Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Misinterpretation of the source

The recent text :"After dismissing Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in 1939, Stalin immediately directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews", possibly to signal Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks." is not fully supported by the source. The source (Resis) states:

"There is, however, another element of domestic politics in the dismissal of Litvinov and many of his colleagues. Decades later, Molotov recounted that when he had taken over the foreign affairs commissariat, Stalin had said to him: 'Purge the ministry of Jews'. Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented: 'Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good. Latvians and Jews .... And each one drew a whole crowd of his people along with him. Moreover, they regarded my arrival in office with condescension and jeered at the measures I began to implement ...' . Absurdly denying any anti-semitism on the part of Stalin, Molotov held that this purge was designed to bring more ethnic Russians into top positions."(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 source discusses purge in a domestic context and it tells nothing about purge of other Jews in a context of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement.

I remove "possibly to signal Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Galassi, the above text was removed by you from the talk page [1]. This is a gross violation of WP policy. In future please, refrain from such steps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia section

The Russian section does not belong in this article. Since the article is about a conspiracy theory it makes no sense to provide information that either confirms or refutes the conspiracy theory. The actual prevalence of Russian Jewish Communists is irrelevant. The topic is already discussed under the History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union. Suggest deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to provide information about the roots and the evolution of the theory. I agree that a significant part of this article must go no a factual article with a neutral title, kind of Jews in Russian and Soviet Communist establishment, or whatever a neutral, scholar literature uses to describe the subject. And the corresponding section replaced with a brief summary. I agree that this article must be about what it states in its intro. - Altenmann >t 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The theory developed from anti-semitism that was prevalent in the Russian Empire and was popularized by writings like the Protocols of Zion. Any role that Jewish people may have played is irrelevant - conspiracy theories are not based on reality. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that.Galassi (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot fully agree. The statement that conspiracy theories are not based on reality is wrong (if it is that case, why are they so viable and popular?). It would be more correct to say that conspiracy theories provide wrong, distorted explanation for facts and events that really take place. It is not correct to say that anti-Semitism is/was based on nothing. Concretely, although the origin of Russian anti-Semitism is a relatively complex question, XIX century's anti-Semitism was fed by strong competition between Russian and Jewish merchants, salesmen and craftsmen. With regards to post-1917 situation, the fact that many Bolshevik leaders were Jews was in a sharp contrast with what Russian population saw during Tsarist era. That created a (wrong) impression that the power in Russia was seized by Jews. In addition, since many educated Russians emigrated during Civil war, it was quite natural that their positions were occupied by equally educated Jews that had no such an opportunity before the revolution. All of that were actual facts behind the Jewish-Bolshevism myth, and it is quite correct that the article tells about that.
The only problem is that the section's conclusion is not as clear as it should be.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources stating that conspiracy theories are in fact based on reality? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the worst residue that antisemitism leaves, even among the educated: if there's smoke - there must be fire too.Galassi (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The question is not completely correct. My statement was that "conspiracy theories provide wrong, distorted explanation for facts and events that really take place". As everything in this world, widespread and viable conspiracy theories didn't emerge form nothing, and every serious source analyzing these theories discuss their origin. It is absolutely necessary to tell about that, because otherwise the article will create an impression that Jewish Bolshevism concept was a pure bullshit that emerged from nothing. This would create a vacuum that can easily be filled with various kinds of anti-Semite propaganda. By contrast, the explanation of why Jews and Bolsheviks were natural allies during first post-revolutionary years, and what concrete facts are responsible for creation of an impression of Jewish dominance in early Soviet Russia would be very useful to demonstrate falseness of the Jewish Bolshevism concept.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So blood libel theory would also be rooted in reality?Galassi (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. For centuries, Jewish and Gentile communities lived together in Europe without mixing. Gentiles were unaware of Jewish rites but believed they were hostile and frightening (it is quite normal for humans to believe that unknown things are dangerous). This, in combination with the famous Christian myth, gradually transformed into the blood libel theory. In other words, this theory, as well as all false theories, emerged from known facts (estrangement between Jews and Gentiles, and refusal of the formers to accept Christianity), but explained them in a weird, fantastic way.
Obviously, if there's smoke - there must be fire too, but which fire? Gunfire, or just fire from a kitchen oven?.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish conspiracy theory pre-dates Bolshevism and was applied to that group because every challenge to tsarism was seen as part of the conspiracy, not because there were Jewish Communists. If you have any sources that this theory was based on reality, could you please provide them. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We discuss not all anti-Jewish conspiracy theories but concrete Jewish Bolshevism theory. In addition, although every challenge to tsarism was seen as part of the conspiracy by tzarist authorities that couldn't automatically lead to formation of the Jewish Bolshevism "theory" as a public opinion phenomenon. Yes, it is well known that Jews were among the most consistent opponents of Tsarism, that is why "zhidy i skubenty" ("Jews and students", in mangled Russian) were the major Black Hundreds' target. Of course, there were many Jews among other parties, however, after Bolsheviks' victory public attention was drawn to only those Jews who aligned themselves with Bolsheviks. Obviously, for common people in former Russian Empire (where no Jews were allowed to occupy high positions) that looked as if Jews seized a power. In public perception Sverdlov and Trotsky weighed more that majority of non-Jewish Communists. This explanation for Jewish Bolshevism theory is quite obvious (if not self-evident), however, if I still didn't convince you I can find sources supporting that.

BTW, your statement that "The topic is already discussed under the History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union" is not completely correct. The present article is a History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union's daughter article (at least, the link there tells that), so this question should be discussed in more details in this article, not somewhere else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You need a source stating that the Jewish conspiracy theory had any basis in the prevalence of Jews in Bolshevik leadership roles. While the connection may appear obvious to you, the mainstream view is that anti-Semitism is not caused by the actions of Jewish people and is an irrational attitude not derived from reality. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the mainstream view is that anti-Semitism is not caused by the actions of Jewish people ..." Which views are mainstream in your opinion? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case there is agreement among conservatives, liberals, socialists and communists. People who reject all these ideologies are not mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the anti-christian school on the creation/persistence of antisemitism to be riddled with bias and historically inaccurate. It is far too simplistic to say antisemitism is entirely the fault of christians towards the forever innocent jews. --Львівське (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, serious scholars never state anti-Semitism is/was based on nothing (or that there were no linkage between behaviour of Jews and anti-Semite moods is society). By stating that, one implies that some categories of Gentile population are intrinsically evil/stupid (that, obviously, is not the case). I didn't do a systematic search, however, one of the first articles I found on the subject ("Jewish Bolshevism") was named: "Anti-Semitism as a Response to Perceived Jewish Power: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romania before the Holocaust" (Author(s): William I. Brustein and Ryan D. King, Source: Social Forces, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Dec., 2004), pp. 691-708). Below is the article's abstract"

"We empirically examine variation in anti-Semitic acts and attitudes in Romania and Bulgaria before the Holocaust. In Romania, where Jews comprised a large proportion of the middle class and were associated with the leadership of the communist party, anti-Semitism increased when economic conditions worsened. Further, Romanian anti-Semitism in creased when the size of the Jewish population increased, but only at times when the leftist parties were gaining strength. These findings did not replicate for Bulgaria, where Jews were neither holders of significant wealth nor associated with the leadership of the communist left. The theoretical implications for anti-Semitism and for structural accounts of prejudice are discussed."

You can see that, according to the authors, "theoretical implications for anti-Semitism" as well as the origin of prejudice are possible to identify, and these phenomenae have a direcrt relation to the role Jews play in the society.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the abstract is telling: The theoretical implications for anti-Semitism and for structural accounts of prejudice are discussed.[2] It would be helpful to have a copy of the article to see what it actually claims and whether its views are mainstream. It seems though that anti-semitism is strongest today in Eastern Europe and the Middle East where Jewish populations are small and has declined in the US where Jewish people have become increasingly middle class and are represented in political leadership. Today American conspiracy theorists are more likely to blame the illuminati. It is not by the way that these people are stupid or evil, but that they have cognitive dissonance. They cannot accept that there were valid reasons for the Revolution or that real Russians would support it, so they explain it by blaming it on non-Russian manipulators. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It would be helpful to have a copy of the article to see what it actually claims and whether its views are mainstream." How do you plan to determine if the views are mainstream?

Re: "It seems though that anti-semitism is strongest today in Eastern Europe and the Middle East where Jewish populations are small." I doubt a size of Jewish population matters. In Israel, the Jews play a leading role, and Israel as a country occupies lands that non-Jewish population considers to belong to Arabs. Therefore, the reasons for anti-Semitism there are quite obvious (note, I didn't say justified). In Eastern Europe, anti-Semitism has long historical roots, so I also doubt if the present-days size of Jewish population there plays any appreciable role. With regards to America, there is no reasons preventing assimilation of Jews there, there is no competition between Jewish and non-Jewish communities there, so relative absence of anti-Semitism in America is quite understandable.

Re: Cognitive dissonance. In that concrete case this word is used just as a substitute for "human's stupidity". --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok here sources for a _relatively_ high proportion of Jews in Bolchevik administration:

• „Jüdischer Bolschewismus“. Mythos und Realität. from DE:Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein, Verlag Edition Antaios, Dresden 2002, ISBN 3-935063-14-8.

In his "famous" [speech] Martin Hohmann cites from the book: (sorry, I ran this through Google-translate)

"For the seven-member Politburo of the Bolsheviks in 1917 were four Jews: Leon Trotsky, Leo Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev and Grigori Sokolnikov. The Gentiles were Lenin, Stalin, Bubnov. Among the 21 members of the Revolutionary Central Committee in Russia 1917 6 of the Jewish nationality were at, that is 28.6%. ...

