Jump to content

Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

White Russians vs. White movement

If we're going to have an article on Jewish Bolshevism I think it's necessary to reflect its relation to White Russians. An editor has reverted my attempt to do so.

I direct the reader's attention to the literature on the Protocols of Zion.

For example, Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide.

The author there uses single quotes around the word "White" thus: 'White' Russian,

and has the following discussions in his book: 108, 109, 115, 127, 128-30, 138 et seq., 177, 184, 248-52, 259n.

From his and other scholars' usage it is these White Russians who are responsible for the claim that Bolshevism (meaning Communism) is a Jewish phenomena.
Accordingly, we should make this point a part of the article herein.
If a clarification is needed as to the relation to the more specific White movement (an expression, by the way, never used by these authorities) that's ok by me.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
White Russian is a disambig and properly so. When this ambiguous expression is translated to Russian, it would be Belorussian, something totally different from the White movement or White emigre. Some sources use old/confusing terminology, but it doesn't mean we should do the same. Let's try as much as possible not to confuse our readers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I received the following confirmation on my talk page: 

    == Belarus ==
    
    Yes, I did understand you. I was agreeing with you in a roundabout sort of way.
    [[User:Jameswilson|Jameswilson]] 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, "White Russian," generally, does not mean Belarus, except as a literal translation.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Humus Sapiens. White Russian is confusing, and to link to a disamb page seems silly when you can go direct to White movement. What is also confusing is the article starting with text published by Britons, who presumably were not White Russians, and then going on to say that the term comes from White movement. Can you clarify? BobFromBrockley 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Antisemites use the expression Jewish Bolshevism

I think we should make it immediately clear that this expression was current among Antisemites.

I see no reason to dodge this fact.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is non-sequitor. It spends the first half spouting out a bunch of facts that make very clear that in fact Jews were quite prominent in the development of the communist movement (Marx & Trotsky were Jews, about half of the Communist Party Committee in the early years were Jews, etc). Then the second half of the article uses facts from later periods (1920 onwards) to try to refute these facts about the early communist movement. I may be wrong, but I don't think that after historical reflection anyone is arguing that Jews were responsible for the ongoing development of communism. Basically, what I am saying is that by misdefining the debate, the article is confusing. I don't think anyone, even a Jew, would try to argue against the premise that Jews were heavily involved in communism's early days. The article should just note this and leave it at that. The article might also spend some time discussing the very good reasons that such persons had for turning to communism (disenfranchisement, lack of a political outlet, poverty, pogroms, etc.). By completely glossing over this in an attempt to try to stamp out any anti-semitism, the article ultimately does a disservice to those like myself who oppose anti-semitism in all its forms.Ndriley97 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is simply in a disbalanced shape. The reason of the "second half" in question is that anti-Semitic literature heavily exaggerrated involvement of Jews in Bolshevik leadership, up to direct inventing of Jewish "original surnames". `'Míkka>t 08:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense - thanks. I am a bit naïve sometimes. Since I wrote the above, I looked around a bit on the web and realized that there are actually idiots out there who think that communism through its history has been a Jewish conspiracy. I am glad to see that no one takes them seriously, and articles like this help make sure it remains that way.Ndriley97 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blaming the Jews for Communism

The (JB) expression of this article is simply that Bolshevism, which is another term for Communism, is the fault of the Jews. It is merely a way of saying that this bad "ism" is fundamentally a Jewish idea, and the Jews are to blame for its existence and spread. --Ludvikus 03:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolshevism was caused by Tsarism

Instead of blaming the most persecuted victim, the Jews, one should call a spade a spade, as the saying goes.

The October revolution was cause by Tsarism, a most backward political formation in Eurasia at the time.
Similarly, Nesta H. Webster blames the Jews for the French revolution.
It seems to me that both are insults to the Russian and French people - both of whom revolted against the yokes around their respective necks.
Furthermore, Jews were just too few in number to receive the main credit for the destruction of the respective monarchies, despotisms, or autocracies.
On the other hand, the fact that neither the French nor the Russians were able to establish immediately, or shortly thereafter, a viable alternative - is again no fault of the Jews.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that rising nationalist feeling inevitably lead to the "foreigner,' or "alian," as the scapegoat.
And the Jew was that convenient scapegoat. --Ludvikus 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of article - make it a disamb page?

I think we really need to sort out the purpose and topic of this article. Is it about the text The Jewish Bolshevism (pamphlet)? Is it about the anti-semitic epithet/conspiracy theory of Jewish Bolshevism (conspiracy theory)? Is it about the phenomenon of Jews being Bolsheviks, which is related to the wider notion of Jewish Communism, analogous to, say along the lines of Polish communism? I propose that Jewish Bolshevism becomes a disamb, linking to those three other pages. To suggest that there is such a thing as "Jewish Bolshevism", by having a wikipedia article on it, is basically wrong. BobFromBrockley 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, BobFromBrockley.
First of all, the article initially was about that Antisemitic two-term phrase.
However, it never had any references.
I was one of the early editors who was against such a long unsourced article, involving much, in my opinion, Original research and Theorizing, which is in violation of Wiki policy.
Now I've found the Book which embodies this expression - so there's no "Original research" or "Theorizing" on my part.
Anyone who wishes to Disambiguate this article must give explicit references which would support Notability of such an article.
Otherwise, this article merely needs cleanup of its Original research.
Finally, Wikipedia is not a forum for Antisemitic ventings; any long artcle, unsupported by clear, specific, and direct references is just that - an attempt to revive this pejorative and derogatory nexpression. Furthermore, unsupported by solid references, it will seem like an attempt to have Wikipedia, as an Encyclopedia, as saying that Communism is a Jewish phenomena - and that's a discredited Antisemitic theory.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ethnic slurs

Reading this discussion page I noticed a lot of ethnic slurs and racist comment. This kind of behavior is not tolerated on Wikipedia DVoit 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

I think that the currently improved state of the article makes my previous suggestion around disambiguation less relevant, as it is clearer what the article is about now. I am slightly wary, as the pamphlet came out in 22/23 and the term clearly had currency before then (both this article and Żydokomuna talk about the term being used from 1917), so it might still be an idea to have different articles for the pamphlet and the epithet/conspiracy theory. As an interim suggestion, I think it might be an idea for the sections from 1. Background to 6. Jewish anti-Bolsheviks to become sub-sections of a section called something like "Background: Russian Jews and Bolshevism", and 7. Reactions and allegations (which would become section 2) be renamed something like "Jewish Bolshevism as epithet and conspiracy theory" or "Jewish Bolshevism in antisemitic thought". This would make clear what is the factual history and what is the conspiracy theory. BobFromBrockley 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sharman Kadish

  • Bolsheviks and British Jews
(London & Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 1992)
305.8924041
DS135:E5K33 1992
941'.004924-dc20
91-18896
ISBN 0-7146-3371-2
This reference answers your query. And you overlook the date reference: The British got their reference from an earlier German source.
But the main point is this: the juxtaposition of the two words does not merit an article, and certainly not an "original research" article, which violates Wikipolicy. Furthermore, the proposed Disambiguation in order to create a special article on this, with some qualifiers attached smells to me like and agenda to express the current Antisemitic view: that there was an important Theory that Bolshevism was essentially Jewish.
By that logic, why not have the folowing also: Jewish Capitalism, Jewish Domination, Jewish Doctors, Jewish Internationalism, Jewish Anarchy, and the list goes on.
My point is simply this: the need for this kind of an article is a "smoke screne" for a contemporary Antisemtic position.
Henry Ford's expression for Jazz was "Moron Music". Should we have an article on that?
There's nothing to explore here except the idea that too many Jews were Bolshevics. My retort is that NOT ENOUGH JEWS WERE BOLSHEVIKS considering what they had to endure under the Russian Empire.
And if you want more evidence on that, just read and examine the Anonymous commentary that's available in the many different editions and imprints of The Protocols. Don't you think these are the best sources on this two-term notion you feel a need to write about? If there was anything to this idea of yours these Antisemites would have picked it up. I recommend that you read, for example, A Protocol of 1919. That may satisfy your need to go back in time some more.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A Protocol of 1919

I make an excerp and paste it here: 

    It purports to be a reproduction of a reproduction of a secret document.
    The claim is made that on February 5, 1920 a Russian newspaper in Berlin, Prizyv,
    published "an interesting document" dated December 1919. It was allegedly in Hebrew,
    and "was found in the pocket of the dead Jew Zunder, the Bolsheciv Commander of the 11th Sharp-shooter Battalion".
Need I say more? (Probably.) Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of the People's Commissars

Because these names were identifiable as Jews, or the individuals identified were in some sense Jewish, and only at least one (Steinberg) was not actually a member of this august body (highest governmental entity under Bolshevism) it followed that Bolshevism is Jewish. Steinberg was not even a Bolshevic. He was merely close to Lenin:

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delimitation of article

What is really the scope of the article? In the intro it presents as dealing with some specific notions of combination of anti-semitic and anti-communist discourse, bit much of the article is instead a general history of left-jewish relations. Isn't there already a separate article on these issues? --Soman 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move

The article about the expression. Please write a separate article about The Jewish Bolshevism. `'Míkka 05:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The expression is pure Antisemitism. It was used by Nazis, Hitler, and all those hateful people. Keeping such a separate article - distinct from it's source - rewuires that we write on on Russkie commies. I don't know how it was possible for Wikipedians to keep this kind of inaccurate Racist garbage in the first place. Only lovers of Alfred Rosenberg would do such things. --Ludvikus 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No justification for separate article on this Racist topic

You should discuss things before you revert. Jewish Bolshevism derives from White Russian Antisemites and from Nazis like Alfred Rosenberg and his book(s). You cannot revert work supported by references. Nor can you put up your own private Antisemitic views on Wikipedia. --Ludvikus 05:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot change the title of the existing article into title for different topic. If you dont like article, please nominate it or deletion, WP:AFD. `'Míkka 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I want it Merged with The Jewish Bolshevism. --Ludvikus 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Russkie commies

Hey guys & gals. Why don't we have an article on the above? I've heard that expression used. And let's ask this: "How come so many Russkies were commies?" Is that a legitimate question for Wikipedia? --Ludvikus 05:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Not enough Jews were Bolsheviks"

I object to uncited remarks like "disproportionate number of Jews were Bolsheviks". Whose to say what the proper proportion should have been? Considering the Pogroms imposed on the Jews, it's amazing how fews Jews were Bolsheviks! --Ludvikus 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Didproportionate" means with respect to population percentage. `'Míkka 15:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. But its a normative judgment not for a Wikipedian to make here - it's also original research. I have no objection if you cite, for example, that Hitler said the number was disproportionate. Or even if you give the number in each category. But disproportionate in this context is a subjective value judgment. --Ludvikus 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research: "Why so many Jews where Bolsheviks?"

