I cheked it. Aparently Marx said nothing about Holocaut
3.1. Karl Marx calling for “the revolutionary Holocaust”
According to the authors of the fi lm, Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism,
called for destruction of small nations. The following text appears
against the portrait of Marx: “Classes and races, too weak to cope with new
conditions of life, must give way... They must “disappear in the revolutionary
Holocaust”. Karl Marx”. Two references are given: to Marx’s article in
“The Peoples Paper” dated April 16, 1853 and, for some reason, to “Journal
of the History of Ideas”, Issue 1 of 1981.
All this seems solid and should convince the viewer of veracity of the
fi lm’s authors’ claims. However, striking facts show up if we check these
To begin with, Marx’s article on April 16, 1953 was published in “The
Peoples Paper” indeed. But it did not contain words about “classes and
races”, which should give way to somebody. As a matter of fact, the article
is concerned with general economic problems:
“Feeling their empty pockets, our readers have a bitter experience of their
own, and see that on the shoulders of the nation a debt burden of 800000000
pounds was put as a result of past fi nancial machinations – Marx wrote. –
The debt was made primarily to prevent the liberation of American colonies
and counter the French Revolution of the previous century...”
Verifi cation of the second quotation regarding the “revolutionary Holocaust”
brings us to the article “The Magyar Struggle”, published January 13,
1849 in the newspaper “Neue Rheinische Zeitung”. However, the author is
Engels, not Marx, and the words about the “revolutionary holocaust” can
not be found there also. Engels wrote about “revolutionary” and “counterrevolutionary”
nations, the former viable by their nature, whereas the latter
The year 1848 fi rst of all brought with it the most terrible chaos for Austria
by setting free for a short time all these different nationalities which, owing to
Metternich, had hitherto been enslaving one another. The Germans, Magyars,
Czechs, Poles, Moravians, Slovaks, Croats, Ruthenians, Rumanians, Illyrians
and Serbs came into confl ict with one another, while within each of these
nationalities a struggle went on also between the different classes. But soon
order came out of this chaos. The combatants divided into two large camps: the
Germans, Poles and Magyars took the side of revolution; the remainder, all the
Slavs, except for the Poles, the Rumanians and Transylvanian Saxons, took
the side of counter-revolution.
How did this division of the nations come about, what was its basis?
The division is in accordance with all the previous history of the nationalities
in question. It is the beginning of the decision on the life or death of all these
nations, large and small.
All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is proof of this
and 1848 confi rmed it. Among all the large and small nations of Austria,
only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still
retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they
are now revolutionary.
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish
before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now
There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one
or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that
was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main
vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled
under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments
of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and
remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character,
just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical
Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640
Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from
1792 to 1800.
Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.
Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing
but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused
thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise
extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European
The Magyar cause is not in such a bad way as mercenary black-and-yellow
colours of the Austrian fl ag] enthusiasm would have us believe. The Magyars
are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will fall gloriously, as the last heroes
of the 1848 revolution, and only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav
counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its
barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the fi rst
victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving
with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be
set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war
which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all
these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of
the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire
reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.
Today Engels’s viewpoint may seem outrageously politically incorrect,
but in the middle of the XIX century the idea of “historical” and “nonhistorical”
nations was common. It was fi rst voiced by Hegel, who based
his philosophy of history on the principle of the world progress to be accomplished
by Germans and Anglo-Saxons. This, however, does not imply
that Hegel called for destruction of any nations. Engels does not call for
destruction of “counterrevolutionary” nations either; he merely predicts
that these peoples will be destroyed during a world war by those opressed
“ progressive” nations.
As we can see, the authors of the fi lm have jumbled and distorted statements
of Marx and Engels beyond recognition. This was made in order
to convince the viewer that the Holocaust, i.e the murder of people, was
estimated positively in the Soviet Union. However, no proof of that is avail-
able. Moreover, it is common knowledge that the Soviet leaders’ approach
to interpreting the works of Marx and Engels was rather utilitarian.
Thus, in July 1934, Stalin found it inappropriate to publish Engels’s article
“The foreign policy of Russian tsarism” in the “Bolshevik” magazine
and exposed it to serious criticism.37 In August of the same year he wrote:
“The fact that Engels has been our teacher can be questioned only by idiots.
But this does not necessarily follow that we should conceal Engels’s mistakes,
that we should hide them and – even more so – pass them off as indisputable
truth. Such a policy would have been the policy of lies and deception. Nothing
is so contrary to the spirit of Marxism and the precepts of Marx and Engels,
as such policy, unworthy of Marxists. Marx and Engels themselves said that
Marxism was not a dogma, but a guide for action. This explains that Marx
and Engels themselves repeatedly revised and complemented some statements in
their works “.