But even in the revolutionary Soviet secret police, the Cheka, were the Jewish interests exceptionally high. While the Jewish population was 1934 in the Soviet Union at about 2%, accounted for the Jewish Cheka leader after all, 39%. Jewish was that it was by way of explanation said that in the Soviet Union as a separate nationality. He was higher than the Russian share of the Cheka, with 36%. In Ukraine, even 75% of the Cheka Jews"

Please let me be clear, I'm not stating that Jews are responsible for Bolshevism, but I wouldn't be surprised if atheist who broke with strong traditions have a higher tendency to a revolutionary process than others who didn't experience pogroms and prosecution in the past.

Just for comparison AFAIK during WWI Jews belonged to the most decorated soldiers of the German army. The majority strongly believed in assimilation and there were lots of devote German nationalist with Jewish background like Fritz Haber or Walter Rathenau.

This only proves that after abandoning an identity there is a big need to embrace a new one, nothing more.

It could worth it checking the sources Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein (RvB) lists.

--84.59.78.162 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppose the theory was true or at least accepted by a minority of respected scholars, that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews for world domination. We would need reliable sources that stated this. Until you find them this article cannot defend these views. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What? I never said anything about an international conspiracy. Either RvB never claims that, he just counts the number of bolshevists with Jewish background. That's science, not politics! I don't need to give you any more reference now, YOU have to give me a reliable sources of a scholars showing that RvB's research is not reliable! He is a reliable sources.

In France nowadays protestants are overrepresented in administration, that's a sociological phenomenon nobody talks about a protestant conspiracy! please adapt a NPOV! --188.97.70.99 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The publisher Edition Antaios does meet criteria for reliable sources. As you are no doubt aware it is a far right (politischen extremen Rechten) publishing house.[3] The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware that the publisher is considered far right! At least Hagalil does. BTW: I'm left-liberal and against witch hunts! It's perfectly believable that actual "PC" forces RvB to Edition Antaios. Nevertheless he's a scholar and you didn't provide another scholar disproving his methods. And since you can speak German you might wanna check this FAZ-article: Vielleicht muß man das Buch erst mal lesen ! Or do you consider FAZ far-right? --188.97.70.99 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not the witchhunter, but if the academic community and even respectable publishers reject the ideas, then we cannot treat the book as a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear The Four Deuces, the very fact that during some period of Soviet history Jews were overrepresented among Bolsheviks doesn't allow us to claim that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews for world domination. Your conclusion is a straw man fallacy. I didn't say that the fact that anti-Semitism, as well as all other social phenomenae, can be explained by objective reasons may serve as a justification of it. Again, objective roots of anti-Semitism do exist, they must be identified and such an activity has nothing in common with justification of anti-Semitism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that during some period of Soviet history Jews were overrepresented [your words] among Bolsheviks allows us to claim that that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews for world domination is central to the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory. The purpose of this article is to describe the theory not to argue in its favor. As I mentioned, anti-semitism is not based on objective roots but irrationality. It is like UFOs and the New World Order. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You modified my word in such a way that my initial point appeared completely distorted. I wrote doesn't allow us, you changed it to allows us and attributed these new modified words to me. If it is your normal way to conduct a discussion, I see no reason to continue it. If you did that by accident, I wait for your apologies, and only after that we can continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. Please re-read the conversation. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote: "the very fact that during some period of Soviet history Jews were overrepresented among Bolsheviks doesn't allow us to claim that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews for world domination. "

You wrote "The fact that during some period of Soviet history Jews were overrepresented [your words] among Bolsheviks allows us to claim that that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews for world domination" In other words, you completely modified my statement and put these words in my mouth. Again, if that can be understood in other way, please, explain. Otherwise, it is a direct insult: by doing so you (falsely) depicted me as an anti-Semite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) You wrote "the... fact that... Jews were overrepresented among Bolsheviks doesn't allow us to claim that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews..." which for some reason you claimed was my reasoning. What you were saying was there is no logical connection between Jews and conspiracy.

I wrote: "The fact that Jews were overrepresented... among Bolsheviks allows us to claim that that Communism was part of an international conspiracy of Jews... is central to the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory. In other words, the conspiracists were claiming a logical connection.

(All emphases mine.)

This is the same as your saying "all widgets are black" and I reply "conspiracy theorists claim that all widgets are not black". I am not saying that you are claiming all widgets are not black.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So instead of discussing my thesis ("all widgets are black") you decided to focus on some conspiracy theory that claim that "all widgets are not black". Good, although I don't see what relation does it have to our dispute... --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

great book, neo-slavophile view

Russian intellectual antisemitism in the post-Communist era By Vadim Joseph Rossman, link --Львівське (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Russian section

An editor has re-inserted the Russian section which was deleted over two weeks ago for reasons explained above. Since the section was reinserted with any notification I will delete it. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't check the article because the very idea to delete a section when the discussion about its relevance is in progress seems absolutely weird to me. It is so blatant violation of the rules that I couldn't believe it was possible. I'll restore the section and, please, do not remove it until the discussion is finished. Otherwise your behaviour will be reported.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is irrelevant to the article. As I wrote one week before I deleted it:

The Russian section does not belong in this article. Since the article is about a conspiracy theory it makes no sense to provide information that either confirms or refutes the conspiracy theory. The actual prevalence of Russian Jewish Communists is irrelevant. The topic is already discussed under the History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union. Suggest deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please briefly explain why you believe it is relevant so that I can set up an RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can summarize the previous discussion as follows:

1. The statement that "The topic is already discussed under the History of the Jews in Russia" is not relevant. The present article is a History of the Jews in Russia's daughter article (at least, the link there tells that), so this question should be discussed in more details in this article, not somewhere else.

2. The Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory, as well as all Jewish conspiracy theories (and anti-Semitism in general) are social phenomenae, and, therefore, they do have their roots in objective reality. Without any doubts, they emerged as a result of wrong interpretation of real facts (if you want, you may use a "cognitive dissonance" term, although it seems redundant for me). Our goal is to show real roots of anti-Semitic theories, and to reveal all errors and misinterpretations their proponents made. An attempt to claim that these theories are based on nothing is in actuality an abandonment of the battlefield, in other words by doing so you recognise your defeat.
By contrast to you, I am not intended to do such a favour to anti-Semites, so I strongly object to any attempts to remove a Russia section from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

May I chip in here? I think what you are saying is broadly correct, Paul, but I am not sure that the article achieves what you describe at present. I think readers may be lead into thinking that there is a legitimate, historically-based application of the term "Jewish Bolshevism". If so, then that is clearly a problem for the article.

That said, I don't think that I agree that a Russia section in the article is entirely out of place and the prominence/disproportionate representation of Jews within the Bolshevik movement is likely to be relevant. However, there is way too much detail. The section is a storm of statstics, which could probably be fairly summarised instead in one or two lines. I don't need to know the names and ethnicities of so many senior Bolsheviks. On the other hand, I feel there is not enough context. A far more important question is why so many Jews were involved in Bolshevism. I feel this is unlikely to be because of a conspiracy or because that's-what-you'd-expect-from-the-Jew. I'm guessing, but probably the Jewish population in Russia back then was generally more politically engaged than the general population (ie the historical phenonemon is really activism amongst Jewish people). Perhaps the thing makes better sense if you consider the social and professional backgrounds of Jewish people in the relevant place and time. Whatever, I don't think I'm confortable with the section as it stands, because it seems to set out an irrefutable case that there was indeed a powerful Jewish grouping within Russian Bolshevism, and then it leaves the reader to ponder as to why that may have been and what it might imply. --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and that coincides with what I said before (although I did that very briefly, and not so clearly). Without any doubts the section devoted to the origin of the Jewish Bolshevism concept is needed, however, detailed listing of all high rank Jews in actuality has an opposite effect. Instead of that, the section must state that:

1. Jews were persecuted in Russian Empire in greater extent that other nations were, so the percentage of the opponents to Tsarist regime was greater among Jews than among other nations. That created an impression of Jews as of intrinsic revolutionaries.

2. As a rule, Jews were more educated than other population of the Empire, so mass emigration of Russian intellectuals created a large number of vacancies that were filled, among other raznochintsy, with Jews. That created an impression that Jews occupied a leading positions in the society.

3. A large part of educated Jews were secular, they didn't associate themselves with old Judaist community, but considered themselves as "Russian" or "Soviet" peoples in broadest sense. Mass antisemite psychology didn't see that nuance, thereby equating all ethnic Jews with Judaists. In actuality, Trotsky, at heart, was no more Jew than Stalin.

4. Early Soviet authorities practiced a positive discrimination of Jews (btw, as well as of other oppressed nations), thereby supporting a popular myth of Soviet state as "Jewish" state.

All of that (if I didn't miss something) should be clearly stated in the article, and the conclusion should be that that lead to the Jewish Bolshevism myth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Should the Russian section be deleted?