Wikipedia is not the place to do such original research. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a forum for Antisemites. Russian Antisemites are much more tolerated in Russia. I'm quite certain descent Americans would welcome the relocation of Racists elsewhere. --Ludvikus 06:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A Protocol of 1919

"Bronstein (Trotsky), Apfelbaum (Zinovieff), Rosenfeld (Kameneff), Steinberg —— all of them are like unto thousands of other true sons of Israel. Our power in Russia is unlimited. In the towns, the Commissariates and Commissions of Food, Housing Commissions, etc., are dominated by our people. But do not let victory intoxicate yourselves. Be careful, cautious, because no one except yourselves will protect us!"

That's a sample of the Antisemitic garbage which is currently partly expressed in this article. --Ludvikus 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedians

User:Mikkalai is a Russian and a Wikipedian. He created this article from scratch. Why don't we write an article about how many Russians are Wikipedians? Is their number disproportionate? --Ludvikus 06:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not create it "from scratch". See summaries in edit history. `'Míkka 15:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What I mean was that you wrote the Stub for it. Your name appears on the History page as the earliest User. So are you not the Wikipedian who started the article? --Ludvikus 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper resorting to "explaining" this Antisemitism

Any attempt to explain this Antisemitic epitaph constitutes Original research. We should merely account for the phrase's (and its cognates) use - where and how it was used. Why is was used is Original research unless there's an explicit citation. --Ludvikus 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please mark places int the article which you think require citation by placing {{fact}} label. `'Míkka 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You miss point here. What I mean is that one should not try to explain Why Jews happened to be whatever. That's Original research. This article is about an Antisemitic expression. It should account for its use. a Wikipedian has no business trying to explain Antisemitism. His job is only the give the views of others. An authority I keep reading is Walter Lacquer. To my recollection he does not explain why so and so many (or few) Jews were Bolsheviks. Rather, he shows that antisemitism manifested itself by linking the two, Jew and Bolshevik. So there is no justification for Wikipedians trying to do what scholars have not done. --Ludvikus 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I see that there are two separate but closely related topics: (1) Bolshevics who are Jewish, their beliefs, and misconceptions or propaganda. And (2) a famous (infamous) publication. Right now it seems that there is redundancy between the pages, and that the article on the pamphlet goes into too much detail on the other topic. This is my first impression, but I am certainly open to learn more and try to help with this. Please let me know whether my initial assessment is close to the target. --Kevin Murray 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That there are two separate topics is what I am saying. Luvikus obviously thinks that this is an evidence of my antisemitism. `'Míkka 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather keep it inpersonal (consistent with Wiki policy). Whether or an a piece of text is Antisemitic is a factual question. And I'm not responsible for the inference drawn therefore. But I'm not now able to say more because Administrator User:Jpgordon has said that the "next time" I "suggest" that a user is a "Jew-hater" "will be my last." From this it seems that I cannot describe the current article as Antisemitic because it would "suggest" that the author(s) who wrote it are Antisemitic. I do not know what User:Jpgordon would do to me - the "suggestion" seems like a threat. I'm not afraid. But I certainly do not wish to offend, and create an atmosphere where discourse is impossible. But I also do not wish to be Blocked. So I do not know what said administrator means. But I ask you to allow me to say whatever I want about the nature of the Article - without the Danger that saying so might "suggest" something about the User who writes or defends it. In other words, please ask User Jpgordan to retract the threat: "the next one will be your last." All the best to all - Brave Wikipedian --Ludvikus 16:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus I believe you are looking for a way to address Administrator Abuse. Follow the link and see what procedures are available to you. Padillah 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems that both parties here have been long time contributors to WP. I don't think that it is productive to assume that a difference of opinion in a sentitive topic is evidence of any form of racism or other prejudice. We cover many sensitive and unpleasant topics at WP and those who are brave enough to venture into these areas to make sure that the articles are productive should not be confused with the POV fringes which are also attracted to these topics. --Kevin Murray 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Luvikus, let's slow down the major changes and discuss a few goals here at the talk page. Maybe we can find a path of mutual satisfaction. --Kevin Murray 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Míkka, in covering a topic of propaganda, I think we need to make sure that we don't create a tool for the propagandists. This is tough, and such an article is prone to manipulation by POV pushers. --Kevin Murray 15:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why you have to preach to me. The dispute is not about the content. The dispute is about nonchalant page moves. While Ludvikus is clearly a knwoledgeable person in Protocols of elders of Zion, he has quite strange ideas about format and style in wikipedia. `'Míkka 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I appologize if I offended you, but in any attempt to intervene in a dispute sometimes we have to restate he obvious. Content is being disputed here and that can not be cleanly divorced from the issue of a title. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC).
        • Thank you User Mikka for your compliment. Much appreciated. I've tried for a long time to engage a discussion about this page - but it all seemed like I was talking to the Wall. My recollection is that it was you who merely Reverted my editorial work. And you only left cryptic messages on the history page. But know you are willing to have a discussion and I thank you for that. But could you please ask Administrator User Jpgordon to get off my back? I do not seem to have offended you by any "suggestions." Nevertheless, Jpgordon took it upon himself to threaten me with being Blocked. Furthermore, User Mikka, I certainly would like to discuss further with you my alleged "strange style." But could you please do that on my personal Talk page? Thank you. --Ludvikus 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I suggested you to write a new article about the pamphlet. Since you ignored my suggestion, I started it for you. In the future, please don't tell me that I wrote the "The Jewish Bolshevism" article: I didn't, just as I didn't write the current one. My sole purpose has been enforcing proper structure and style. I repeat: I don't care about actual content, since I dont' have sufficient expertise. `'Míkka 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

An idea

Perhaps the name "Jewish Bolshevism" is inflamatory, because it is propaganda slogan. Renaming the article "Jewish Bolshevics" might be less offensive. --Kevin Murray 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in this topic. My edits int this page were not contributions of content. The article is about a specific usage of a specific expression, just like we have a huge "Nigger" article, and nobody in their sane senses suggests to merge it with African Americans or smth. else. Please feel free to write a separate article about Jews in the Russian Revolution or whatever. But the title of the current artcle stays as it is. If the article has unattributed statements, you know what to do. `'Míkka 16:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the topic has expanded beyond your original intent when you broke it off from the main article. And now with the second related article we need to consider what goes where and what possible changes could benefit the WP project, including a third topic as you suggest. --Kevin Murray 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I have just said above: by all means, write a new article and clean this one in whatever way necessary, bud don't change its original scope as specified by article title and its introduction. "The second related article" is just cut and paste of Ludvikus I am ignoring for now. `'Míkka 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean you have no interest in it? Look, you are the earliest name on the History page of it:
(cur) (last) 03:07, 17 November 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (Cut out of Bolshevik since it grew)
Here's the link to it: [1]. --Ludvikus 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This was a purely technical move: a spin-off of a separate topic into a separate page. `'Míkka 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge notice

I put up a Merge Tag//Template on the page - but it has been removed against Wiki policy. Do you obect if I put it back up? --Ludvikus 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • no merge. Different and easily separable topics: one about a political slur, another is about a pamphlet with a certain title. `'Míkka 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No Merge. Agree with Mikkalai, the two topics are different enough to distinguish easily between the two and large enough that inclusion of one into the other would result in a overly large and expansive subtopic. Padillah 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. One article traces the source of the antisemitic epitaph, the other engages in Original research explaining why (and "so many") Jews were, or rather happened to be, Bolsheviks. Furthermore, how is the judgment made that the number was "disproportionate - and by whom? --Ludvikus 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No Merge (now) At present I think "The Jewish Bolshevism" (the pamphlet) is notable enough to justify a separate article. I think we may want this article to deal strictly with the epithet "Jewish Bolshevism", and there may be justification for another separate article about people of Jewish heritage who were involved in the Russian Revolution as Bolsheviks, but that is yet unclear. I see any merging or name changes as premature --Kevin Murray 04:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I strongly disagree in this proposed Segregation. There is no justification for this proposed Original research. What grounds is there to write separately about these "people of Jewish heritage who were involved in the Russian Revolution as Bolsheviks"? Why not write about "brown eyed" people who were Bolsheviks? --Ludvikus 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No merge, the article correctly presents the Jewish Bolshevism as an antisemitic term that gave name to the racist theory. The theory and the term are notable. The article makes no attempt to defend such a POV. It should stay were it is. The Jewish Bolshevism, OTOH, is a pamphlet, a publication, also notable enough for a separate article. I see no need to merge. --Irpen 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Disproportionate"

User:Padillah wrote in edit comment :"No amount of qualification will make 'disproportionate' NPOV." Please someone explain User:Padillah the essence of WP:NPOV policy, since I am not sure he is going to listen to me that he has gross misunderstanding here: wikipedia forbids wikipedians's POV. On the other hand this whole article is actually about a certain anti-semitist POV. `'Míkka 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Mikka, please calm down a bit. I understand that you feel very strongly about this topic, but your comments both on this page and elsewhere are starting to be inflammatory, and you're pushing WP:ATTACK. Your comment here is inappropriate for this talk page, and should be placed elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding is wrong: I am merely supervising this page, since it happens to be on my watch list. My comment is related to article content and hence belongs to this talk page. `'Míkka 18:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are not some innocent bystander that got caught up in this. You have called me names and implied that I am lazy (I would link to it but it's an edit summary and I don't know how but it's for edit 19:04 1, October 2007 ). You have misrepresented yourself and been generally confrontational throughout this process. Please don't try and act innocent in light of a third party. Padillah 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I know of no authoritative source that says something like a disproportionate number of Jews were Bolsheviks. To the best of my knowledge only antisemtic sources were concerned with how many Jews were Bolsheviks. I challenge User Mikka to name one authentic, legitimate, or scholarly source that spent any significant verbage in a discussion concerning the quantity of Jews who were Bolsheviks. But I can give you "tons" of Antisemitic source in which much effort was expanding discussing how many Jews were Bolsheviks! And, of course, the subtext is that there were too many. --Ludvikus 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you to read the article before challenging me; section Jewish Bolshevism#Jewish Bolsheviks, in particular, with a number of quite respectable references, including from jewish sources. Please point out which references in the wikipedia article are from "Antisemitic source". `'Míkka 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your conclusory summary here is inconsistent with the content of the article. For example, there are two footnotes there, one of which has link to an Ouside source in Russian (which is unreadable to English speakers), the other makes reference to Walter Lacquer's work, and actually to the wrong text. Why aren't you more specific and precise on your citation? Would you like to say that Walter Lacquer says (somewhere) that many Jews were Bolsheviks? OK, I'll give you that. I'll even give you the exact quote. But so what? Where's the theorizing about "why so many Jews were Bolsheviks?" --Ludvikus 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Lacquer is actually quoted in this section and right on the point. "why so many Jews were Bolsheviks?" - I don't care why. As I said I dont' care about this topic. `'Míkka 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In Bolshevik Tradition (1963/1975) by Robert H. McNeal Jews are only mentioned once, on page 117, as anti-Bolsheviks in fact. It's in connection with the so-called Jewish Doctor's Plot (1953). --Ludvikus 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Origins of Russian Communism (1937/1948/1960) by Nicolas Berdyaev has no "Index" but has "Contents" and there's no mention of Jews, only of Russian phenomena. --Ludvikus 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Similar deductions (as: From Trotsky being a Jew and "so many" Jews having been Bolsheviks):

