Defending The Indefensible -
A Jewish Scholar Defends Hitler

From YesConcepts

George Steiner, Cambridge professor of English and comparative literature, author of numerous scholarly books such as Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky, Language and Silence etc, set out his sobering views in a novel called The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. (1981). Strangely enough - Dr Steiner is a Jew - he uses his imagination to hypothetically 'give Hitler the chance to defend himself before a Jewish court', 'to defend the indefensible'. How on earth can a Cambridge professor, a Jew, in effect defend A.H., claimed by Jews to be the 'greatest embodiment of evil in human history'? What can be his argument? In summary (Steiner pp 120-126):
Point One: 'The Nazi race doctrines were but a "parody" of the Jewish doctrine of "a chosen people, chosen by God for his own, the only race on earth chosen, exalted, made singular among mankind.. to set a race apart, to hold before it a promised land".'
Point Two: 'The Jew's addiction to [his version of] the ideal.. "It is no accident that Marx and his minions were Jews, that the congregations of Bolshevism - Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, Kamenev, the whole fanatic, murderous pack - were of Israel..'
[Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews devotes a chapter to this aspect of Communism that is hardly generally known. The author, himself Jewish, writes with a certain authority and familiarity concerning his subject and can hardly be accused of the charge of 'anti-Semitism' which is usually leveled at anyone who offers any criticism, no matter how justified, of Jews. "No people is so averse to change yet none in recent times has dissipated more of its energy on revolution.. Although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries..
"It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
"To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews and included Litvinov (real name Wallach), Liadov (Mandelshtam), Shklovsky, Saltz, Gusev (Drabkin), Zemliachka (Salkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Serafima Gopner, Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Yaklovlev (Epstein), Riaznov (Goldendach), Uritsky and Larin. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews."]
Point Three: "You have exaggerated. Grossly. Hysterically. What were Rotterdam or Coventry compared to Dresden and Hiroshima? Did I invent the camps? Ask the Boers.. To whom did you hand over millions, tens of millions of men and women from Prague to the Baltic? What did [Solzhenitsyn] say? That Stalin had slaughtered thirty million. I was a man of a murderous time, but a small man compared to him. That he perfected genocide [of the kulaks] when I was still a nameless scribbler in Munich. My boys used their fists and their whips. I won't deny it. The times stank of hunger and blood. But when a man spat out the truth they would stop their fun. Stalin's torturers worked for the pleasure of the thing. To make men befoul themselves, to obtain confessions that are lies, insanities, obscene jokes. The truth only made them more bestial. It is not I who assert these things: it is your own Jewish survivors, your historians, the sage of the Gulag. Who, then was the great destroyer, whose blood-lust the more implacable? Stalin's or mine? Our terrors were a village carnival compared to his. Our camps covered absurd acres; he had strung wire and death-pits around a continent. Yet Stalin died in bed, and yet you hunt me down like a rabid dog.."
Point Four: 'Zionism was shaped in the image of German nationalism.. "The Holocaust gave you the courage of injustice, to drive the Arab out of his home, out of his field, because he was without resource, because he was in your way, knowing that those you had driven out were rotting in refugee camps, not ten miles away, buried alive in despair and lunatic dreams of vengeance.. You used the Holocaust to create Israel.. Should you not honour me who have made your long, vacuous dream of Zion a reality?".'
Why is anti-Palestinianism, unquestionably a form of anti-Semitism, not 'politically incorrect'? As various commentators have been pointing out for more than half a century, the Palestinians have been made to pay for the Holocaust over this extended period, and are still doing so.
Is this fair or just? Is it logical or even reasonable? Is it moral? Does it matter? Does world peace matter? Does anything matter?


This Site Served by TheHostPros