Does this theory and anti-semitism (a) have its roots in objective reality or (b) is the actual prevalence of Russian Jewish Communists irrelevant. According to the lead, "Jewish Bolshevism... is a pejorative stereotype based on the notion that Jews are the driving force behind the modern Communist movement...." There is disagreement over whether inclusion of the section outlining the names and numbers of Jews in leadership positions and general membership violates neutrality and no original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would summarize a dispute's subject in a different way: is it necessary to describe the objective reasons for the Jewish Bolshevism theory's appearance?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFD. I think (a) is a bit leading. The slur doesn't have to have its roots in objective reality (without pre-judging whether it does or it doesn't) in order for objective historical facts to be useful to the article. I think that details about the involvement of Jewish people in Russian Communism are relevant to the article, although the way this information is presented in the article at present is not at all good, as I stated above, and should be substantially re-thought. Information, such as might be found, about how anti-semitic propaganda and popular feeling related to objective facts would seem to me to be appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments are actually a direct quote from Paul Siebert who said above: "The Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory, as well as all Jewish conspiracy theories (and anti-Semitism in general) are social phenomenae, and, therefore, they do have their roots in objective reality." Do you agree with him? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything that has existed must have its roots in objective reality in some sense, surely? But I think it may not be the best way of framing the issue. I suppose people may interpret the phrase in different ways. It might be interpreted as "do you think anti-semitism is justified or do you think information about Bolshevism in Russia is irrelevant to the article", which is not a fair way to ask the question, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be slightly clearer, I don't think it has its roots in obejective reality if that is taken to mean that it is basically a fair enough interpretation of reality. However, it clearly must have had material and other causes. It looks to be the case that a myth grew up based on a misrepresentation of reality, and it would be correct, I think, for the article to describe this process. --FormerIP (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I though I made myself clear enough by saying that "It would be more correct to say that conspiracy theories provide wrong, distorted explanation for facts and events that really take place"[4]. With regards to a possibility of wrong interpretation, I believe, everything can be understood in wrong way, and this is not a reason to abstain from any attempts to frame the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul, what I'm trying to say is I don't think the question "is this rooted in objective reality" is the most important one - you can answer either yes or no and still want there to be information about the history of Russian Communism to be included in the article. Plus some might see "rooted in objective reality" as offensive if they interpret it the wrong way, which might prejudice responses. I'm not saying you intended it in this way, though. --FormerIP (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly took "rooted in objective reality" as offensive. Antisemitism exists largely for the purpose of scapegoating, and certainly not because them Jews do anything. As one poet-friend wrote about Fanny Kaplan: "her fault as a Jewess was twofold - for the shooting of Lenin, and for missing her target". Galassi (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose to stop talking about concrete wording and to discuss the subject first (We can develop a less offensive wording later). Did you look at my ##1-4 (previous section), and, if yes, do you see any flaws and any anti-Semitism these?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Antisemitism exists largely for the purpose of scapegoating..." It is a pure teleology. Antisemitism was not invented for some purpose, it emerged for some reason, and the only way to fight against antisemits is to reveal a real mechanism of its development.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me present the same idea in another way: if we remove any mention of Jewish Bolsheviks the article will become useless: those people who already know that "Jewish Bolshevism" is a false theory will find nothing new here, whereas anti-Semits will conclude that Wikipedia has been seized by Jews, and will stop to trust WP. By contrast, by saying truth, namely, that some fact existed that would allow ordinary people to conclude, wrongly, that Jews = Bolsheviks, and by correctly explaining what concretely was wrong in such an interpretation we have an opportunity to convince someone in falseness of this Jewish conspiracy theory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) It is not the role of WP to either promote or fight anti-semitism, merely to reflect subjects as they are presented in reliable sources. In History and Hate, anti-semitism is defined as "hostility toward Jews as a group which results from no legitimate cause or greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation".[5] Does anyone want to offer any alternative? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to avoid answering a direct question. With regards the History and Hate definition, I don't see how does it refute my point. I would say the opposite, according to History and Hate, anti-semitism is a "hostility" ... that "greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation". By contrast to History and Hate, I believe, that we cannot speak about any provocations from Jewish side: in my opinion (supported by academic sources) the unique position Jews occupied in Central European society was a provocation per se.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a missing word in that last sentence, Paul? It appears to contradict itself. --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracists rationalize their own inadequacies by attributing them to conspiracies, then look for suspects. In Russia they chose the Jews because anti-semitic conspiracy theories were part of their world view. They then looked for evidence to support their irrational beliefs, just as the Russia section in this article provides evidence of the Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy. But they have no concern about real evidence. Iranian conspiracists claim that Lenin and Stalin were Jews, Nazis claimed that Roosevelt was Jewish and modern Russian conspiracists claim that Hitler and his group were Jewish. (BTW all these claims are false.) Conspiracy theorists in America had no Jews so they invented witches (see Salem witch trials). After hating Jews went out of style, they found other scapegoats, currently the New World Order, which is basically the Protocols myth. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that you see the mechanism of conspiracy theory development as a result of someone's conspiracy. In other words, you propose to replace one ("wrong") conspiracy theory ("Bolshevism is a Jews' secret weapon to achieve a world dominance") with another ("true") conspiracy theory ("The Jewish Bolshevism concept was invented to make Jews scapegoats"). However, to fight against one conspiracy theory using another conspiracy theory is intrinsically flawed idea.
Concretely, by doing so you are unable to answer a simple question: although a large number of various conspiracy theories are constantly being invented, only few of them are really viable and popular. What is the mechanism of that?
In actuality, the answer is simple: only those conspiracy theories are viable that have some roots in reality. By saying this I do not mean that they are partially correct. I mean that they provide a visibility of reasonable explanation for important facts and events that really occur. And the only reasonable way to debunk viable conspiracy theories is to provide a real explanation for the phenomenae they pretend to explain. By contrast, to claim that the facts and events a conspiracy theory "explains" have never taken place is the worst way to achieve your (and mine) goal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what a conspiracy theory is. A major element is the belief in a conspiracy. If the Jews were really behind Bolshevism that would be a conspiracy. My contention that Russian conspiracists chose "the Jews because anti-semitic conspiracy theories were part of their world view" does not suggest a conspiracy at all. They actually see history as being dominated by conspirators and explain new events based on their world-view. They did not sit down and agree to something they knew to be false. They actually believe this. You might want to read The Paranoid Style in American Politics which explains this type of "reasoning". Incidentally conspiracy theories by their nature cannot be true. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But what's the way forward with the article? I would suggest deleting most/all of the information about how-many-Jews-were-on-what-committee-when would be a start. --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "They actually believe this." The major question is what caused this strange belief? For you, this question needs no answer, that is why your approach is intrinsically unable to explain the origin of conspiracy theories.

Re: "I would suggest deleting most/all of the information about how-many-Jews-were-on-what-committee-when would be a start." Although by making unneeded stress on these facts the article achieve the opposite effect, simple removal of these facts is not the most important thing to do. The most important point is to show that these Jews were in actuality just ethnic Jews, the Jews that felt no connection with old Jewish community, with Judaism, the Jews who didn't want to speak neither Yiddish nor Hebrew, the Jews who ceased to be Jews, and therefore had no relation to any attempt to establish Jewish world dominance. It is necessary to add to that that not only Jews but also other inorodcy were also overrepresented among old Bolsheviks, especially Georgians, Poles and Latvians, and that all these inorodcy had in actuality become a part of new Russian intelligentsiya.
So the reason for the Jewish Bolshevism concept origin was the correct observation that, by contrast to old Tsarist administration, a considerable part of Bolshevik administration was composed not of ethnic Russians (and the intrinsic flaw of this concept was the idea that these inorodcy maintained strong connections with their ethnic groups and were the proponents of their ethnic groups' interests). And the background for this concept was old mistrust between Jewish and Gentile communities in Europe (not only in Russia).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That last part sounds plausible to me, Paul, but it would, of course, need building from RSs. I'm not sure, though, whether showing that Bolsh Jews were "just ethnic Jews" is necessarily the most important thing. I think it is just about giving a narrative of how the thing developped, whatever that happens to be. I would suggest that many versions of this and other anti-semitic myths do not discriminate as heavily as some might suppose between observant and non-observant Jews (ie they are obsessed with racial Jewishness).

I can't see (unless I am missing stuff) that anything would be lost by remedying the excessive and confusing over-use of stats in the article and worrying about other issues after that. --FormerIP (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lvivske's insertions/edits

2nd Congress of Soviets of the Nothern region presidium. In the front row: Moisei Uritsky, Leon Trotsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Mikhail Lashevich, 1918.

User:Lvivske has been modifying the article lead; rather than accepting the view of reliable sources that "Jewish Bolshevism" is a pejorative stereotype, he's now downgraded that to merely that "some scholars" believe it to be one. He's also inserted the picture on the right, taken at a regional Communist meeting in 1918. Lvivske, do you not believe the view that Jews are the driving force behind modern Communisim is pejorative or a stereotype? Also, can you please explain what the picture to the right has to do with this pejorative stereotype? Please use reliable sources to support any arguments you make. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism is a fringe view and should not be treated as mainstream. TFD (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but describing it absolutely as a "pejorative stereotype" based on a single, one sided non-english source is just ludicrous. It's not a universally accepted definition of the subject; let's keep the article neutral. No?--Львівське (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the whole article, and ledes aren't actually required to have footnotes; just about every source used in the article considers it to be a pejorative and antisemitic stereotype. Again, do you not consider it a pejorative or a stereotype? Please respond to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither, I consider it a belief or theory. How credible of a theory it is should be evident by the material presented in the article, but to paint it far on one side and rollback every edit to keep it neutral reeks of article ownership and bias, don't you think? It's an historical fact that the Jewish cadre had significant influence in Soviet politics, the way the intro is currently written would make a reader think this historical fact was nothing more than a myth.--Львівське (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an historical fact that the Jewish cadre had significant influence in Soviet politics - and that explains it; you believe antisemitic myth is "historical fact". Thanks for being so open. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to deal with the subject matter objectively and approach the historiography from an unbiased POV. With your above comment, are you admitting you're one of those people who buys into the whole "eveything is antisemitic" myth-speak?--Львівське (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

However, reliable sources (unlike, say, Stormfront forums) actually deal with the matter objectively, and they consider it to be an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory. And don't us this Talk: page for false and pejorative speculation about me either; focus on article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of reliable sources? The unverifiable Polish source currently cited? You made the first personal accusation, and now you link me to Stormfront. How about you post by your own standards. Also, how about focus on why the lead should remain as it was and stay on topic, rather than disregard facts as "myths"--Львівське (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are found throughout the article; I've added two more (among dozens available) to the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the photo, considering all of those pictured and directly named in the article itself in the paragraph it is inserted next to, there is absolutely no reason to keep it out. It's on topic and adds to the article. Why would any neutral editor try to keep it out?--Львівське (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