I doubt I've made my point, but I've tried. --Ludvikus 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Since the first is in Blue perhaps we should Move & remame our article (just kidding)
to Russian Bolshevism (meaning thereby, presumably) that part that's untainted by Jews, as the Nazis did with German physics. --Ludvikus 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The subtext here is that a rotten apple (a Jew) spoils the whole bunch (the millions of Ruusian Bolsheviks). --Ludvikus 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I.e., what chance did the Russian krepostnoi krestyanin (крепостной крестьянин) have against "clever Jews"? --Ludvikus 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jewish physics, Russian alcoholism etc. I don't know what was your point, but all you red links are in fact topics of missing articles. `'Míkka 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At least now we know your position: Every two juxtaposed words deserve an article, right? But why? And what would you write about under Russian alcoholism? And would you include an image/photograph of Boris Yeltsin drunk?
If not, by what criteria do you determine the need of an article? And what about 3, 4, 5, etc., juxtaposed words?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Sam - through one of his Senators - also engaged himself (in 1924) in the numbers game of counting the number of Jews who were Bolsheviks (the Chart was allegedly taken by the Senator from the Russian census previously published in Pravda:

Chart - Conditions in Russia (1924)

I hope the Chart - and Source - which I've recently copied, scanned, and uploaded, proves useful to Wikipedians. --Ludvikus 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chart is from the following source:
   68TH CONGRESS, 1st Session
   SENATE DOCUMENT No. 126
   CONDITIONS IN RUSSIA
   SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM H. KING 
   A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 
   DELIVERED IN THE SENATE 
   JANUARY 22 AND APRIL 24, 1924 
   PRESENTED BY MR. LODGE 
   MAY 26,1924.--Ordered to be printed 
   WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
   1924

The external link to it online is here [2]. Yours truly --Ludvikus 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Remarkable - Jewish Bolsheviks & Wikipedian antisemitism

It seems my position is not coming accross. So I'd like to try another way of putting it - with a question: What was remarkable about a Jew being a Bolshevik? Would we want or need an article about Irish Democrats or French Republicans? In fact to the extent that a Jew was a Bolshevik he was so much the less a Jew. The expression's notability derives only from its antisemitic sources. And the pamphlet's significance derives only from the fact that it embodies the two-term expression, "Jewish Bolshevism." Any separation of the article from its antisemitic texts will only turn it into such, an Antisemitic article. I think we should discuss that last issue very seriously, namely at what point would a Wikipedia article become itself antisemitic literature? Any attempt at trying to explain why Jews were Bolsheviks, as opposed to non-Jews cannot be turned into a Neutral Point of View. Why don't we have Russian Bolshevism or Ukrainian Bolshevism? And why must we consider Bolsheviks by their ethnic or national identity? And if there is no valid encyclopedic reason to do so, we should restrict ourselves to the narrower issue of discussing the antisemitic epithat. And in that regard, the two articles are about the same subject and should be merged. The pamphlet, by itself is not worthy of a distinct article. It is precisely because it embodies the antisemitic epitaph that it deserves a place here, but in the epitath's namespace. --Ludvikus 05:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Let's be frank, being Jewish too many Jews means being part of a nation. In a collective sense, I think most Jews feel closer to other Jews, than they will ever feel to the "host" State. It's not just a religion it's a nation. Hence the importance of identifying members of the "tribe" in any of their endeavors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.182.95 (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rosenberg on Jewish Bolshevism

I give it to you straight from the horse's mouth: 

    Rosenberg's obiter dicta about Russia and Communism
    are found in the Mythos and in countless brochures and booklets:
    Bolshevism is the revolt of the Jewish and Mongolian races
    against the German (aryan) element in Russia;
    it is the revolt of the steppe, the hatred of the nomads of everything great,
    heroic, racially healthy;
    all big things in Russian history had been achieved
    by Germans or those of German blood,
    but the revolution of 1917 had exterminated the aryan element.
    . . ., nor did the Jewish-Soviet Government represent the Russian people.
    To the Nazi ideologists, all leading Soviet statesmen were Jews:
    Lenin and Trotsky, Lunacharsky and Rakovsky,
    Kuibyshev and Krasin, Beria and [[Manuilsky among them.
    Whoever was not a Jew was a Chinese. Rosenberg developed an elaborate theory
    about the leading role of Chnese silk merchants in the Russian revolution.
    While other observers of the Soviet scene engaged in political speculation and social analysis,
    the Nazis' Russian experts were preoccupied with another kind of scientific investigation
    which hardly left them time for anything else. They tracked down the 'real' (Jewish) names
    of all Soviet leaders; Lunacharsky, for instance, became Mondschein - for who did not know that
    'luna' was 'moon' in Latin? This, by and large, was the level of Nazi Sovietology.
    --Walter Laqueur, Russia and Germany, A Century of Conflict (1965), pp. 21-22

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. What are you trying to prove with this quote? Kwork 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That there's no need for this separate article; that it's enough to have the article The Jewish Bolshevism; that there's not much to this conspiracy theory that cannot be stated in the article in that insignificant pamphlet - significant only for its title, The Jewish Bolshevism, which embodies this antisemitic slogan. --Ludvikus 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. For example, we have a main article on the text, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We even have distinct articles on the different editions and imprints of this stuff. But we do not have an article on the Theory of the Protocols of Zion. Why? Because it's all covered in these imprint artcles, as well as in Antisemitism. Why should we dignify this antisemitic views, that Bolshevism is essentially, or fundamentally, a Jewish phenomena? No one but an Antisemite bgelieves that. So you can find out all about it by reading [Antisemitism]]. And if you want more, just go to the actually antisemitic titles. The idea that we need such an article can only be justified by what it implies: that there's merit to the notion that Bolshevism is Jewish. I find it very hard to accept that people do not see this. --Ludvikus 15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference is, as I see it, as is the difference between a study of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, and a study of the history of the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps some of the contents of The Jewish Bolshevism article should be moved to this article. Kwork 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand now the distinction you are making. However, I vehemently disagree. Here's why. (1) Charles Darwin was a great and brilliant genius. Advocates of antisemitism are crackpots, psychopaths, illiterates, and otherwise incompetent intellectuals and historians. (2) Darwinism is a coherent theory - it makes sense, whereas all antisemitic conspiracy "theorizing" involves a metaphoric use of the word "theory." Antisemitism is merely blaming the Jews for everything that's wrong with the world. Period. So where is the "theory"? --Ludvikus 09:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should create an article about that. Although this article is perhaps not one I would have chosen to create myself, I do not see any reason to get upset over that. Kwork 12:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bund and Mensheviks

    The General Jewish Labor Union (the Bund) sought to unite all Jewish workers in the Empire and to ally with the wider
    Russian social democratic movement to achieve a democratic and socialist
    Russia. They hoped to see the Jews achieve recognition as a nation with a legal minority status.[1]
    
    The Bund was a secular socialist party, opposed to what they saw as the reactionary nature of traditional Jewish
    life in Russia. Created in 1897, before the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), the Bund became a
    founding collective member of the RSDLP at its first congress in Minsk in March 1898.
    [2] For the next five years, the Bund was recognized as the sole representative of the Jewish workers in
    the RSDLP, although many Russian socialists of Jewish descent, especially outside of the Pale of Settlement, joined the
    RSDLP directly.
    
    At the RSDLP's Second Congress in Brussels and London in August 1903, the Bund's autonomous position within the
    RSDLP was rejected by a majority of the delegates and the Bund's representatives left the Congress, the first of many
    splits in the Russian social democratic movement in the years to come.
    [3] The Bund formally rejoined the RSDLP when all of its faction reunited at the Fourth (Unification) Congress
    in Stockholm in April 1906, but the party remained fractured along ideological and ethnic lines. The Bund generally
    sided with the party's Menshevik faction led by Julius Martov and against the Bolshevik faction led by
    Vladimir Lenin during the factional struggles in the run-up to the Russian Revolution of 1917.

All this is Original research. To try to explain the Antisemitism by an account of the Jewish Bund, etc., is not only Original research, but reflects an unjustified need to make "excuses" for Jews - as if a "crime" had to be explained.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bund was Jewish

So what? Is the Pope not Catholic? --Ludvikus 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedians trying to explain "Jewish Bolshevism" by bringing into the article the History of the Jewish Bund constitutes a violation of the Wiki policy against "Original research." No scholar of Antisemitism does that - and of course the Jewish Bund was attacked by antisemites just because it was Jewish. But anything Jewish was so attacked.
  • Not only that, engaging in such discourse constitutes being sucked into an antisemitic trap - engaging in any discourse of this kind implies that Jews have something to be ashamed of in the face of the rest of humanity. No reputable scholar I know of spent any significant amount of paper space explaining why Jews where or were not Bolsheviks. That job was left exclusively to the Antisemites. Accordingly, cyberspace should not be so tarnished either. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bund and Mensheviks

I've deleted this section. It Original research. An editor took it upon himself to "defend" Jews for their Bolshevism.):

  • The Bund was a secular socialist party, opposed to what they saw as the reactionary nature of traditional Jewish life in Russia. Created in 1897, before the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP), the Bund became a founding collective member of the RSDLP at its first congress in Minsk in March 1898.[5] For the next five years, the Bund was recognized as the sole representative of the Jewish workers in the RSDLP, although many Russian socialists of Jewish descent, especially outside of the Pale of Settlement, joined the RSDLP directly.
  • At the RSDLP's Second Congress in Brussels and London in August 1903, the Bund's autonomous position within the RSDLP was rejected by a majority of the delegates and the Bund's representatives left the Congress, the first of many splits in the Russian social democratic movement in the years to come.[6] The Bund formally rejoined the RSDLP when all of its faction reunited at the Fourth (Unification) Congress in Stockholm in April 1906, but the party remained fractured along ideological and ethnic lines. The Bund generally sided with the party's Menshevik faction led by Julius Martov and against the Bolshevik faction led by Vladimir Lenin during the factional struggles in the run-up to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews who were Bolsheviks

Why not call the article that (by the above)?

  • Isn't the article in fact precisely doing that?
  • What justifies that?
  • On the other hand, our 1924 Chart shows that most Bolsheviks were Russians, followed by Ukrainians in second place. So we have need of the following articles:

Russian Bolshevism

Russians became Bolsheviks because ...

Ukrainian Bolshevism

Ukrainians became Bolsheviks because ...

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference #10 = Madievskiy

  • This reference is rather rare (19 Google hits): [3].
  • It is being used to support the work of an editor in explaining why Jews were Bolsheviks.
  • Does it in fact support the article?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be a 2000 (year) source. --Ludvikus 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Sam's 1924 Chart from Pravda

Here's are Russian census figures published in Russia, and re-published by the US Senate.

