview with the German magazine Spiegel, Solzhenitsyn was asked,
“Your recent two-volume work 200 Years Together was an attempt to overcome a taboo against discussing the common history of Russians and Jews. These two volumes have provoked mainly perplexity in the West. You say the Jews are the leading force of global capital and they are among the foremost destroyers of the bourgeoisie. Are we to conclude from your rich array of sources that the Jews carry more responsibility than others for the failed Soviet experiment?”
Without hesitation, he responded:
“I avoid exactly that which your question implies: I do not call for any sort of scorekeeping or comparisons between the moral responsibility of one people or another; moreover, I completely exclude the notion of responsibility of one nation towards another. All I am calling for is self-reflection.
“You can get the answer to your question from the book itself: ‘Every people must answer morally for all of its past—including that past which is shameful. Answer by what means? By attempting to comprehend: How could such a thing have been allowed? Where in all this is our error? And could it happen again?
“It is in that spirit, specifically, that it would behoove the Jewish people to answer, both for the revolutionary cutthroats and the ranks willing to serve them. Not to answer before other peoples, but to oneself, to one’s consciousness, and before God. Just as we Russians must answer—for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, for those savage sailors.’”
Again, Solzhenitsyn did not close his eyes in order to avoid witnessing what was happening in Russia. He asked the Jews who took part in the revolution and “in the ideological guidance of a huge country down a false path” to accept “moral responsibility” for their actions.
Have they accepted moral responsibility? Of course not. In fact, no major publisher has taken the challenge to translate Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. So Duke is right in saying that the secret behind Communism “is rarely spoken about in either the mainstream press or in mainstream media….There is no historical dispute that Communist regimes killed many times more innocents than any other government in history, including Hitler’s Germany.”
Duke moves on to make a very good point by saying that perpetrators of the Communist regimes have never been put on trial precisely because these people “have been shielded by their tribal brethren who now identify with Zionism who have an inordinate influence on media, academia, and governments.”
This is not an anti-Semitic statement precisely because we have numerous evidence and scholarly sources that back up the claim. For example, Richard Pipes’ son, Daniel, has been a flaming Neocon and was pushing for complete annihilation of the Assad government.
Back in 2013, Pipes unequivocally wrote: “Western governments should respond by helping the rebels to prevent Assad from crushing them.” Pipes moved on to expand and expound on his essentially Talmudic thesis this way: “the West should prevent either side in the civil war from emerging victorious by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.’”
If you did not catch that wicked and, quite frankly, diabolical ideology, here is the translation: let Assad and the Syrian terrorists fight until they destroy each other. Let them fight until blood flows from all over Syria.
It doesn’t matter how long it takes or how much it would cost America and the Middle East; the West should give his last drop of blood to support that hellish plan. Let mothers and decent civilians weep and mourn for their children and love ones and their cherished country. Pipes only cares about Israel. Does Pipes know that his plan is essentially diabolical?
Well, let’s listen to him: “This policy recommendation of ‘helping whichever side is losing’ sounds odd, I admit, but it is strategic.” Here Pipes’ moral reasoning was telling him that the plan was wicked, but he seemed to have suppressed his practical reasoning and replaced it with Talmudic mores.
Pipes had more interesting things to say. He believes that Syrian refugees—people whose livelihood has been literally destroyed by the Syrian conflict—“should be allowed and encouraged to remain within their own cultural zone, where they most readily fit in, can best stay true to their traditions, least disrupt the host society, and from whence they might most easily return home.”
Keep in mind that this was a time where more than half of the hospitals were either destroyed or damaged. So if civilians get hurt when they try get out of their property, they just have to die, since there are not enough medical supplies.
Put simply, Pipes is trying to simultaneously and effortlessly kill four birds (Assad, the Syrian terrorists, the Syrian civilians, and the small minority of Christians) with one Zionist stone. Of course, to accomplish such a feat, the neo-Bolsheviks/Neoconservatives cannot do it alone. They have to use a large number of the goyim and the American taxpayer’s dollars.
So the logic is pretty clear here: the Bolshevik movement got morphed into the Neoconservative ideology, and that movement is allying with the Israeli regime, which perpetually promote ethnic cleansing in the Middle East and elsewhere.
At the same time, the Holocaust establishment continues to whine and moan that they are the victims and not the oppressors. Duke puts it well when he said: “The Holocaust is ‘never forget.’ The Bolshevik Holocaust is ‘never remember.’”
We will be reviewing different parts of The Secret Behind Communism sporadically.
-  David Duke, The Secret Behind Communism: The Ethnic Origins of the Russian Revolution and the Greatest Holocaust in the History of Mankind (Mandeville, LA: Free Speech Press, 2013), 11.
-  Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000), 42.
-  See Norman G. Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998).
-  Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 15-17.
-  Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, 70-71.
-  Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Assault on Truth (New York: Penguin, 1994), 211.
-  Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 7.
-  Norman Naimark, Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 126.
-  Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge), 40.
-  Ibid., 50.
-  Ibid., 20.
-  Ibid., 44.
-  Ibid., 42.
-  Ibid., 46.
-  Ibid., 79-80.
-  Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him (New York: Random House, 2005), 126-127.
-  Rosefielde, Red Holocaust, 35.
-  Ibid., 35-36.
-  Ibid., 103.
-  See Frank Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010).
-  T. Z. Adelman, quoted in MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections, 18.
-  Shahak and Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (London: Pluto Press, 2004), 43, 62.
-  Standford News Service, September 5, 1995 (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/91/910905Arc1210.html).
-  See Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).
-  Richard Pipes, “Solzhenitsyn and the Jews, Revisited,” The New Republic, Nov. 25, 2002.
-  Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 57.
-  See Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
-  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2007), 489.
-  Ibid., 505.
-  Christian Neef and Matthias Schepp, “Spiegel Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn,” Spiegel, July 23, 2007
-  Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 360.
-  Duke, Secret Behind Communism, 11, 12.
-  Ibid., 12.
-  Daniel Pipes, “Support the Syrian Rebels?,” National Review, May 12, 2013.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  Daniel Pipes, “Let Refugees Remain in Their Own Culture,” Washington Times, September 24, 2013.
-  Ruth Sherlock, “Syria: More Than Half of Hospitals Destroyed or Damaged,” Telegraph, September 16, 2013.
-  Duke, Secret Behind Communism, 17.