According to what reliable source do you consider it to be relevant to the topic of Jewish Bolshevism? Let's not be disingenuous here, this picture of 5 Jews at some regional Communist congress in 1918 is only included as a proof that "Jews really were the driving force behind Communism". That's fairly nonsensical WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Reliable source to use a photo? Hello? The article is about these men, we have access to a photo of the men in question. This picture perfectly illustrates the article. It seems more to me that this is evidence that you want to cover up; try to stay neutral here and allow all available evidence and media to be used. What's your angle here?--Львівське (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since most readers are probably not knowledgeable in how to identify Jews from photographs, the picture would not be helpful. There is a question too whether a doctrinaire Communist may be considered a Jew. Could you for example identify how many of the other people in the photo are Jews? TFD (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The front row is comprised 100% of Jewish Communists, all of whom are directly named in the paragraph adjacent. I don't see what the ethnic or religious makeup of the bystanders in the background matters. If an article was about black people in US government and a photo showed a series of black politicians together, would that be an issue? It's a photographic representation of what the body paragraph discusses. --Львівське (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How would the reader know that they are Jews? Five African American politicians on the other hand would be identifiable in a photo. TFD (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be preferable if they were wearing identification? I really don't see your point, considering the photo has text explaining its contents...--Львівське (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not say they are Jews and most people cannot identify Jews from their appearance. How does the reader know that they are Jews, unless the text explains this? Could you tell me how you can tell from the picture and the text that they are Jews? TFD (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske, can you explain why this particular photo is relevant to the topic of the "Jewish Bolshevism" canard? It's because, in your view, it proves that "the Jewish cadre had significant influence in Soviet politics", correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant because the body paragraph finds it important enough to discuss each and every member shown on that front row. If the article finds them important enough, why is a photo of the subject matter not relevant? How about one of you explain why it shouldn't be there, as opposed to me explaining common sense to a brick wall here while the couple of you attempt to WP:OWN the article against constructive edits. --Львівське (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking for a truthful answer here; have you attempted to include this particular photo because, in your view, it proves that "the Jewish cadre had significant influence in Soviet politics"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture should be on here because it is a great photo directly illustrating the subject matter. I don't need to justify good faith additions to the article, how about you explain why it shouldn't be included. The onus is on you here, not me. Do you feel having this photo proves what you say it does? Is that a bad thing in your eyes?--Львівське (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does it illustrate the anti-Jewish canard of "Jewish Bolshevism"? Please be explicit. Also, many individuals are mentioned in the article, why would you provide images for these specific ones? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You tell me, you said it. Also, why would I provide images for these specific people? Because each one of these people are named in the paragraph adjacent. Why is this hard to grasp? Be explicit. --Львівське (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is necessary to discriminate Communists having Jewish ethnicity and Jews sensu stricto (i.e. Judaists). In Russian Empire the term "ethnicity" or "nationality" was not used widely; the term "confession" was used instead. As a result, "Jew" meant "Judaist" and vise versa. In connection to that, the term "Jewish Bolshevism" initially meant "a secret tool in the hands of Judaists to rule Russia". However, since all persons on this photo were atheists, broke all ties with their Jewish heritage in favour of proletarian cosmopolitism and acted on behalf of world (or, at later stage Russian) proletariat, they cannot be considered as Jews in neither old, imperial, nor new, national sense. The "theory" of Jewish Bolshevism is not more serious than a theory of "Georgian Stalinism". In connection to that, just listing ethnic Jews on the photo creates just a visibility of neutrality. It is quite necessary to explain, openly and clearly, that Jewish Bolshevism was a false theory, which was based on some real observations, completely wrongly interpreted. In other words, the photo can and should be included, provided that, but only provided that needed explanations are added of how this foto, along other similar facts had lead to these wrong conclusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned a long time ago, the article should be about the theory of "Jewish Bolshevism" and it provides way too much detail about Jewish Communists that is taken from sources that do not even mention "Jewish Bolshevism". TFD (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is high time someone was just bold and excised all the "almanac of Communist Jews in 1922" stuff. If no-one else does, I'll try it tomorrow. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agreed that the attempts to explain the origin of this "theory" (and its falsehood) started to resemble advocacy of anti-Semitism. Does WP policy tell something specific about anti-Semitism? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My sentiment as well.--Galassi (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I condensed it, removing quite a lot of superfluous content. This doesn't necessarily cure the article, since I think the sections on Russia miss the point and take the title of the article too literally. There is still too much info, IMO, but it is at least more readable, less odd-looking and more NPOV now. I will maybe come back to it to see if this can be improved. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hungary?

Here are two references that relate to the use of the word "Bolshevik Zionists" by Jobbik parliamentarians, including MEP Krisztina Morvai.

• Erich Follath (October 14, 2010). "Europe's Capital of Anti-Semitism – Budapest Experiences A New Wave of Hate". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2010-10-16.
• Jobbik.com (July 4, 2010). "Police suppression of lawful protest culminates in violent arrest of democratic opposition leader Gábor Vona". David Duke. Retrieved 2010-10-16.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Shameless Antisemitic Rubbish

How odd that prior to my edit a minute ago, the Jewish Bolshevism article stated that

"In the mid-1930s, under the leadership of Genrikh Yagoda, the Jewish presence in the secret police was 39% and only 30 % Russian. The immediate predecessors to Yagoda in that same position were also Jewish: Iosif Unschlicht and Meier Trilisser."

The given reference cited for this little gem is

http://www.periclespress.com/Russia_KGB.html

Which doesn't, in fact, say anything remotely similar to that. What it actually says is that Yagoda was preceded as head of the OGPU by Menzhinsky, who was preceded by the founder of the secret service (then still known as the Cheka) - Felix Dzerzhinsky. On the Russian Wikipedia article for Menzhinsky, we find a useful information box:

2-й Председатель ОГПУ

30 июля 1926 — 10 мая 1934 Предшественник: Феликс Эдмундович Дзержинский Преемник: Генрих Григорьевич Ягода

In English, that would be

2nd Chairman of the OGPU

30 July 1927 - 10 May 1934 Predecessor: Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky; Sucessor: Genrikh Grigorievich Yagoda

It also specifies that Menzhinsky is an ethnic Pole (the Polish transcription of his name is Wiaczesław Mienżynski). And his precedessor Dzerzhinski (Dzierżyński) would be another ethnic Pole.

Our friends are back with their big lie technique -- they even placed a fake citation into the article, in true Mein Kampf style.

Just putting it out here, should someone revert that back. These people just lie shamelessly.

209.183.32.49 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.:

The article has also evolved from

"Out of Lenin's 15 Peoples' Commissars Narkoms in 1919, six were Jewish..." (old version)

to

"Out of Lenin's 15 Peoples' Commissars Narkoms in 1919, two were Jewish..." (correct version)

What happened to the others?

While he was a Commissar in 1917 according to the St. Petersburg Encyclopedia (http://www.encspb.ru/article.php?kod=2804022941 - Russian), there's nothing about People's Commissar as I.A. Teodorovich in 1919; in fact, Ivan Adolfovich Teodorovich quit "in protest against Leninist policy" according to the biographical portal hrono.info (http://www.hrono.info/biograf/teodorovich.html - Russian), only returning to the cause in the 1920s, when he became a Deputy Commissar (for Agriculture) during roughly the same period (a telegram in the Marxists Reference Archive identifies him as Deputy Minister of Agriculture in 1921; hrono.info gives 1922; both hrono.info and other sites list him as participating in combat in the Civil War in Siberia in 1919); furthermore, nowhere at all have I seen it mentioned that Teodorovich was actually Jewish. "Ivan", the Slavic cognate of John, the New Testament-inspired male first name, certainly wouldn't have been a very common one among Russian Jews; the surname suffix "-ich", common among Russian Jews, is also the Cyrillic transliteration of the ethnically Polish surname suffix "-ycz", retransliterated back again into the Latin alphabet. In fact, a number of (unfortunately not very Wikipedia reference-suitable) web-pages listing various members of the Bolshevik regime by their affiliation (such as http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/svetovid/post87577027 -Russian, which lists Teodorovich as People's Commissar for Food during 26.10 - 4.11.1917, and not, as alleged here, in 1919) identify Teodorovich as an ethnic Pole.

Sokolnikov was Jewish, but he wasn't any commissar in 1919. His article states he was appointed a commissar after the introduction of the New Economic Policy (ie, after 1921).

Both Uritsky's Russian and English Wikipedia biographies say that he died in 1918, so I'll only assume that he couldn't have been a People's Commissar in 1919.

Isaac Steinberg was not a People's Commissar in 1919, but from December 1917 to March 1918, resigning in 1918 in protest of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.

The whole sinister Jewish plot thing is looking far less scary right now.

The two remaining on the list now are only Trotsky (who indeed was a Commissar) and a fellow named Semyon Dimanstein. Dimanstein was a head of the Yevsketsiya, a Jewish Bolshevik group. The Russian Wikipedia article for Dimanstein mentions this in the following instance:

"Издавал газету на идишe. Вскоре (1918) возглавил Евсекцию и приступил к ликвидации еврейских общин и организаций с заменой их на социалистические объединения."

which, as a native speaker of the Russian language, I am going to roughly translate as

"[He] published a newspaper in Yiddish. Soon (in 1918) he became head of the Yevsektsiya and began the liquidation of Jewish fraternities and organizations, exchanging them for socialist coalitions."

There's still no evidence for him actually being a COMMISSAR. Interestingly, a Google search for "Commissar Dimanstein" (as a phrase in quotes) yielded 0 results.

Someone should keep an eye out on this article; the mandatory assumptions of good faith notwithstanding, it's simply obvious that some nefarious twisters clearly have a vested interest in manipulating the facts.