  • After all, this article about the Subject, as opposed to the Pamphlet, is about How many Jews where this and Why.
Yours truly--13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting chart but in all not very useful-it's only for membership, much more usefull would be numbers of distribution of ethnic groups among top and low rank positions. For example during post-1945 Soviet Occupation of Poland they were quite big differences in ranks of Communist party seen in top positions, while the overall membership didn's show the differences.--Molobo 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. This kind of ethnic analysis originated with the Nazis. And by 1924 a US Senate member also considered this kind of analysis. The usefulness was for the Nazis - it is for them that Bolshevism was Jewish. --Ludvikus 02:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Originated with Nazis ? Such statistics were made decades before they apppeared. The Bolshevik Party itself did such surveys IIRC. I am fairly certain every major Empire in late XIX century started to do such things--Molobo 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

original research or unverified claims

The tag claims points of "original research or unverified claims". You need to specify the specific points you find problematic so that they can be discussed, and (if necessary) corrected. Otherwise I will remove the Tag. Kwork 16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Good observation. I thought I had done that. But here I go again, and hopefully more precisely.
  • This is an Article about an Antisemitic political epithet and should stick to discussing that.
  • But in fact it still is an article by Wikipedians who find a need to explain Why Jews were Bolsheviks. All instances in which a need by a Wikipedian to do that should be omitted.
  • Argument': The 1924 Chart, shows that the majority of Bolsheviks were Russians, but there is no usage or article such as Russian Bolshevism; neither is there such a thing as Ukrainian Bolshevism, even though Ukrainians held second place - as Bolsheviks - both in numbers and in percentage.
  • If there is any usage, discussion, of Jews as Bolsheviks, that should be cited, quoted, and explained. As far as I know, no first rate scholar bothered to explain, or excuse, Jews for their Bolshevism. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish both antisemitic, and Bolshevik propaganda, sources, if used here. Not necessarily an easy task I know.
  • Finally, I wish to emphasis, the article should not explain how few (many as well is a non-neutral POV term) Jews Were not, or Were, Bolsheviks. Such an evaluation is not relevant, since the issue is an antisemitic usage. The Usage is more like the question, "How many Russians are Murders?" in order to clam that Russian are inclined to be Murders (by blood, or cicumstances). In such a case would we go into the actual study of How many Russians actually are homicidal? No. Neither should we, therefore, explore Jewish demographics or politics here, since Bolshevism is a political position like Democrat and Republican are for Americans.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut: Yevsektsiya

Yevsektsiya (Russian: ЕвСекция) was the Jewish section of the Soviet Communist party. It was created to challenge and eventually destroy the rival Bund and Zionist parties, suppress Judaism and "bourgeois nationalism" and replace traditional Jewish culture with "proletarian culture", as well as to impose the ideas of Dictatorship of the proletariat onto the Jewish worker class. An important aim of the Yevsektsiya was to mobilize the world Jewry in favor of the Soviet regime. The first conference of Yevsektsiya took place in October 1918. For most of its existence, the Yevsektsya was headed by Semyon Dimanstein.
The Yevsektsia was disbanded in 1929, after the creation of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Many of its members perished in the Great Purge, along with their Gentile counterparts. Dimanstein was executed in 1938 and was rehabilitated posthumously in 1955, 2 years after the death of Stalin.

It's nicely written - the above. But what does it have to do whith the antisemitic slogan? It clearly is original research by a well-intentioned Wikipedian who has found a need to make excuses for Jews who were Bolsheviks. But Jews do not need such a defense, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish it - unless we can find a legitimate source which has done that, and we can explain why that source did it.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not cut yet: Jewish anti-Bolsheviks

    In 1917, a significant part of Jewish revolutionaries, especially SRs, were opposed to the [[Bolshevik
    Revolution]]. The Red Terror was triggered by the assassination of Uritsky and an attempt of the assassination of
    Lenin, the perpetrators of both these attacks on leading Bolsheviks were Jewish. In the first party executed during
    the Red Terror of 130 persons 12 were Jews [7]

I have not cut that. But again, what does this have to do with the Antisemitic usage: "Jewish Bolshevism"? It too is the original research of a well-intentioned Wikipedian, probably an anti-Bolshevik as well, who believes that it is necessary to show that some Jews were even anti-Bolsheviks. What scholar of Bolshevism or Antisemitism did That, and if so, Why? --Ludvikus 18:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian Bolshevism

This is Hitler's - or a non-neutral POV account (for the sake of argument) - of why so many Russians and Ukrainians were Bolsheviks.

  • (1) The Jews were not only much better educated, but they are a clever people. Whereas the R & U, like all the slavs, are just not as smart, and were generally ignorant too.
  • (2) Jews had all the Power in Imperial and Soviet Russia.
Can any one improve and elaborate how such an article should, or could, be written?
Or maybe we ought not write this kind of article?
But what's the difference between it and the herein?
Cheers, --Ludvikus 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bolshevist is strictly Russian

According to Nicolas Berdyaev, in his 1937/1948/1960 monograph, The Origins of Russian Communism, that is so. --Ludvikus 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the eight Russian, and otherwise non-Jewish, elements that produced Russian Communism:
To be continued .... --Ludvikus 06:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is, there was nothing Jewish about this subject.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That Bolshevism is Jewish is a Nazi idea

Apparently User:Mikkalai does not like that fact, or wishes to suppress it - without any discussion. Walter Laqueur says that that was perhaps the only original idea the Nazis had in the study of Bolshevism. User:Mikkalai apparently claims to know better, and expects us to take his word for it. Should we do so? --Ludvikus 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are misquoting Laqueur. He wrote "the original idea was linking world Jewry and Bolshevism. I am surprised that you dont see the difference. My edit was explained in edit summary: the citation was attached in support of false statement. I strongly suggest you to read what people write in edit summaries and, further, to discuss what is written, not what you think about my wishes. `'Míkka 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Here's Laqueur's exact, opening, idea:
If Nazism made any original contribution to this field of study, it was the identification of world Jewry and Bolshevism; a dogma it repeated time and again on every level of sophistication from the quasi-scientific to the most vulgar.
  • From that it follows, by logic alone, that the juxtaposition of Jewry and Bolshevism may have been an original Nazi idea.
    • No. from what it follows nothing. Once again, the key word here is world Jewry, i.e., the conspiracy theory of "Jewish cabal", not simply "Russian Jews" (or Jewish Bolsheviks), but starting from Karl Marx. `'Míkka 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Wikipedia should not be another forum to repeat once again this Nazi idea. No substantial scholarship on Russian Communism, or Bolshevism, associates Bolshevism with Jewishness - none. --Ludvikus 02:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is significant scholarship that indicates a significant involvement of Russian Jews in Russian Revolution and early Soviet power. `'Míkka 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually AFAIK the major Nazi idea (BTW I am not sure whether Nazis invented it) is that Communism is Jewish idea, and about Bolshevism is the secondary derivation. `'Míkka 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If you read Russia and Germany, by Walter Laqueur you will find that the Nazis made no such fine distinction as between Communism and Bolshevism - the claim was that since there were Jews in both, the two were the same. Bolshevism, to a Nazis was just Communism taking place in Russia by the Jews; the Nazis were far from being theoreticians. If there is any any argument to be made as to any substantial others involved in claiming that Bolshevism was Jewish, it was the "White Russians" who were fleeing out of the collapsing Russian Empire like rats from a sinking ship.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism Tract (literature)

User:Mikkalai will not allow me to discuss the content or subject matter of the tract. And he has arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably Reverted my Walter Laqueur quotations from it. --Ludvikus 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted text was related to the false statement: "The idea of linking Jewishnes with Bolshevism originates with the Nazis in Nazi Germany", as explained in the edit summary. In the current version one quotation is enough. We don't use lengthy excerpt from books. We write our own text. Lengthy quotations are normally restricted to primary sources. `'Míkka 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On originality, see the above "That Bolshevism is Jewish is a Nazi idea."
  • If you don't like or want the quote, than you may paraphrasis it — that's one option. Just wipping out the research of another Wikipedian editor constitutes Vandilism, a practice not allowed on Wikipedia. --Ludvikus 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's the quote you've chose effectively to censor (your motive(s) are irrelevant)

Hitler and Rosenberg had decided, once and forever, that Communism was the revolt of the underlings; a racial, not an ideological movement. Ideological discussions with Marxists, they said, were not merely senseless and absurd but positively harmful; it would imply that National Socialism accepted the Communists as more or less equal partners; that the Communists had an ideology which deserved to be taken seriously; what was important was to analyse the true (racial) sources of Communism. As a Communist one could win an argument simply by provingthat one's ideas conformed to those of Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. As a Nazi any connection with Marx or Marxism was a priori evil, for Marx had been born a Jew.| --Laqueur, Russia and Germany (1965), p. 177}}

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title vs.content

I don't really keep track of this article and finally I begin to understand (I think) the major objection of user:Ludvikus. The article gives an undue bias to the political slur, detrimentally to what should be a historical topic which may be titled Jews in Russian revolutionary movement and early Soviet state. Therefore I suggest to split "Jewish Bolshevism" leaving in it only what is immediately related to the usage of the political epithet and its published justifications. The rest (plus possibly something from History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union#Jews and Bolshevism) must go into a new article.

