plottings of the American elite. “Thenmass media of the United States are anpart of the national power structure andnthey therefore reflect its biases andnmobilize popular opinion to serve its interests,”nhe declares. Thus, Hermannmust pretend that the major networksnand newspapers are conservative, anticommunistnforces. He claims that Sterling’snThe Terror Network was “heavilynand uncritically reviewed by the leadingnmedia enterprises, both liberal and conservative.”nHe does not document thisnassertion because it is simply not true; ancollection of reviews of Sterling’s booknshows that it was heavily and unfairlynhammered in the liberal press and somewhatncritically received in some conservativenorgans. Professor Herman then proceedsnto base his critique of Sterlingnalmost entirely on negative reviews fromnthe liberal media. It is in the context ofnhis claim that the media is anticommunistnthat he whines about the undue attentionngiven to the Cambodian genociden. Yet, as James Tyson shows in TargetnAmerica, it was not until aftertht Sovietsnbegan criticizing Pol Pot (as an ally ofnChina) that the major American mediandiscussed the Cambodian genocide innany detail.n”rofessor Herman’s contribution tonscholarship raises an interesting problemnfor the contemporary leftist mind. In then1920’s and 30’s, as is well known, the leftnin the West was deeply befiiddled by thenSoviet Union. From the time of JohnnReed and Lincoln Stefifens to the Hitler-nStalin Pact, dishonest reporting couplednwith Comintern propaganda and thencapacity of Western intellectuals for selfdeceptionnled a lot of otherwise smartnpeople to believe the Soviet Union was angood thing. After the Hitler-Stalin Pact,nafter Khrushchev’s denunciation ofnStalin, after Hungary, Czechoslovakia,nAfghanistan, Poland, after Solzhenitsyn,nno one in the West publicly defendsnthe Soviet Union and its empire. But thisnchange in attitudes has not led Westernnintellectuals to defend or praise their ownnsociety and countries or even to regardnthe Soviets as a source of danger. Indeed,nany serious criticism of the Soviet Unionnor of communism is still regarded by thenprogressive intellectuals of tjie West asnreactionary and imperialist.’Hence thenextravagant attacks on Claire Sterling,nThe Spike, President Reagan, Solzhenitsyn,nand Susan Sontag, to mention onlyna few recent and disparate sources of anticommunistnsentiment. The problemnraised by books like this is: Why, if thenWestern left no longer idolizes the SovietnUnion, does it feel obligated to denouncenanyone who attacks the Sovietsnand even to write entire books denouncingnthem and their ideas? Of course,nmany explanations of this phenomenonnhave been offered, ranging from thenessentially conspiratorial thesis of ThenSpike to theories about the death wishnand defeatism of the contemporary leftistnmind, but I doubt if anyone has developedna fully adequate explanation ornsolution for it.nThe books by Mr. Crozier and ProfessornHerman represent two poles ofncontemporary political thought in thenWest. The first is valuable, but it doesnnot, unfortunately, provide the insightsnor the ideas on which the West could relynto meet its external enemies or its internalnbetrayers. The second is absurd in itsnself-hatred and its blindness to thenenemies of its own civilization. DnSystems of Systemlessness & Other WoesnRainer C. Baum: The Holocaust andnthe German Elite: Genocide andnNational Suicide in Germany,n1871-1943; Rowman and Littlefield;nTotowa, New Jersey.nby Allan C. CarlsonnvJcrmany is the extraordinary failurenamong modern nations. The unifiednReich, twice in its 74-year history, set outnon the path of empire. The first effortnproduced humiliating defeat. The secondnbrought the Holocaust—the systematicnextermination of six millionnJews, as well as masses of Poles, Gypsiesnand other groups deemed expendable—nand the nation’s self-immolation.nSince the end of the second campaign,nhistorians have spawned thousands ofnvolumes trying to understand this unprecedentedndisaster. How, in thenshadow of death at Treblinka, couldnguards and inmates share a commonntable, fraternize and laugh with eachnother and feast into the night, only tonreturn to the grisly slaughter the nextnmorning? How can one account for thenDr. Carlson is editor o/Persuasion atnWork.nnnsheer bureaucratic density of thenHolocaust, where just the initial assessmentnof the property of Jews to be deportednfrom Greater Germany requirednthe filing of an eight-page questionnairendetailing possessions down to a toothbrush?nHow could the cultural heirs ofnGoethe and Beethoven exhibit such profoundnindifference to human sufferingnand death? Some go back to the anti-nJudaic ravings of Martin Luther and findnthe Holocaust merely the culmination ofnthe long history of German anti-nSemitism. Others—most recently HelennFein in Accounting for Genocide—integratenthe Holocaust back into the “normal”nhistory of man’s inhumanity tonman; simply a variation of the Turkishnmassacre of the Armenian minority or ofnthe North Americans’ near-exterminationnof the continent’s indigenous tribes.nSociologist Rainer Baum, in the traditionnof the late Hannah Arendt, findsnthese explanations unsatisfactory. Then”system of systemlessness” that characterizednthe nazi polity, he insists, is utterlynunique, different even from the SovietnGulag, where administrators could atnleast internally legitimate their acts asn”the re-education of bourgeois minds”nor “the construction of socialist society.”nI^^HMIOnJanuary 1983n