166.216.128.76 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Winston Churchills belief that Jews played a large part in the Russian Revolution be included in the article? "Terrorist Jews. "There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/zvb/zvb1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.224.40 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources that discuss this in the context of the "Jewish Bolshevism" canard? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

The communist revolution was a conspiracy and while many involved were not Jewish the leaders were all Freemason. For this reason there needs to be a section in this article about the Jews involved being Freemason. This short 1 min clip from a documentary describs the role of a Freemason conspiracy in the Bolshevik Revolution citing references involved at the time. Also, a thorough investigation: Nikolai Svitkov's "About Freemasonry in Russian Exile", published in Paris in 1932. According to Svitkov, the most important freemasons from Russia were Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin, Leon Trotsky (Leiba Bronstein), Grigori Zinoviev (Gerson Radomyslsky), Leon Kamenev (actually Leiba Rosen-feld), Karl Radek (Tobiach Sobelsohn), Maxim Litvinov (Meyer Hennokh Wallakh), Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel-Aaron Solomon), L. Martov (Yuli Zederbaum), and Maxim Gorky (Alexei Peshkov), among others.[1]

According to the Austrian political scientist Karl Steinhauser's "EG - die Super-UdSSR von morgen" / "The European Union - the Super Soviet Union (USSR) of Tomorrow" (Vienna, 1992, p. 192), Lenin belonged to the Masonic lodge Art et Travail (Art and Labour).

Lenin was a freemason of the 31st degree (Grand Inspecteur Inquisiteur Commandeur) and a member of the lodge Art et Travail in Switzerland and France. (Oleg Platonov, "Russia's Crown of Thorns: The Secret History of Freemasonry", Moscow, 2000, part II, p. 417.)

When Lenin visited the headquarters of Grand Orient on rue Cadet in Paris, he signed the visitors' book. (Viktor Kuznetsov, "The Secret of the October Coup", St. Petersburg, 2001, p. 42.)

Together with Trotsky, Lenin took part in the International Masonic Conference in Copenhagen in 1910. (Franz Weissin, "Der Weg zum Sozialismus" / "The Road to Socialism", Munich, 1930, p. 9.) The socialisation of Europe was on the agenda.

Alexander Galpern, then secretary of the Masonic Supreme Council, confirmed in 1916 that there were Bolsheviks among the freemasons. I can further mention Nikolai Sukhanov (actually Himmer) and N. Sokolov. According to Galpern's testimony. The freemasons also gave Lenin financial aid for his revolutionary activity. This was certified by a known freemason, Grigori Aronson, in his article "Freemasons in Russian Politics", published in the Novoye Russkoye Slovo (New York, 8-12 October 1959). The historian Boris Nikolayevsky also mentioned this in his book "The Russian Freemasons and the Revolution" (Moscow, 1990).

Karl Marx was a correspondence and political analyst for Horace Greeley, owner of the New York Times. In 1849 both Horace Greeley and Clinton Roosevelt financially assisted the Communist League in London, in the publication of the Communist Manifesto. There are two cheques made payable to Marx by Nathan Rothschild, which can be seen on display at the British Museum in London. (William Sutton, The Illuminati 666, pg. 201) Rothschild is a Famous Freemason.

207.119.115.88 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The claims about Bolshevism-as-Freemasonic-conspiracy are another spin on the bollocks. In fact, Trotsky explicitly dictated that the Comintern ban Freemasons. The documents on that can be found in Volume 1 of Jane Degras (ed.), THE COMMUNIST INTERNATION 1919-1943 DOCUMENTS. It was at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern that Trotsky charged that Freemasonry "was a bridge leading to the bourgeois camp, and it had to be blown up." See the Degras volume for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.33 (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sources do not meet the standards required. However, if we could find reliable sources discussing these claims then they could be considered for inclusion. Since there is an article about Oleg Platonov in Wikipedia, has writings may have notability. TFD (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You see, all of this is really odd, because Trotsky actually said in "My Life": http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch08.htm

"It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. For several months, I avidly studied books on its history, books given to me by relatives and friends in the town. Why had the merchants, artists, bankers, officials, and lawyers, from the first quarter of the seventeenth century on, begun to call themselves masons and tried to recreate the ritual of the medieval guilds? What was all this strange masquerade about? Gradually the picture grew clearer. The old guild was more than a producing organization; it regulated the ethics and mode of life of its members as well. It completely embraced the life of the urban population, especially the guilds of semi-artisans and semi-artists of the building trades. The break-up of the guild system brought a moral crisis in a society which had barely emerged from medieval. The new morality was taking shape much more slowly than the old was being cut down. Hence, the attempt, so common in history, to preserve a form of moral discipline when its social foundations, which in this instance were those of the industrial guilds, had long since been undermined by the processes of history. Active masonry became theoretical masonry. But the old moral ways of living, which men were trying to keep just for the sake of keeping them, acquired a new meaning. In certain branches of freemasonry, elements of an obvious reactionary feudalism were prominent, as in the Scottish system. In the eighteenth century, freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of revolution; on its left, it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany, freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason empress."

and

"As the prison rules demanded that a prisoner give up his old exercise-book when he was given a new one, I got for my studies on freemasonry an exercise-book with a thousand numbered pages, and entered in it, in tiny characters, excerpts from many books, interspersed with my own reflections on freemasonry, as well as on the materialist conception of history. This took up the better part of a year. I edited each chapter carefully, copied it into a note-book which had been smuggled in to me, and then sent that out to friends in other cells to read. For contriving this, we had a complicated system which we called the “telephone.” The person for whom the package was intended – that is, if his cell was not too far away – would attach a weight to a piece of string, and then, holding his hand as far as he could out of the window, would swing the weight in a circle. As previously arranged through tapping, I would stick my broom out so that the weight could swing around it. Then I would draw the broom in and tie the manuscript to the string. When the person to whom I wanted to send it was too far away, we managed it by a series of stages, which of course made things more complicated.

Toward the end of my stay in the Odessa prison, the fat exercise-book, protected by the signature of the senior police sergeant, Usov, had become a veritable well of historical erudition and philosophic thought. I don’t know whether it could be printed to-day as I wrote it then. I was learning too much at a time, from too many different spheres, epochs, and countries, and I am afraid that I was too anxious to tell everything at once in my first work. But I think that its main ideas and conclusions were correct. I felt, even at that time, that I was standing firmly on my own feet, and as the work progressed, I had the feeling even more strongly. I would give a great deal to-day to find that manuscript. It went with me into exile, although there I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. After my escape abroad, Alexandra Lvovna [1] forwarded the script to me from Siberia, through my parents, when they visited me in Paris in 1903. Later on, when I went on a secret mission to Russia, it was left in Geneva with the rest of my modest émigré archives, to be come part of the Iskra’s archives and to find there an untimely grave. After my second escape from Siberia, I tried to recover it, but in vain. Apparently it had been used to light fires or some such thing by the Swiss landlady who had been intrusted with the custody of the archives. I can’t refrain here from conveying my reproaches to that worthy woman.

The way in which my work on freemasonry had to be carried on, in prison, where literary resources at my disposal were of course very limited, served me in good stead. At that time I was still comparatively ignorant of the basic literature of the Marxists. The essays by Labriola were really philosophic pamphlets and presumed a knowledge that I didn’t have, and for which I had to substitute guesswork. I finished them with a bunch of hypotheses in my head. The work on freemasonry acted as a test for these hypotheses. I made no new discoveries; all the methodological conclusions at which I had arrived had been made long ago and were being applied in practice. But I groped my way to them, and somewhat independently. I think this influenced the whole course of my subsequent intellectual development. In the writings of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov and Mehring, I later found confirmation for what in prison seemed to me only a guess needing verification and theoretical justification. I did not absorb historical materialism at once, dogmatically. The dialectic method revealed it self to me for the first time not as abstract definitions but as a living spring which I had found in the historical process as I tried to understand it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.162.246 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed some material

I've just been through and removed quite a bit of material. A lot of this was just routine copyediting, but there are a few things I thought I should highlight here in case anyone has comments or objections:

• I took out some of the material cited to Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy by Erickson and Erickson. This mainly related to individual examples of anti-semtism in the German army in the 1930s, such as a letter written by a soldier to his parents and some comments made by officers about their Russian counterparts. I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that there was anti-semitism in the Nazi army and the level of detail was unnecessary. Plus I didn't think it was appropriate to have paragraph after paragraph all supported by the same few pages of a single book.

• I took our all reference to a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory in the United States. It would be appropriate to have such material in the article, but it appeared to be entirely supported by material which appears on neo-Nazi websites. I felt that this made the information unreliable, so I removed it.

• I took out reference to the British attitude to Labour Zionist organisations. Since these organisations were socialist, the fact that they may have been described by some as "Bolshevik" seems to me to miss the point of the article.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed reference to Winston Churchill. The material consisted of three separate claims from different sources. Firstly, that Churchill commented that the Soviet leaders were mostly Jewish (which is true, but he appears to have done this within a slightly dumb but basically pro-Jewish article); secondly that he was strongly against Bolshevism (again, this is probably true); thirdly, that he had been sent a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion prior to making these remarks (this appears to be hearsay). Bringing these three idependently-sourced facts together to suggest that Churchill believed in a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory looks like a breach of WP:OR to me. --FormerIP (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at every change in detail, but in general they look good to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

problems with aspects of this article

//There are parts of William H. King's report consistent with similar accounts, like that given by Simon Sebag Montefiore - "In 1937, 5.7 percent of the Party were Jews yet they formed a majority in the government. Lenin himself (who was partly Jewish by ancestry) said that if the Commissar was Jewish, the deputy should be Russian: Stalin followed this rule. [***] Many Jewish Bolsheviks used Russian pseudonyms. As early as 1936, Stalin ordered Mekhlis at Pravda to use these pseudonyms: 'No need to excite Hitler!'"— Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Star, Vintage Books, New York, (2003), pp. 305-306.