Opinions, please. `'Míkka 02:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Works fine for me. --Irpen 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why I find the Polish wiki article interlinked here (pl:Żydzi a komunizm) which can be translated as Jewish attitudes towards communism much better; instead of wasting time on discussion about a slur being offensive it gives an overview of an interesting and notable subject.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Actually in any case it would be a skewed interwiki: the Polish article is of international scope, while here we are talking about Russia. It seems that the Polish article deserves splitting into three. Jews and Communism is a rather loosely and skewly knit topic: I'd rather put together these topics in common historical context and described Jews in RSDLP and Bund in the same article rather than Jews in RSDLP and PPR together. `'Míkka 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please notice that I specifically want a separate article about Jewish political activism, not just a piece of Jewish history from History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union. `'Míkka 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I cannot understand your guys logic - or perhaps you do not see the flaw of your own thinking. You will not permit an Article on Polish antisemitism, yet you want Jewish communism, or some accounting why Jews were, or did, this or that. Were Jews citizens of Poland and subjects of Russia? Why must you single out the Jews in your special ways? If you want to know about the Jews read anything like the History of the Jews.
  • But I cannot understand why it is impossible for me to make you realize, simply put, that any kind of special study of the Jews which is not backed up scholarly sources, is improper. You must not invent your own categories which have no foundation in established scholarly sources.
  • On the other hand, we must distinguish and identify discredited sources. For example, you would not want, I'm sure, an article titled Slav racial inferiority, where the references would be Hitler & Co. You are aware, of course, that the Nazis held that between the Jews and Gypsis on the one hand, and the Nordic, German, or Aryans, were the Slavs, like the Poles and the Russians. How would you like a Wikipedian to start an Article exploring the basis of such a theory? We would ask, lets see all the stuff about the inferiority of the slavs?
  • Writing, here, about Jewish Bolshevism was just like that - until recently; there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in juxtaposing the two terms herein, except what the "Whites" (opponents of the "Reds") and the Nazis Said.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I want the article Jews in Russian revolutionary movement and early Soviet state, just as there is an article Chinese in Russian Revolution. "Jews in Russian revolutionary movement" is considered valid reseacrh topic not only by anti-Semites. `'Míkka 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And how about Russians and communism, Ukrainians and communism, and last but not least, Poles and communism - do you want that? How about Eskimoes and communism (no offense intended to the Eskimoes)?
Of course, 'Mikka, you don't bother telling us that you started that peculiar article yourself - about the Chinese.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I started it exaclty because it is peculiar. Please tell me did you know anything about Chinese in Russian revolition? By the way please read rules about speedy deletion.
You seem to have poor understanding what other people say: I am against the topics "Somebody and communism". And I am reminding you again, please drop your derisive tone, if you want to be taken respectfully in discussions. `'Míkka 04:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, do you find derisive about my writing? I find your invention of Titles for Wikipedia articles extremely derisive and in violation of Wikipedia policy: what you do is no different than starting and article called, Stupid Poles. Then we would just look al over the world, on the Web especially, anything that had a statement with the two words, "Stupid" and "Pole." And then I would say, see, Mikka, I have references. So the Stupid Pole article must stay. And you expect me to take you seriously! --Ludvikus 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Here Mikka, with Google I found 1,190 hits for "stupid Poles": [4]. So why don't you start an article about it? Will you also consider it peculiar? --Ludvikus 04:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer talking to you on this page, since your goal seem to be confrontation. `'Míkka 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Mikka clearly does not appreciate that "Jewish Bolshevism" = "Stupid Poles." He wants me to talk calmly about the Former, but he cannot talk about the Latter. Let me inform all the other Polish editors that I am very well aware of the contributions that Poles made within Polish logic - and that this subject most likely deserves a special article of its own on Wikipedia. --Ludvikus 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Mikka said this when he started the Chinese in Russian Revolution article: "White Army propaganda poster depicting evil Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers...')".
  • For Mikka, "White Army propaganda posters" - depicting Trotsky with the Star of David - are legitimate references. His own personal observation that Trotsky was "evil" is also acceptable; as well as the implication that he was evil because he was Jewish. I'm not yet sure what to make of the alleged existence of Chinese in the propaganda poster. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there does/do appear to be Chinese in the Poster. I guess Mikka wants us to believe that it was not truly the Russians who were Bolsheviks. But it is Not the Star of David which is around the neck of Trotsky - it's a 5 points star. --Ludvikus 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Star around Trotsky's neck turns out to be, not a hexagram, but a pentagram (and it does not have 2 of its points pointing up. I'm not going to interpret that. --Ludvikus
  • I do not wish to insult the Polish people by the above example; so let me say that I am very much aware of the contributions which have been made by Poles to Modern Logic; yet there is no such Article as Polish logic, Google produced 1,780 hits for it as follows: [5]. --Ludvikus 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
LC Control No.: 67106639
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: McCall, Storrs, [from old catalog] comp.
Main Title: Polish logic, 1920-1939 papers by Ajdukiewicz [and others];
Published/Created: Oxford, Clarendon P., 1967.
Related Names: Ajdukiewicz Kazimierz. [from old catalog]
Description: [2] viii, 406 p. 23 cm.
Subjects: Logic, Symbolic and mathematical--Addresses, essays, lectures. [from old catalog]
Logicians, Polish. [from old catalog]
LC Classification: BC135 .M18
Yours truly, -Ludvikus 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
We are going off topic here, but I think Polish logic may just be a redirect to create to Prefix notation. PS. And I missed that, but Poles and communism could be redirected to Polish communism; an article I created - I certainly think that the subject is notable (albeit maybe a better name would be Communism in Poland?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Żydokomuna

  • Why do we need to pollute our English language - as well as WP - with a duplicate Polish antisemitic slur is (not really) beyond my comprehension.
  • We already have "Judao-Communism" right here - in English.
  • So please, lets keep Żydokomuna back in Poland or among the Polish antisemites all over the world.
  • My apologies to all the decent Poles who are not responsible for this.
  • Let's see who steps forward first to defend this ethnic slur extract from the Polish language for usage on WP and therefore also - through usage - in English.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I object to merging Zydokomuna here. This is a notable concept in Poland and several other countries where Jewish Bolshevism doesn't apply. I certainly can see how it can be considered a subarticle to Jewish Bolshevism, but it is too large for a merge. PS. That said, as I suggested on talk of Zydokomuna article, it should probably be splits into Polish Jews and communism and Zydokomuna, and the conspiracy theory/slurr part could be merged into JB.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the objection. It has nothing to do with "Bolshevism". `'Míkka 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support the objection, pls see newly added critical background info in lead. --Poeticbent talk 04:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism. Thanks, IZAK 10:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack...

This is a WP:COATRACK article; the "background" section is bigger than the entire rest of the piece, and it is a lame excuse to WP:POVFORK around the article Jewish Bolshevism. It appears to have been written by a user who is now banned for obsessive POV pushing and wild accusations of anti-Semitism. I am replacing the entire section with a "main article: Jewish Bolshevism" link. Whatever content is worthy of a merge should be retrieved from the article's history. <eleland/talkedits> 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Wait, why am i on the talk page for this. I meant The Jewish Bolshevism. Oh, the talk is a redirect. Incompletely reverted merge... <eleland/talkedits> 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Halfway merged

Concerned editors should check this old revision of "The Jewish Bolshevism" which contained an extensive POV fork from Jewish Bolshevism in the form of extended sections on "origin" and "background". The quality of those sections may be dubious overall, but there is probably at least something worth merging. I'm not knowledgeable on this subject (and I have a personal aversion to getting involved further, frankly), so I hope somebody else is willing to step in. <eleland/talkedits> 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nazi Lithuanian poster.JPG

Image:Nazi Lithuanian poster.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Very Fuzzy Arithmetic

The first paragraph of the article states that

"On the eve of the February Revolution, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members,[5] of which 364 were ethnic Jews.[4]"

while further on we get the contradicting claim that

"In 1922, of the 44,148 members of the Bolshevik party that had joined before 1917 (the Old Guard, as Lenin referred to them) 7.1% were Jewish (65% were Russian).[citation needed]"

Since these simply cannot both be true (the February 1917 Revolution would have occured right at the beginning of 1917 when the Bolsheviks would have had "about 10,000 members, of which 364 were ethnic Jews", while at the same time the Old Guard who had joined before 1917 would have numbered "44,148 members of the Bolshevik party...7.1% [of them] Jewish" (that would amount to roughly 3,100 Jews out of that 44,148-member figure), and since the first claim is actually referenced, while the second claim is not, I propose the removal of the second claim, which, unless it can somehow be explained in a credible fashion, should be treated, I would suppose, like another canard exaggerating the extent of Jewish involvement with the Bolsheviks.

166.216.128.76 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've found the connection. The uncited source for the second claim is from http://www.sem40.ru/anti/7820, where it says that the Old Guard were those referred to by Lenin as having joined before _October 1917_ ("до октября 17-го года"), not the ones who "had joined before 1917" as stated in the article. The first estimate's source (http://www.kara-murza.ru/books/sc_a/sc_a28.htm) explains that the Bolshevik membership grew rapidly through 1917, numbering about 50,000 by the end of the year. So, as it's saying "before 1917" instead of "before October 1917", the article's still wrong as it stands, but there's no contradiction in reality. I'll edit to undo the weirdness.

209.183.32.49 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and Communism

Found new article: Judaism and Communism. Needs attention.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kellogg Disputed

This page includes a passage from Kellogg about Rollin, claiming that Rollin's book was censored widely. Here is what Michael Hagemeister has to say in the Spring 2008 issue of NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE, p. 92:

"A legend still circulating today is that Rollin's book is very rare because it was confiscated by the Nazis during the occupation of France and destroyed. The book actually went through at least five editions in 1939, was widely available, and is today easy to find in second-hand book shops."

In general, Hagemeister is very skeptical of Rollin's whole thesis and views it as what he calls "a countermyth" where German and Russian Judeaphobes now play the role of the Learned Elders of Zion. Hagemeister instead praises Cesare De Michelis for his work THE NON-EXISTENT MANUSCRIPT and says that critics have largely ignored it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No contariction about "destroyed book": it was done in 1940, not in 1939; and it is next to impossible to confiscate all printed copies. It is not, like, a medieval manuscript in 11 copies. `'Míkka>t 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish" Bolshevism??

Isn't the term "Judeo-Bolshevism"? Personally i think "Judeo" is farm more often used than "Jewish". Plus, "Judeo" more accurately reflects the Nazi view that Judaism and Communism are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Communism as an objective, not anti-Semitic term

I think it is odd that the 'Jewish Communism' wiki redirects to Jewish Bolshevism which has a serious POV slant claiming the term is primarily anti-Semitic. Firstly, I think we've got to balance the Nazi conspiracy theory about Jewish Communist plots against the genuine appeal that communism, socialism and indeed Bolshevism really did have for many early 20th-century Jews. The Hebrew Communists were a real Israeli party, and Ben-Gurion's Poale Zion were unashamedly and overtly Marxist. Secondly, I think the header should be the more generic 'Jewish Communism' because Bolshevism is a specific term connected to the Russian Revolution and its immediate aftermath. Chumchum7 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is relevant. The Polish Communist Party was a real Polish party. The French Communist Party was a real French party. And so on.radek (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the introduction is a summary of the article and cannot be changed randomly, especially without citing any sources.. Redirect from Jewish Communism deleted as misleading, since the term is not described in the article. Please feel free to write a new, non-antisemitic article based in reliable sources, per wikipedia policies of verifiability. - Altenmann >t 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had this on my watchlist since working on Żydokomuna some time ago. I am restoring the lead per Alternmann's edit. "Jewish Bolshevism" is not purely a pejorative term per the most recent edits to the lead. The article content fully supports the lead as existed prior; the lead in turn should fully reflect the article in summary. The recent deletions resulted in an imbalanced portrayal of the article contents. If you wish to refine the lead, please discuss here first. PetersV       TALK 03:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
So there is support that the word 'pejorative' should be removed from the intro? I'm getting tired of the reverts--Львівське (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
How about a realiable citation that this term is scientific?--Galassi (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Some argue that Marxism and actually all left-wing politics is just a secular version of Judeo-Christian morality. Said by an anarcho-communist atheist to avoid getting labelled as „right-wing fringe”. Drama-kun (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think 'Jewish Communism' should be deleted. It is not the same as the anti-semitic discourse of 'Jewish Bolshevism'. 'Jewish Communism' could include the Bund, Yevsektsiya, various Jewish Communist Party, etc.. However, it is not really an established term, and having a separate 'Jewish Communism' article would intive OR. --Soman (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting of relevant pictures

2nd Congress of Soviets of the Nothern region presidium. In the front row: Moisei Uritsky, Leon Trotsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Mikhail Lashevich. In the 2nd row: M. M. Kharitonov, M. I. Lisovsky, Korsak, S. S. Zarin, S. P. Voskov, S. I. Gusev, S. N. Ravich, I. P. Bakayev, N. N. Kuzmin, 1918.