The Jewish quarterly of 1968 noted that Jewish domination of the Soviet Union continued under the regime of Nikita Khrushchev, when the Minister of Culture, Yekaterina Furtseva, freely admitted that "the Government has found in some of its departments a heavy concentration of Jewish people, upwards of 50 per cent of its staff.": http://books.google.com/books?ei=GKGLTYLjMJS4sAPyoOCPCQ&ct=result&id=GiYuAQAAIAAJ&dq=The+government+has+found+in+some+of+its+departments+a+heavy+concentration+of+Jewish+people%2C+upwards+of+50%25+of+the+staf&q=Thus+the+Minister+of+Culture%2C+Yekaterina+Furtseva%2C+freely+admitted+that+%22the+Government+has+found+in+some+of+its+departments+a+heavy+concentration+of+Jewish+people%2C+upwards+of+50+per+cent+of+its+staff.#search_anchor

Then again, there are some inconsistencies. Stuart Kahan, in "The Wolf of the Kremlin", said "That Trotsky, unquestionably the most outstanding man among the Bolsheviks, was a Jew did not seem an insuperable obstacle in a party in which the percentage of Jews, 52 percent, was rather high compared to the percentage of Jews (1.8 per cent) in the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81). Kahan's book has been disputed, but arguments in it's favor are here - see the section entitled "Reply to the Statement of the Kaganovich family": http://www.mailstar.net/kaganovich.html

Perhaps Kahan was speaking about the Government, and not the party as a whole? At any rate, Kahan was/is a Zionist, so I don't think he can be accused of anti-Semitism.

Or it could be the statistics as given by William H. King were in error. After all, much else in his report was in error: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,716624,00.html

Or maybe many of the figures in King's chart could be attributed to the Lenin Levy, where a large number of Workers were recruited into the communist party and filled the lower ranks: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2499783

Or, maybe Montefiore's since they pertain to the Stalinist era, have no relation to King's figures.

There was also Jewish domination in Hungary - The “New International Year Book of 1919” says in part :“The government of Béla Kun was composed almost exclusively of Jews, who held also the administrative offices. The Communists had united first with the Socialists, who were not of the extremely radical party, but resembled somewhat the Labour Parties, or Trade Union groups, in other countries. Béla Kun did not however select his personnel from among them, but turned to the Jews and constituted virtually a Jewish bureaucracy.” : http://books.google.com/books?id=C1tMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=The+government+of+Béla+Kun+was+composed+almost+exclusively+of+Jews&hl=en&ei=JQmZTZ_JJ8jeiAKIl73tCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

What some of the documentation in this section will prove is that the non-Jewish Bolsheviks had little power in comparison with the Jewish Bolsheviks. I will also attempt to show later that Galassi's numbers for the Narkoms are wrong.//

There are some serious problems with the basic premises of this article. To counter them, I would like to bring the reader's attention to many of the contemporary sources of the time which show the Jewish domination of the Bolshevik Regime.

Winston Churchill, in his much disputed article "Zionism vs. Bolshevism" (pdf here: http://www.archive.org/download/KhaosOdenslandArchiveDocstheMisanthropicMisogynist/1920WinstonChurchillArticle-ZionismVsBolshevism-AStruggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople.pdf), stated that "The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated."

Bertrand Russell was another observer, initially sympathetic to the rhetoric of the Revolution. However, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1914-1944, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1968, p. 172 contains a letter in which he says "Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar's, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action." (an image of this page is here: http://www.mailstar.net/russell.jpg)

In "Red Dusk and the Morrow" (page 303), by Sir Paul Dukes, formerly Chief of the British Secret Service in Russia, we read that a Lithuanian asked a prominent Bolshevik how the regime was maintained. The answer was: "Our power is based on three things: first, on Jewish brains; secondly, on Lettish and Chinese bayonets; and thirdly, on the crass stupidity of the Russian people.": http://books.google.com/books?id=4-FWAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Red+Dusk+and+the+Morrow%22&hl=en&ei=JJGjTZqQHoz6sAOTmoD6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22crass%20stupidity%20of%20the%20Russian%20people&f=false

See also these facsimiles of military reports commenting on the Jewish role in bolshevism, one noting that "fifty percent of the Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type": http://white-history.com/hwr61iii.htm

Perhaps the most important source is the British White Paper on Bolshevism, Russia No. 1. (Later abridged, with critical Documentation on the Jewish involvement omitted). The original is now available. This was Written BEFORE the Protocols were translated into English, so they would have had negligible effect. Also, these kinds of white papers are supposed to be among the most authoritative documentation one can obtain: http://ia700407.us.archive.org/20/items/RussiaNo.1/47439722-Russia-No-1.pdf

The relevant pages concerning Jews and Bolshevism are pp. 6, 23, 28, 32, 33, 41, 57, 65, 68, 78 - on p.6 (of the document, not the pdf) we find a telegram from Sir M. Findlay to Mr. Balfour relaying a report by the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, which contains the following message:

"I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

p. 23 signifies that the Jews had preferential treatment, as they were allowed to engage in illicit trading, while all other trade was at a standstill, it also contains documentation to the effect that Bolshevism was despised by the Russians, but carried out by Jews,

p. 28 says: ""The Bolsheviks can no longer be described as a political party holding extreme communistic view. They form relatively small privileged class which is able to terrorise the rest of the population because it has a monopoly both of arms and of food supplies. This class consists chiefly of workmen and soldiers, and included a large non-Russian element, such as Letts and Esthonians and Jews; the latter are specially numerous in higher posts. Members of this class are allowed complete licence, and commit crime against other sections of society."

p. 32 states "The Bolsheviks comprised chiefly Jews and Germans, who were exceedingly active and enterprising. The Russians were largely anti-Bolshevik, but were for the most part dreamers, incapable of any sustained action, who now, more than ever before, were unable to throw off the yoke of their oppressors. Night after night the counterrevolutionary Societies held secret meetings to plot ag~inst the Bolsheviks, but never once was a serious attempt made to carry through the conspiracy. The starving condition of the people quite paralysed their will-power."

p.33. document # 33 says: "From examination of several labourer and peasant witnesses I have evidence to the effect that very smallest percentage of this district were pro-Bolshevik, majority of labourers sympathising with summoning of Constituent Assembly. Witnesses further stated that Bolshevik leaders did not represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews."

p. 41, document # 38, reveals that the party responsible for the murder of the Romanovs consisted entirely of Jews

p. 56 document # 56, says again that Bolshevism was a movement led by Jews,

p. 57, The Results, says that after the Revolution, Jews became the possessors of most of the business houses, it states: "All business· became paralysed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in the country districts. The peasants put their children to death rather than see them starve. In a village on the Dvina, not far from Schlusselberg, a. mother hanged three of her children. I was conducting a funeral in a mortuary of a lunatic asylum at Oudelnaia, near Petrograd, and saw the bodies of a mother and her five children whose throats had been cut by the father because he could not see them suffer."

p. 65, "The Terror", notes the persecution of Russians for thought crimes, and the fact that people had to pay intermediaries, who were mostly Jewish, before they could obtain their release,

p. 68 shows that the food supply committees were entirely in the hands of the Jews, and that anti-Semitism was rampant because of the extreme misery that ensued after the Jews had obtained control, p. 78 details the screams of "Down with that Jew!" thrown at Zinoviev, and that the following couplet was placarded upon the walls of Petrograd - "Down with Lenin and horseflesh, Give us the Tsar and pork."

Page 80 quotes Zinoviev as saying "To overcome our enemies we must have our own Socialist Militarism. We must win over to our side, 90 millions out of the 100 millions of population of Russia under the Soviets. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them; they must be annihilated."

Stalin said, "In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty."-Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13,: http://books.google.com/books?id=33EJAQAAIAAJ&q=under+USSR+law+active+anti-Semites+are+liable+to+the+death+penalty&dq=under+USSR+law+active+anti-Semites+are+liable+to+the+death+penalty&hl=en&ei=g6lYTaDhMonWtQP1rLWjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

Rabbi Harry Waton said, "It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth ; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us." (Rabbi Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and Humanity and An Answer to All Anti-Semites, p. 148): http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2/A_Program_For_The_Jews_And_Humanity-Harry_Waton-1939-230pgs-REL.sml.pdf&id=398

There is much more evidence along these lines - going much deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. You are quoting primary sources, and synthesizing conclusions from them. Neither is acceptable. You need to focus on reproducing what modern, reliable, secondary sources say, rather than drawing conclusions based on often unreliable primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we must let reputable scholarship put such materials into context. What is said is not always what is. Negative stereotypes and conspiracy theories need some seed of truth at the core (e.g., the intellectual attraction of revolutionary Communism in the European tradition), but what is portrayed as growing from that seed is far from true. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. While I am not especially familiar with the topic of the article, the material above appears to constitute non-neutral synthesis of material based on primary sources, and original research. I must also remind Blastikus that an article's Talk page is not a forum for discussion of the topic; it is intended as a means of discussing improvements to the article. See WP:NOT#FORUM. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

re:"The relevant pages concerning Jews and Bolshevism". While that is the topic of the article so are the non Jews involvement. Lies and omissions.. while not all Bolshevik revolutionaries were Jewish, by any means, the leaders were all Freemason. The same is true of their financing from men such as Lord Milner and Nathan Rothschild, and apparently Wall Street interests (i.e. Rockefellers & Morgan). The same is true of previous and subsequent revolutions. 75.121.249.41 (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together

There seems to be some controversy regarding the recently inserted section on Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together, so I've removed it for now. Keeping WP:NOR in mind, did Solzhenitsyn or the book's supporters/critics refer to "Jewish Bolshevism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The controversy (at least on my end) was mainly regarding Galassi inserting a segment at the end of a sentence in a section I added that I felt was not supported by the source I had cited (my complaints can be found on his talk page). In Two Hundred Years Together, Solzhenitsyn repeatedly avows that the Jews in the Bolshevik ranks were nothing close to the principal cause for the revolution, and (like this article asserts) some Jews were drawn to Communism because of the cruelty of the Tsarist regime and the equality promised by a Communist one. However, in Solzhenitsyn's preface, he writes "I have never conceded anyone's right to conceal events that occurred. I cannot call for an accord based on unjust witness to the past," which many reviewers took to refer to his tackling of the issue of "disproportionate" numbers of Jews in the ranks of the Bolsheviks and the Cheka. While Solzhenitsyn made none of the typical assertions of "Jewish Bolshevism" (that the movement was created by Jews or bore similarity to Judaism), many of his critics read this canard into his work and used it as ammunition to call him an anti-Semite. I'm sorry if that wasn't adequately expressed in my section, but I still think that it's notable as a recent reckoning with this topic, especially concerning a famous (and Russian) author such as Solzhenitsyn. Jayjg, I know you're a venerable editor on these topics, so your input would be invaluable. Thanks. --Icetitan17 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

O.K., well do we have any reliable sources that explicitly claim Solzhenitsyn supported the notion of "Jewish Bolshevism"? If so, let's start there - what do they say? Then we can try to assess whether or not it is significant enough to mention in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt any of the criticisms use the exact phrase "Jewish Bolshevism" (I will keep looking) but the accusations leveled towards Solzhenitsyn in the reviews carry that sentiment:

• "Thus it is not only individual Jews who are responsible for the revolution, but the Jewish community as a whole. Even the first sentence of the book implies an intimate connection between the revolution and the Jews: 'Through a half-century of working on the history of the Russian revolution, I have many times come into contact with the question of Russian-Jewish relations' (5). Why does he choose to emphasize the revolution, instead of simply noting Jewish involvement in Russian history as a whole?" Jeffrey Veidlinger , « Aleksandr Solženicyn, Dvesti let vmeste (1795-1995) », Cahiers du monde russe , 43/4 | 2002 , [En ligne], mis en ligne le 18 juin 2009. URL : http://monderusse.revues.org/index4055.html. Consulté le 11 octobre 2011.
• "Solzhenitsyn reserves his hostility for those assimilated Jews who, from the 1860s onward, in large numbers joined the revolutionary movement. He cites name after name, and he conveys the impression that Jews supplied the leadership..." "At one point Solzhenitsyn asserts quite wrongly (citing a Jewish writer) that Jews imported Marxism to Russia." Pipes, Richard. 2002. "Alone Together." New Republic 227, no. 22: 26-28. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 11, 2011).
• "He has been accused of laying the blame for the Revolution on Jews." (pg. 2) "Solzhenitsyn's major premise is that Jews bear the main responsibility for the October Revolution." (pg. 7) "'Jewish populations were suspicious if not hostile to the Bolsheviks [thesis]. However, after finally receiving total freedom and flourishing publicly, politically, and culturally as a result of the Revolution, Jews did not prevent the advancement of Bolshevism [antithesis], and the Jews used their power with cruel excess [synthesis].'" (pg. 7) "The premise of these forty-odd pages is that Jews bear irrevocable guilt with respect to revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia. These pages are written powerfully...By individualizing them as savages and attributing the lion's share of responsibility for Bolshevik violence to Jews, the author presents millions of unknown Russians as their helpless victims. "(pg. 8) "The fifteenth chapter places most of the blame on Jews and is tainted with a comparison of Bolshevik Jews with German Nazis (S. II, 120)." (pg. 8) Gimpelivich, Zinaida. "Dimensional Spaces in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_200609/ai_n18622003/?tag=content;col1
• "He rejects claims that communism in Russia was the result of a Jewish plot but asserts that Jews played a 'disproportionate role' in the creation of a terrorist state 'insensitive to the Russian people and disconnected from Russian history.'" Young, Cathy. Reason, May2004, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p20-21, 2p

Sorry if I overloaded or didn't edit these down enough. I tried to give full quotations so it doesn't look like cherry-picking. Mainly, I just wanted to convey the fact that most of the negative reviews of the book focused on Solzhenitsyn's fixation on the number of Jews in the Bolshevik ranks, and nearly ever positive review addresses that claim. While the phrase "Jewish Bolshevism" is never used, I think the rebuttal of this canard is at the forefront of reviewers' minds.--Icetitan17 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown that S's writing was significant to the theory of Jewish Bolshevism, either he was a leading proponent or believers have used his writings to support their views, then it does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

reference to Żydokomuna in the very first sentence

I think Polish name is not relevant enought to mention it in the very first sentence. Of course it Żydokomuna is a separate article (which by the way should be mered into this one IMHO, but due to its unproportional size it have to be separated). Moreover I think it can really make some people think that "Jewish bolshevism" teory is somehow especially important in Poland. I understand that it was not an intention of this sentence, but in my opinion it can really make some people think so, at least in a subcontious way. The very first sentence should be a short definition, not involing topics of lesser importance. And a topic of lesser imporatance is a Polish name for "Jewish bolshevism" and the fact that it's an separate article. --Sfu (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree on both your counts. IMHO, there has been a challenge in that some editors insist that Poles are virulently anti-Semitic, hence a disproportionate attention to Żydokomuna as a baseless pejorative, with less attention here. It's also been difficult to separate out Jewish Bolshevism, the conspiracy theory, from Jewish Bolshevism, the socio-political phenomenon—and managing to stay out of the blame game that discussing the latter consists of engaging in the former. (I should note that the socio-political phenomenon has nothing to do with Judaism or Jewish tradition.) That's why I've only been watching both articles for a while now as I don't have the time to make a concerted scholarly effort to address the situation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that majority of pre-WWII European Jews lived in Poland (within pre-1939 borders), and that semi-fascist, nationalistic and anti-Communist government treated Jews with great suspect, I think this term is quite relevant to the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about interwar period. Phenomenon decribed in this article did not took place only in interwar period. I remind you that communist movement apeared before Poland regained idependence in 1918 and communist where in charge in east Europe during and after WWII. --Sfu (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the very term "Jewish Communism" emerged after Russian revolution, and existed concurrently with Zydokomuna. Therefore, and taking into account that Poland was among the most persistent opponents of the Communist Soviet regime, the latter term seems totally relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Paul Siebert here. In addition, Zydokumuna is the term for essentially the same phenomenon in Poland, so the reader should be alerted to that separate article in the beginning of the article - see WP:BEGINNING for more detail. Also, Vecrumba, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's the same phenomenon. One could even consider changing the name of Żydokomuna article to Jewish Bolshevism in Poland, as it describes jewish bolshevism in Poland, and it's a name readable by people not speaking Polish. I repeat that in principle, article Żydokomuna should be merged into Jewish Bolshevism, and ONLY due to its unproportional developent and size, compering to sections about the same phenonen in Germany for instance, it have to be separated. The righ way to mention the existance of such an article is to add a short section describing Jewish Bolshevism in Poland, and in the beginning of that section use main article template linking to the Żydokomuna. Also mention of that word in the very first sentence make it unreadable by people not speaking Polish. --Sfu (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So, it should be summarized in this article; but why shouldn't it be mentioned in the first sentence, considering, as you state, it's the same phenomenon? Is it because the name of the article is Żydokomuna? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's because, as I have wrote in the begining, it's creating an impression that this phenomenon is especially vital in Poland, which isn't true. I can imagine that somone will delevope an article about this phenomenon in some other country, maybe yet another. Should then the names of the phenomenon in that languages apear in the very first sentence? It's just wikipedia, that have large article about Jewish Bolshevism in Poland. In other words the first sentence, wich is a difinition, should not depend on the current developent of wiki, as the thing wich is described here is not wiki-related. --Sfu (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't create that impression at all! Lede sentences always contain alternate names (see WP:BEGINNING), so yes, if the same phenomenon has other names, they should also be in the first sentence. This has nothing to do with "the current development of wiki", but rather the standard way beginning sentences are written. See, for example, my FAs on the First Roumanian-American congregation or Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's not alternative name, it's just name in Polish. Thus mentioning it for that reason makes impresion it's especially important phenomenon in Poland. The only resonable reason for placing this word in the first sentence I have red during this disscussion, is about the size of article Żydokomuna. Although putting a mention to Polish name only due to size of that article, creates spoiled definion as it depends on the current developent of wiki. Nor the importance of Polish name, nor the size of article justifies placing it in the first sentence. I have proposed how do deal with the size issue. --Sfu (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Of course the Polish name is an alternative name (which, in fact, leads to a separate article), and mentioning it for that reason makes no "impression it's especially important phenomenon in Poland". It's in the lede because that's the standard way proper first sentences are written, and that's what WP:BEGINNING says we should do. You'll need to come up with a better argument than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does makes such an impression, as only names in important languages for the topic are choosen in the lede. You have agreed previously that Żydokomuna is basicaly the same phenomenon,therefor article Żydokomuna is just an article about Jewish Bolshevism in Poland, and it's noway parell to this one, as it's describing more fully what is explained here (this one is rather parental to the Żydkomuna). --Sfu (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sfu, we're just following WP:BEGINNING here. It's the standard for article first sentences. Linking to the article on the related topic with an alternative name does not make Poles or Poland look bad, and even if it did (which it doesn't), that's not a reason to violate WP:BEGINNING. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It "makes Poles or Poland look bad" as either Polish name is really somehow special among names in other languages and it should be in the lede or it's isn't anyhow special and it shouldn't be here. It can't be both that it's not especially important in Poland and have to be in the lede of this article. I have wrote before that the size is not a reason to place this name in the first sentence. --Sfu (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sfu, the first sentence complies with WP:BEGINNING, you have no policy or guideline-based reason for removing it, and you have no support on the Talk: page for doing so. Unless you come up with some new argument based on policy or guideline, I think this discussion is over. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Żydokomuna (and specifically with regard to its primary historic roots in reference to Polish communists between the wars) in the lead is WP:UNDUE. For balance and completeness, you would have to include "Jewish Bolshevism" in every language where there has been some association of Jews and Communism. Anyone contending Żydokomuna is a "special case" of some sort of über-virulent Polish-specific anti-Semitism (and therefore requiring mention in the lead, not being WP:UNDUE in that case) would be making a contention not supported in unbiased scholarship, making any such contention racist in nature. Any Polish anti-Semitism (not associated with communists), from a socio-cultural aspect, shared a common pan-Slavic heritage.