User:89.251.107.20 added the following picture to the article, only for User:Galassi to delete it for no reason. This article, to be blunt, is about Jews running the Soviet Union. The picture shows Soviet congress with the front row made up of all the USSRs prominent Jewish leaders acting together. How is this picture not "relevant"? Many if not all of the men shown are talked about in this article.

Historical photos such as this shouldn't be erroneously deleted to push some sort of POV.--Львівське (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For a very simple reason: the photo portrays a group of Bolsheviks (3 Jews and 1 Ukrainian), but it does NOT illustrate the gist of this article.--Galassi (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The picture shows 5 Jews (not 3). One can hardly consider Trotsky a Ukrainian in any way shape or form. The gist of the article is that it is believed that Jews had significant and disproportional political power within the USSR, or to the extent that it was a ZOG. Now, the picture illustrates the USSR congress, with the front row being 5 prominent Jewish Soviets. How is that not relevant to the text? It's the epitome of the text!--Львівське (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Trotsky was born and raised in a farm in the Ukraine, speaking only Ukrainian and Russian. How exactly is he *not* Ukrainian? The only thing needed to prove he was part of a powerful group of Ukrainians acting in concert is a photograph of him sitting in the same park bench as four other Ukrainians. Feketekave (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
1.Out of how many? There is a large crowd in the photo. 2.This is "Northern Regional Congress", not a national one. How 'bout the other 3? 3. There was no USSR in 1918. 4. Any interpretation of this picture unbacked by a reliable source would constitute OR.--Galassi (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Out of how many? Who cares, this is the front row, and all are relevant state actors talked about in this article. 2. Again, the other "regional congresses" are irrelevant to the purpose of this photo. 3. Good job picking out an inane misnomer. 4. No it wouldn't, that's just your own personal opinion.--Львівське (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Or merely Guests of Honor. Who's to decide, lest commit OR?--Galassi (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture exactly and simply illustrates the corresponding text and what is more, it gives a clear visual explanation why "Judeobolshevism" cliche propagated: when one saw such a picture in the today's (1918) newspaper, what would had one thought, you think? About Proletarian Internationalism? The picture must be restored into the appropriate part of the article - Altenmann >t 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See below.Galassi (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The picture explains very well the article "Jewish Bolshevism". But the jew Galassi doesn't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.103.68 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vaksberg excerpt

I am a bit troubled by the Arkady Vaksberg excerpt inserted by Galassi –

Shortly after the revolution Trotsky received a delegation of Jewish community leaders in Petrograd. In response to their concern that participation of Jews in the Bolshevik administration would cause problems for Jews in Russia in general - Trotsky bluntly stated that that he is not interested in the fate of Jews as such, and that he doesn't consider himself one, as he is an "internationalist"[51].

This, I think, is not the best rendering of Trotsky's attitude. Trotsky was an atheist and an internationalist, but he never denied or sought to cover up his Jewish origins - an ethnicity he was open about (it is enough only to read his autobiography). As far as Vaksberg's relation in the Russian text, in the first place, "bluntly stated" is 100% absent. What Vaksberg writes about is that Trotsky met with a Jewish Petrograd delegation headed by a rabbi (a religious association), and that he responded by saying that he did not consider himself a Jew as such (Vaksberg's formulation), but as an internationalist. This is only natural for a Marxist – Trotsky, like all committed Marxists, regarded himself as a member of the international class of proletarians rather than a member of some ethnic group in the relevant (political) sense, his ethnicity being an immaterial detail in this concern. But it's difficult to see why Trotsky would or should feel otherwise – orthodox Marxism treats class struggle as the only criterion of note, and he was a Marxist, wasn't he? Frankly, then, I think this runs the danger of smearing Trotsky, while doing very little in the way of explicating the canard discussed here. Trotsky didn't have a problem of admitting his Jewishness – he was just entirely uninterested in it as something to concern himself with in political affairs. Then again, no one but an antisemite would expect something different. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I agree with Galassi that the carefully-chosen pic only serves up rotten innuendo.

I don't know how good is your Russian apropos the quality of my rendering (which I believe is pretty good, and there is no inference of Trotsky's self-denial either.). As to the pic: It is all innuendo, just because it is a picture, and any inference of what it might mean would be OR.Galassi (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
My Russian is pretty good – bluntly is certainly not there. The statement is very much out of context given that it was said to a religious Jewish delegation that sought to curtail Jewish involvement in the Marxist movement, which was the sole thing that Trotsky had spent his whole mature life devoted to. But what, then, was he supposed to say exactly? No, Trotsky didn't put the interests of Jews as a group above the interests of the proletariat, although never did he have any interest in denying his Jewish background either (it occurs rather prominently in his 1930s writings especially). Frankly, if Lenin had sought to put the interests of ethnic Russians or someone else above the revolutionary situation, he wouldn't be a good Marxist either. We could attempt to de-POV by mentioning that Trotsky was open about his Jewishness and such, but how productive would this make things? The only point is that the antisemitic conspiracy that the October Revolution was some nefarious Jewish making is a fraud, but that's all clear without focusing on the nuances of Trotsky as a Jewish atheist Bolshevik. That would only draw out a muddled mess of things by discussing his admitted Jewishness and his dedication to global revolution in one not very clear (and rather ugly) fashion. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we are projecting modern sensibilities here. The plain reading of this and other statements by Trotsky is that he quite simply didn't consider himself to be a Jew or even one bit Jewish, while having no complexes whatsoever about the fact that his ancestors had happened to be such. This is a logically consistent position, and one that may have been more common then than now. Feketekave (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Bolsheviks

(1) It appears to me that this analysis of how many Jews were Bolsheviks, and who, among the Bolshevik leaders was a Jew, is a - perhaps unintentional - attempt to present the conspiracy theory that Bolshevism is Jewish. The article is about a pejorative expression. So why does it bother to discuss the number of Jews who were Bolsheviks, or which Bolshevik was a Jew?
(2) It's like discussing Racism against Africans, and proceeding to discuss IQ tests. It is generally regarded that discussing such scores to imply inferiority is a manifestation of racism.
(3) I do not see the relevance of discussing such "statistics" in the article about this pejorative expression. Perhaps a "List of Jewish Bolsheviks" might be more appropriate - though that might be of greater interest to anti-Semites. Should we also have a "List of Jewish criminals" - what purpose would that have? Again, I do not see at all the justification of the discussion of this section regarding the pejorative - except to excuse the racist anti-Semites.
(4) I therefore strongly recommend that this section be heavily edited, perhaps even deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of your comments. The short version: this is an article on an anti-Semitic theory. You can't expect it to omit that theory! You seem to be arguing from a viewpoint of censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, even to get rid of blatantly offensive and false ideas; if they're notable, we cover 'em. Interesting example you bring up, as there in fact is an entire article on Race and intelligence that discusses those racist theories - and does a better job of refuting them not by suppressing them, but rather by raising their points AND raising the opposition to said points which show how shallow they are.

I do agree that the section needs editing, actually, but not for the reasons you state. The problem with that section as it is currently is simply that it's rather dry and boring, not that it's POV.

As another comment: Your addition to the lede of the article is stating the obvious. I also recommend reading WP:OVERLINK... you don't need to link every word, especially something like "blame." SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the beauty of this article is that it debunks the ignorant and anti-semitic POV (which, sadly, we often see crop up even in this day and age) that Jews were the "driving force" behind an evil Jewish-Bolshevik plot for world domination by presenting the information on actual extent of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik movement. The whole point of describing the actual conditions is to make the point that Jews were overrepresented in proportion to their share of the population, but at no point was this minority a "dominating" force in the movement. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

By 1940, and after his rapprochement with Hitler's Germany, Stalin had eliminated virtually all Jews from very high level government positions inside the Soviet Union.

The purge was 1937-1938 while the reapprochment with Germany was in 1939. So the purge anyway cannot be "after".--Dojarca (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RAProachement was a protracted process.Galassi (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact there could not be reaproachment during the Spanish civil war where the USSR and Germany supported opposing sides.--Dojarca (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That was over in 1936.Galassi (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually April 1939, but Stalin had given up on the Spanish Republicans by early to mid 1938 by which point the war was pretty much lost (and this defeat being in some measure due to the policies of the Soviet controlled communist party in Spain characteristically more interested in killing their fellow Republicans - Socialists and Anarchists - then actually fighting Fascists).
Anyway, whether or not Stalin had eliminated Jews from the Soviet government by 1940 is simply a matter of what sources say. The quoted text doesn't say the elimination was done in one single purge (like the Doctors' Plot) - you got to remember that the purges were just the up-spikes in normal activity; there was "elimination" (of various peoples) going on even in non-purge times.radek (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So the reapproachment with Germany started in 1936?--Dojarca (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No, probably somewhat later, 1938. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact . The paragraph was really poorly written. I've corrected it.Galassi (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am just asking is there a connection between the repressions aganst Jews and the reapproachment. The Moscow trials over Trotskyists and the opposition (among which there were many Jews) started much before any negotiations with Nazi Germany. Even more: many of these people were accused in fascist views and spying for Germany. The article on the other hand implyes that the repressions were the consequence or preparation for the reapproachment with the Nazis.--Dojarca (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I cannot find the exact citation for now. Apparently Stalin told Goebbels in a private conversation that he tolerates Jews as long as they are useful to him, but it shouldn't last.Galassi (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've never come across a source recording Stalin meeting with Goebbels. Would be interesting to take a look at that if you could find it. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate Galassi's effort at rewriting the disputed statement, but

Between 1937 and 1940, during the Great Purge and in particular after the rapprochement with Nazi Germany, Stalin had eliminated virtually all Jews from top level government, security and military positions in the Soviet Union.

is not strictly accurate. For one thing, there were still many notable Jewish generals in World War II, for instance, Semyon Krivoshein, Yakov Kreizer, and Lev Mekhlis. Probably a good deal, if not the majority of the Soviet Union's Jewish generals attained their ranks under Stalin, since Jews were strictly prohibited from holding significant military ranks during the czarist period, and the Red Army in the 1920s still did not yet exist as the massive force it was to become known as until the 1930s. On the other hand, the most notable of the Jewish name in high-level government positions (for instance, members of the Central Committee) during the 1930s were eliminated – but this occured as part of Stalin's massive purges of most Old Bolsheviks during the decade, before any rapproachment with Germany even occured in 1939. (The words "...and in particular after the rapprochement with Nazi Germany" are incorrect, as the waves of purges against the Soviet bureaucracy themselves had nothing to do directly with any future rapproachment, and preceded the 1939 rapproachment rather than came after it.) Moreover, while Stalin eliminated many Jews in the Soviet government during the Great Purge, the majority of these were former members of the opposition (Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Iona Yakir) who were targeted after Stalin's purging of the active Trotskyists.
The same purges also swallowed up Stalin's non-Jewish opponents: Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Alexander Shlyapnikov, Nikolai Bukharin, Sultan Majid Afandiyev, Ivar Smilga). In these notable cases, all of these Bolsheviks were members of the Old Guard and were purged during the same processes by the same methods. Those likeliest to continue their further political careers during this period were simply the staunchest Stalinists, and, like various other Soviet Stalinists, Stalin's Jewish supporters like Lev Mekhlis and Lazar Kaganovich actually ascended to new heights during the Stalin period, although there were relatively few Stalinists among the Communist Party's Jewish leaders. For that matter, leading Jews like Genrikh Yagoda helped Stalin purge other Jews from the Soviet government. (Notably, Trotsky's fall from grace was significantly assisted by Kamenev and Zinoviev's support for Stalin during the 1920s.)
Hence, to take everything into account, I propose rewriting this as

Between 1937 and 1940, the majority of the early Jewish figures in the Bolshevik movement had been eliminated during Stalin's intra-party power struggle, many having become victims of the 1937-38 Great Purge.