Quite frankly, Żydokomuna exhibits many characteristics of a POV fork, having also served as a WP:SOAPBOX in the past (editors inserting irrelevant comparisons of Żydokomuna to anti-Semitic images of Jews poisoning wells, etc.) but that is another topic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Żydokomuna should be mentioned in the lead as a major aspect of the topic. If there are other major examples, they should be added as well. In reply to Peters, I do not see any editors suggesting "that Poles are virulently anti-Semitic" (which btw would be a violation of Digwuren warning). Also, I am unfamiliar with "Jewish Bolshevism, the socio-political phenomenon" and wonder if you could provide any sources that describe it. TFD (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On what basis should it be in the lede? As you know, ledes are suppose to be summaries per WP:LEDE, I'm not seeing Żydokomuna discussed at all in the body. --Nug (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a circular discussion. It the article on North America does not mention Canada, should we remove Canada from the lead, or add it to the article? TFD (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a synonym, it's just the name in Polish. You keep linking Wikipedia:BEGINNING. I can do that two. Either your interpretation of that paragraph is wrong or it's wrong itself as because of it, lede containes spoiled, misleading definition. Of course, happily, wiki is not about rules, but about consensus, so please don't try to make a wiki-lawer of me, and please at least accept the fact, that the sentence: "Jewish Bolshevism, Judeo-Bolshevism, and known as Żydokomuna in Poland, is an antisemitic stereotype..." is incorrect defininition creating impression that Poles or Poland are especially antisemitic. --Sfu (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The FA about Tungsten starts with the words:

"Tungsten /ˈtʌŋstən/, also known as wolfram /ˈwʊlfrəm/ (WUUL-frəm), is a chemical element with the chemical symbol W and atomic number 74."

"Wolfram" (wolf cream) is a name of the element in German, Russian, and few other countries. Why it is mentioned in the lede?

Leaving the question of the relative degree of Polish antisemitism beyond the scope, let me point out that antisemitism was especially prominent in Poland simply because majority of Jewish population lived there. Poles treated Jews with great suspect at least starting from the beginning of XIX century, and the idea that Jews were internal enemies of Poland, who threaten the internal stability of Polish society, was very popular in Poland. By saying that, I do not imply that Poles were intrinsically antisemitic, the point is that the objective reasons for Polish-Jewish tensions were much more serious than the reasons for, e.g. Anglo-Jewish tensions. Re the name in Polish, the literal translation to Polish would be "Bolszewizm Żydowsky", so it is hardly the same name. I am not aware of the usage of any specific term for Jewish Bolshevism in any country except Poland (the terms in most other languages are just a calque from "Jewish Bolshevism"), and I think the very fact that the Poles used a specific name for their stereotype is important.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice point here. Actually you say that it's true that in Poland this stereotype was especially important, so Polish name can and should be in the lede. So it not only creates an impression this phenomenon is especially important in Poland. It just is like that. But what about German and Russian names, the relavance and actual consequences of such a propaganda in those countries was way more important than in Poland? I don't agree on the name part. If you take a look at the interwikis you will see the following: bg:Юдеоболшевизъм cs:Židobolševismus de:Jüdischer Bolschewismus fr:Judéo-bolchevisme he:יודאו-קומוניזם ro:Iudeo-bolșevism ru:Жидобольшевизм sk:Židoboľševizmus sr:Јеврејски бољшевизам uk:Жидобільшовизм. You can see that in most of Slavic languages you have a form of (let's use Czech orthography): Židobolševismus or Židobolševism. Polish name uses komunizm(us) instead of bolševism(us) and that's the only difference, construction is the basically the same. About your first point I can write that the name wolfram is common in many languages. In case of Aluminium for instance, Polish name Glin is not mentioned. Why? Because it's only the name in Polish. --Sfu (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In Slavic languages (by contrast two, e.g. English), agglutination of two roots with the letter "o" is quite common, so Юдеоболшевизъм is just two words "Jewish" and "Bolshevism" linked together, which is a calque from "Jewish Bolshevism" (as I already wrote).

More importantly, only in Poland (and latter in Germany) this concept had become so popular. Note, the fight against Soviet Jewish Bolshevizm, including the fight for dismemberment of the USSR and persecution of its alleged supporters, was a state policy of Piłsudski's government.

Re Aluminium, Poland played no role in its discovery (although, this name would be useful to mention, because it reflects the origin of this element: "Glin" means "obtained from clay"). By contrast, not only the name "Wolfram" is being used in such big countries as Germany and Russia, it also reflects the history of the discovery of this elements, which was obtained from wolframite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear choice regarding the lead (BTW, I'm not sure that "claque" is the best term for compound words):

1. Żydokomuna belongs in the lead because reputable sources contending that Żydokomuna was a special branch/concept of Jewish Bolshevism and explain what that is, for example include that Żydokomuna drew energy from (actual) Polish (nationals) Jewish communists who were (actually) jailed and who (actually) continued to proselytize their (actual) communist ideals even (while actually) in prison,
2. Żydokomuna belongs in the lead because there is a Wikipedia article on Jewish Bolshevism with respect to Poland.

In #1, this is a case of WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Żydokomuna.

In #2, this is a case of WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Żydokomuna.

It is appropriate to mention Żydokomuna in the article in the context of its particular historical circumstances (per Paul Siebert's point) in relation to Polish communism—as opposed to the more generic, if you will, fear of Soviet Bolshevism and stereotypes/vilifications drawn from its key players. But, again, WP:UNDUE for the lead, as Bolshevism and aspiring nationalism were in direct conflict in more than just Poland. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As to

3. Żydokomuna belongs in the lead because that's how leads are written

Insufficient. Żydokomuna, while a synonym, is also a distinct subset based on particular historical circumstances and it is misleading to implicitly equate it to the whole by saying "this is the Polish name for it." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "...because the article is not about Żydokomuna." Do you claim that Jydokomuna was not a manifestation of Jewish Bolshevism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless you think that Polish Communists were Bolsheviks and communism and bolshevism are identical, but I thought that the Bolsheviks were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, thus Jewish Bolshevism is specifcally a Russian phenomenon stereotype, while Żydokomuna was specifically a Polish phenomenon stereotype. They are similar but not identical. --Nug (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This your statement is on the brink of anti-Semitism: no such a phenomenon as Jewish Bolshevism existed in actuality. This was a stereotype, which was common among most anti-Bolsheviks/anti-Communists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

About "Do you claim that Jydokomuna was not a manifestation of Jewish Bolshevism?" Spelling problem to make a point? The topic of the article is Jewish Bolshevism, not the elevation of Żydokomuna to a status of equivalent. You state there was "no such phenomenon as Jewish Bolshevism"; therefore, being that Żydokomuna was fueled by fear of an actual community (whether those fears were rational or not, nationalist or not, etc. is not material), then the two are, by your logic, not really the same. It's this sort of WP:POINTY questioning that takes the conversation away from any constructive discourse. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's subject is the Jewish Bolshevism stereotype, and Zydokomuna was one of the most prominent manifestation of it. Therefore, I do not understand why the mention of Zydokomuna in the lede is not appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how a stereotype specifically connecting Russian Jews to a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, i.e. the Bolsheviks; and a stereotype specifically connecting Polish Jews with the Polish Communist Party are identical. They are similar stereotypes but not identical. The similarity to Żydokomuna is already mentioned in the third paragraph of the lede, so why are you insisting it be mentioned in the first sentence as well? --Nug (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of WP:BEGINNING, of course. The real question is, "what policy-based reason is there for removing it?". And we've heard none so far; just that "it makes Poles/Poland look bad, so we should take it out". That latter is, of course, pure nonsense - much like Vecrumba's absurd comments about various un-named editors. Please don't try removing it again. Instead, focus on finding a policy-based reason for removing it, and then getting consensus for doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martintg, they are not identical, but for another reason. The actual difference is that Polish hostility towards Jews had much longer history. With regards Russian/Polish Communist parties, do you know anything about Komintern? During the interwar period, Communist parties were no totally autonomous (and were not seen as autonomous by their enemies, who believed in the worldwide Communist plot). Moreover, since Poland captured considerable part the Belorussian/Ukrainian territory (which had more ties to Russia than to Poland proper), it was hard to separate Polish Jews from non-Polish ones. And one more point. Pre-war Poland and contemporary Poland are two quite different countries. Whereas the latter is a democratic and peaceful country, the pre-war Poland was a authoritarian expansionist power, whose plans included dismemberment of the USSR and dominance over Central Europe. In this situation, perceived opposition of "Jewish Bolsheviks" (both domestic and Russian) had a direct impact on the Polish policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, really, we should not be repeating stereotypes—Polish "hostility" to Jews being much longer than exactly what? Other negative stereotypes of Slavic attitudes toward Jews? Scholarship that approaches the topic without an axe to grind testifies to stereotypes on both "sides"; moreover, that the attitude of Poles was more indifference than anything else. You are basically making a case that Poles have hated Jews longer than anyone else. Or do I misinterpret "much longer history?"

@Jayjg, my comments are not "absurd" when editors created content in the Żydokomuna article that it's a stereotype just like that of Jews poisoning wells in the Middle Ages. I'll spare you the diffs. If you can't discuss content without derisive insults, perhaps you should take a break.

Just to make it clear, there is no WP:CONSENSUS for (to paraphrase) "Jewish Bolshevism aka Żydokomuna" in the lead.

@Paul, and other scholarship without an axe to grind does specifically discuss Polish nationals who were Jewish who were Communists who actively proselytized Communism even while in prison. That has nothing to do with anti-Sovietism or worldwide plots. That's fine for Jewish Bolshevism, not Żydokomuna.

Lastly, AFAIK, there was no "pre-war" Poland. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who created that article or why, and it doesn't really matter. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, Comment on content, not on the contributor. And just to make it even more clear, policy supports its inclusion, no policy supports its removal, and there is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for its removal, since only a minority of those commenting here even support removing it, and none of that minority have made policy-based arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)