This paragraph should probably be combined with the one mentioning Trotsky's assassination and the execution of Stalin's one-time opposition, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue here are not old bolsheviks, but upper levels party/security/army functionaries of the level below the elite. And that is where the most elimination occurred, under Yezhov. Of course there were some untouched by the repressions, and there were many who were repressed, but released because they were indispensable for some reason.Galassi (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Great Purge's direct targets were the Old Bolsheviks, and the majority of the Jewish leaders of the CPSU at the time were Old Bolsheviks. Of course, there was repression below that level, but of the highest Jewish leaders in the party / government / NKVD bureaucracy at the time, virtually all were Old Bolsheviks or at least Bolsheviks since 1918. Aren't these purged leaders the very subject we are talking about? Perhaps we're talking past one another (your reply to all of this was very brief) and I'd appreciate if you could specify whether I missed your point. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken here. Old bolsheviks were the most visible in the Purge, but they were not numerous. The 2nd generation bolshevics outnumbered them by a great margin.Galassi (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You are correct in the above, but you are not really confronting my argument: naturally, the Old Bolsheviks were not numerous. But the relatively large number of Jewish Bolsheviks eliminated by Stalin in the 1930s is attributable to the Great Purge, when the Old Bolsheviks (save the handful of extreme Stalinists among them) were systematically removed from Stalin's government and NKVD roles as a class. This was my point all along, and I think you can see it. Hence, my suggested text modification: the majority of high-ranking Jewish leaders in the 1930s were removed as part of Stalin's all-encompassing power struggling during the period – notably, with rapproachment with Germany then not even in the picture yet. Don't you agree here? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think rapproachment is in the picture, just because the removal of Jews as a potential obstacle made it possible.Galassi (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are off in your chronology. The Soviet Union and Germany were enemies during the Great Purge and for a while afterward. (They notably even sent troops to fight on opposite sides of one another during the 1936-1939 Civil War in Spain.) That's why the Non-Aggression Pact is described as a rapproachment between the two countries, which had decent relations before Hitler's coming to power in 1933 provoked a tense stand-off. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Re Goebbels- i think it was in his diaries, but I mislaid the pp##.Galassi (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You know the Yezhovshchina (the Yezhov's Great Purge) ended in first half of 1938 (with first preparations for the purge's end such as appointment of Beria and gradual transferring the powers to him from Yezhov, were made in January-Feruary). How it can be after reapproachment with Germany? The statement seems to be designed to attack the USSR by presenting it as an ally of Germany or even an Axis power and show the political repressions in the USSR as being primarily targeted towards Jews under German insistance as was in the case of other German allies such as Romania or Hungary.--Dojarca (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Re Goebbels - I think it was Ribbentrop rather, this refers to the same quote (2 versions): http://ricolor.org/history/rsv/portret/stalin/gensek/8/ and http://piratyy.h14.ru/article/stalin.html ""Сталин в беседе с Риббентропом не скрывал, что ждет лишь того момента, когда в СССР будет достаточно специалистов, чтобы полностью покончить с засильем в руководстве евреев, которые на сегодняшний день пока еще ему нужны". http://www.chayka.org/article.php?id=2442 - "Вот что сказал по приезде из Москвы Риббентроп главному идеологу нацизма Розенбергу (тот вел дневник, изданный в Германии после войны): "Русские были очень милы, он (Риббентроп) чувствовал себя среди них как среди старых национал-социалистов". Из этих же источников мы знаем, что Сталин два раза заверял Гитлера (через того же Риббентропа и личного фотографа Гитлера Генриха Гофмана) в своем одобрении мероприятий Гитлера по отношению к евреям, и что придет час, когда и он поступит с ними точно также."
Correct, Stalin met Germany's foreign minister, Ribbentrop, but not Goebbels, who was the Nazi propaganda minister. There is still every reason to strike the material about rapproachment, as it had nothing to do with the Great Purge. By the way, polemical articles sourced to personal sites don't meet WP:RS. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Radzinsky also notes the sudden cessation of anti-German rhetoric in 1938 and removal of a Jew as an ambassaror to Gernamy.http://lib.ru/PXESY/RADZINSKIJ/stalin.txt_Piece40.23 Galassi (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Litvinov was moved around. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This was exactly when the Great Purge was at the stage of being closed. Reasons for reassignment of the ambassador to Germany may vary, including that Germans may protested against Jewish ambassador or he himself felt uneasy etc. Anyway there are multiple instances where Stalin deliberately choose a Jew as a Soviet representative in meetings with Germans even later. For example he choose Jewish brigadier Krivoshein to be represntative at Brest-Litovsk handover in 1939 and there are other examples. You can also note that Molotov's wife was Jewish, so there was no great difference between Molotov and Litvinov in this case. If he wanted to eliminate Jewish influence from Soviet politics or from German-Soviet relations, he could appoint another man with Russian wife. For Germans it was not a big difference - to speak to a Jewish minister or to a minister whose wife was Jewish.--Dojarca (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Another story tells that Stalin at a meeting with Ribbentrop suggested a toast for Kaganovich. Ribbentrop had to clink glasses with Kaganovich, a procedure not very pleasant for him.--Dojarca (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Molotov's wife was also repressed. She has her own wiki - Polina Zhemchuzhina. As to the toast, it may be seen as a nasty joke, if it ever occurred. And who felt what is not documented, or is it?Galassi (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Nz0N5GBW6MC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=great purge jews&source=bl&ots=0-pMHCnGSQ&sig=AY7Y9W2OWICdhXt9egeSNnFTabc&hl=uk&ei=sXTpSt3yDtKm8AbJ_f2GDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=great purge jews&f=false and this source explicitly says that Stalin started purging Jews from the Party as early as 1936 in preparation to rapproachment with Hitler, from p.318 on.Galassi (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Polina Zhemchuzhina was arrested in 1948 after the creation of Israel possibly for her relations with Golda Meir. This has nothing to do with what happened before the war.--Dojarca (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"In a secret meeting of the Politburo on August 10, 1939, the agenda item number 33, "Regarding Comrade Zhemchuzhina", her alleged "connections to spies" led to a request to verify that information by the NKVD. As it was customary during the Great Purges, many of her coworkers were arrested and questioned, but the "evidence" (frequently acquired by force) against her was so contradictory that (on October 24) the Politburo concluded the "allegations against comrade Zhemchuzhina's participation in sabotage and spying... to be considered slanderous." However, she was severely reprimanded and demoted for unknowingly keeping contacts with "enemy elements thereby facilitating their spying missions." In February 1941, she was taken off the list of the candidates to the Central Committee." So, what are you driving at, Dojarka?Galassi (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Guys, this is really going off on a tangent from the disputed text. Galassi, I still suggest we discuss the proposed text I have provided. I think we've covered that the effect of rapproachment was essentially minimal. I also think it's a fact of history that most of the top-level Jewish officials in the 1930s (most of them Old Guard members or co-revolutionaries) were eliminated as a result of the massive '30s purges, and the particularly notable Great Purge. But nobody has argued that these purgings were anti-semitic. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite. Several have in fact argued the the purges were at least in part antisemitic in the 1930's, and outright so in the 1940's.Galassi (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What purges were in the 1940s before the war?--Dojarca (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
AFTER the War. Doctors' plot and the Cosmopolitism campaign.Galassi (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of Loktionov, Rychagov, Shtern, Smushkevich et al.? This is off-topic here, but somewhat indicative of somebody's ignorance. Colchicum (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Who, exactly, argues so? I've done quite a bit of research on the era, and I haven't come across anybody who calls the 1930s timeline antisemitic. Trotsky, unequivocally Stalin's fiercest opponent during this time, alluded in one of his writings during his period of exile abroad that Stalin might have tacitly taken advantage of anti-semitic subcurrents in Soviet society when he was purging opponents like Zinoviev and Kamenev, but even he refrained from calling Stalin an anti-semite. Although various interpretations are offered for later events (for example, the Stalinist anti-Zionist campaign that took place more than a decade after the Great Purge), but even there historians like Vojtech Mastny [The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years, p. 157] write that the events cannot be called unequivocally anti-semitic. Now, it is common knowledge that most of the most prominent Jewish leaders in the Soviet Union were removed from power during the 1930s purges, but I cannot find any source that states that they were eliminated as Jews, rather than as Old Bolsheviks whom Stalin distrusted or plainly thought inconvenient to have in the apparatus, among whom were people like Bukharin and other Gentiles. Do you have such a source? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
See the Nora Levin book.Galassi (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Any page numbers? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:43,

29 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting with 315 or so.Galassi (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd read the book before coming here, but I've looked through it, Galassi, since you've suggested I look through some of the pages just now. P. 315 and about ten pages after it are simply descriptions of the Great Purge. Nowhere does Levin write that high-ranking Jewish members of the Communist Party were persecuted because they were Jews. On the other hand, that high-profile Jews like Zinoviev and Kamenev were eliminated through the Great Purge was already in the article, and it's not something that anybody denies. This doesn't exactly support your conclusions.
P. 327 describes the persceution of the Bundists, who were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany.
As far as the replacement of Litvinov, which you mentioned earlier:

"Then on May 3, 1938, Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister – a Jew who favored cooperation with the West against Hitler, and who was referred to by German radio as "Litvinov-Finkelstein" – was dropped in favor of Vyacheslav Molotov. "The eminent Jew," as Churchill put it, "the target of German anatagonism was flung aside... like a broken tool... The Jew Litvinov was gone, and Hitler's dominant prejudice placated."

That reads like Litvinov was removed in favor of Molotov because the Nazis had simply poisoned the climate against Litvinov. Other texts emphasize that the vicious Nazi vilification of Litvinov had seriously compromised his role as an ambassdor, and removing him was a necessary concession in order to be able to deal with the Germans in foreign affairs. (Litvinov wasn't purged, and went on to hold high positions in foreign policy again during the World War II period. Furthermore, aother item is that Molotov's wife was Jewish, as Dojarca correctly noted.)
Another interesting passage from Levin's book:

"The brunt of the new Soviet strategy was an attack against "the ruling classes of France and England." The official Soviet gloss during this period was that Jews, Ukrainians, and White Russians ahd been rescued from an oppressive and backward Polish regime which had been unable to defend its citizens. (p. 334)"

So, there is no basis for saying that Stalin's purges of the high-ranking Communists in the 1930s were anti-semitic acts, or should be viewed as anti-Jewish. At least I'm not aware where Levin states so. Can you post a direct quote right here? If not, I believe we should change this text to the proposed wording I suggested above. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you specify what "outright antisemitic purges" in 1940 do you mean? It is known that Beria released about 330 thousand people in 1939-1940, but I do not know about any purge in 1940s before the war.--Dojarca (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

_1940's_. Ever heard of the anti-Kosmopolit purge of 1947? Doctors' plot? The period covered is both BEFORE AND AFTER the War.Galassi (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
How is it related to reapproachment with Germany? You (and the article) says that the purges became antisemitic because of reapproachment with Nazi Germany. But in 1948 there was no Nazi Germany. And in 1939-1941 there were no purges.--Dojarca (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The N.Levin book says explicitely that the rapproachment was anticipated since 1936, became active in 1938, and formalized in 1939. THere is no purge of 1940, but Jews were removed from top positions without arrests.Galassi (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks like synthesis. Various high-ranking Jews were removed from various positions during the Great Purge, but Levin doesn't associate the purges with rapproachment from what I've seen. Exact quote from the text, please? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
p. 318.Galassi (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Levin doesn't state that Jews were purged because of rapproachment. She simply writes that many high-ranking Jews were being purged in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, and that the rise of Nazi Germany to the West was alarming Jews worldwide. I think you would find a better connection on p. 317, where Levin writes that "Internal and external pressures converged in 1936-38. The connection between the purges and preparations for a Nazi-Soviet Pact can be traced. Virtually all of the old Bolsheviks had strong anti-Nazi views and would severely criticize Stalin if he were to make a deal." Aha, although the statement speaks of a "connection" – not a "causation." Prima facie, this could possibly seems to support what you're trying to show. But this is really Levin speaking of a connection, not Levin actually saying that one caused the other: perhaps the eventual rapproachment would not have gone off the ground if not for the earlier purge of the Old Bolsheviks (note that Levin speaks of the Old Bolsheviks, not Jewish Bolsheviks), but there is no statement that the Old Bolsheviks' purge was organized in order to facilitate the rapproachment, which Dojarca appears to view as an implication of the present Wikipedia material. On the same page (right above the aforementioned) Levin writes that

"The subsequent purges, thus, were necessary to destroy all possible opposition for the eventual struggle against Hitler,"

which runs directly against the possible implication that the purges were a means to facilitate rapproachment. Further, among the actual causes of the purge, Levin suggests that "...At the same time, if Hitler attacked Russia, Stalin could be accused of having been largely indifferent to the rise of Hitler and, in fact, of helping the Nazi cause by stubbornly insisting in 1930-32 that German Social Democrats were 'social fascists' and ordering German Communists to war against them instead of making common cause in an anti-Nazi coalition. Kennan argues persuasively that in this dilemma, 'the only way out [for Stalin] was the physical annihilation of anyone else who had ever had any aspiration to leadership within Russia – anyone who had ever opposed him in any way... anyone who could possibly profit from the inevitable political embarrassment.' Out of a complex of reasons, 'these considerations' must have contributed substantially." (pp. 317-318) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Levin says exactly that, and more: that Stalin deliberately reduced and excluded anti-Jewish rhetoric from anti-German statements. Read page 318, attentively.Galassi (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No, she does not. I've already addressed the content on pp. 317-318. You need to provide a direct quote stating that the purges were an attempt at facilitating rapproachment, rather than a prelude or a necessary condition (the latter, in my view, being something that Levin actually describes this as). What Levin's stating unequivocally is her agreement with Kennan, this simply being that "the only way out [for Stalin] was the physical annihilation of anyone else who had ever had any aspiration to leadership within Russia – anyone who had ever opposed him in any way... anyone who could possibly profit from the inevitable political embarrassment." This, by the way, is largely the same interpretation that explains the Great Purge in virtually all Western scholarship (cf. Leszek Kolakowski's third book of the Main Currents of Marxism). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, she does. Here's a direct quote: "Not only did Stalin personally have a strong anti-Jewish animus, he was himself purging the party and government of Jews, and preparing for an agreement with the anti-Semite Hitler." End of discussion.Galassi (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
So was he preparing the agreement in the same time as purging the Jews? The purge was during the Spanish civil war. Was he preparing the agreement with Germany at the same time when Soviet soldiers were killed in Spain?--Dojarca (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In a nutshell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War#Soviet_Union .Galassi (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
1. At least as to the PC for Foreign Affairs, see [6] 2. WP:NOR. Colchicum (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Re: "RAProachement was a protracted process". This is one of several POVs. According to other sources, "Moscow neither responded to nor made any overtures to the Germans until the end of July 1939 at the earliest. The reason for this was that until summer 1939 Moscow was intent on a triple alliance with Britain and France."(Review: On Soviet-German Relations: The Debate Continues. A Review Article Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Reviewed work(s): Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations, 1922-1941 by Aleksandr M. Nekrich Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 8 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1471-1475). This POV is shared by many western scholars.

Re: ""So the reapproachment with Germany started in 1936?" -- "No, probably somewhat later, 1938. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact"" The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact article doesn't state that. I personally removed any statements about early Nazi-Soviet rapprochement from there.

Re: "I think rapproachment is in the picture, just because the removal of Jews as a potential obstacle made it possible". You mix effects and intentions. The Munich crisis made the Nazi-Soviet pact possible. However, no one claims that the Chamberlain's goal was to promote signing the pact between Nazi and the Soviet Union. Re: "Radzinsky also notes the sudden cessation of anti-German rhetoric in 1938" Radzinsky is a playwright and amateur historian. He is not a specialist in Nazi-Soviet relations. There is no positive reviews on his books in western scientific journals (and many negative ones).

Re: "The N.Levin book says explicitely that the rapproachment was anticipated since 1936, became active in 1938, and formalized in 1939." Firstly, I didn't find such a statement there. She writes: "the trials prepared the way for the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939" However, she (correctly) doesn't state that the pact with Hitler was the Stalin's goal in 1936. I again refer to Munich: Munich definitely prepared the way for the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, so what?
Secondly, Levin is a specialist in the history of Jews, not in Nazi-Soviet relations. She simply relied upon some other works on that subject.

Finally, some quotes about the virtual absence of connection between Litvinov's dismissal and his Jewish origin.

"In the light of all these considerations it is possible to formulate the following hypothesis: that the foreign policy factor in Litvinov's downfall was the desire of Stalin and Molotov to take charge of foreign relations in order to pursue their policy of a triple alliance with Britain and France - a policy whose utility Litvinov doubted and may even have opposed or obstructed. It was this source of policy difference - very likely connected to issues of who was in charge of foreign affairs - that triggered the final decision to remove Litvinov from office". (The Fall of Litvinov: A Revisionist View Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 639-657)
"By replacing Litvinov with Molotov, Stalin significantly increased his freedom of manoeuvre in foreign policy. Litvinov's dismissal served as a warning to London and Paris that Moscow had a third option-rapprochement with Germany. After Litvinov's dismissal, the pace of Soviet-German contacts quickened. But that did not mean that Moscow had abandoned the search for collective security, now exemplified by the Soviet draft triple alliance. Meanwhile, Molotov's appointment served as an additional signal to Berlin that Moscow was open to offers. The signal worked; the warning did not." (The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact Author(s): Albert Resis Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 33-56)
"The choice of Molotov reflected not only the appointment of a nationalist and one of Stalin's leading lieutenants, a Russian who was not a Jew and who could negotiate with Nazi Germany, but also someone unencumbered with the baggage of collective security who could obtain the best deal with Britain and France, if they could be forced into an agreement." (Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939 Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722)
"The French and British governments were startled by the dismissal. Payart reported that the Soviet government was fed up with British stalling. Litvinov's disappearance could signal a move toward neutrality or, worse, an agreement with Germany, but this seemed unlikely for the moment."End of the 'Low, Dishonest Decade': Failure of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Alliance in 1939 Author(s): Michael Jabara Carley Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1993), pp. 303-341)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This is all swell, but has little bearing on the article (chick vs. egg argument). The fact attested by Levin stands: Jews were eliminated largely in the late 1930's (and completely in 1947). As to why and when it all began: there is the POlivanov article that posits: as early as 1929, with Alexei Losev's unexplained release from prison and sudden prevalence of his ideas in Stalin's mind. It simply took 10 years to steer the country.Galassi (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear for me why you think it is not relevant for the discussion. Firstly, I pointed at several factual errors. It is quite relevant to the discussion. Secondly, I would say we have not a chick vs. egg argument, but a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy (from your side).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, the Jews were dramatically overrepresented among old Bolsheviks (for some objective reasons, stemming from Russian Empire's policy), and, therefore, purging old Bolsheviks and elimination of Jews was about the same. Was that the result of Stalin's antisemitism (like many not very intellectual peoples he, obviously, was an anti-Semite), or his primary goal was to fight for control over VKP(b), is not clear. The latter seems more probable because he was known to play nationalistic cards to achieve his tactical goal: let me remind you the Mingreles affair, launched to intimidate Beria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Jut what fallacy are you attaching to me? I simply relay Levin's statement, with unequivocally connects removal of Jews to the orientation change. Galassi (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean "the trials prepared the way for the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939", or some other statement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The rest of the page 318 says the same thing, tendecies amounting to the issue in question.Galassi (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. Levin is not alone in her opinion. Polivanov has the same, and in MUCH stronger terms.Galassi (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Galassi, Polivanov is a literary critic and a literary historian. The article by him (this one you kept bringing up at the Losev article, correct?) has nothing to do with either the Soviet Union's 1939 rapproachment with the Germans or the Great Purge. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Literary or not - he is a serious scholar. His perspective may be atypical, but it is valid nonetheless.Galassi (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Serious chemist is not necessarily a good expert in biology. We cannot determine validity of one or another source, the only thing we can do is to decide if the source is reliable and if it is relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Galassi, his polemical article still does not even talk about the Great Purge or rapproachment, which is something that still holds regardless of whether or not you do think that non-historians are reliable sources for building history-related content for an encyclopedia. But I am relieved that you have acknowledged that he's no historian. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Alan Woods. Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution. Part 1: The Birth of Russian Marxism. Section 3. The Jewish Workers' Movement
  2. ^ Alan Woods. Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution. Part 1 Section 5. The First Congress of the RSDLP
  3. ^ Alan Woods. Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution. Part 1 Section 6. The Second Congress
  4. ^ Alan Woods. Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution. Part 1: The Birth of Russian Marxism. Section 3. The Jewish Workers' Movement
  5. ^ Alan Woods. Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution. Part 1 Section 5. The First Congress of the RSDLP
  6. ^ Alan Woods. Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution. Part 1 Section 6. The Second Congress
  7. ^ Samson Madiyevsky, Jews and the Russian Revolution: whether there Was a Choice, an article in Lechaim (online)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism/Archive_2&oldid=1256475813"