Talk:Jewish Bolshevism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-Class, High-importance)
Hebrew Chai Symbol trans.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)
Red flag II.svg
Socialism portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-Class, Low-importance)
Socrates.png
Philosophy portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
1, 2

Contents

[edit] Very Fuzzy Arithmetic

The first paragraph of the article states that

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

while further on we get the contradicting claim that

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Judaism and Communism

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Kellogg Disputed

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Jewish" Bolshevism??

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

[edit] Jewish Communism as an objective, not anti-Semitic term

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

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

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

[edit] Deleting of relevant pictures

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

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

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

For a very simple reason: the photo portrays a group of Bolsheviks (3 Jews and 1 Ukrainian), but it does NOT illustrate the gist of this article.--Galassi (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The picture shows 5 Jews (not 3). One can hardly consider Trotsky a Ukrainian in any way shape or form. The gist of the article is that it is believed that Jews had significant and disproportional political power within the USSR, or to the extent that it was a ZOG. Now, the picture illustrates the USSR congress, with the front row being 5 prominent Jewish Soviets. How is that not relevant to the text? It's the epitome of the text!--Львівське (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
1.Out of how many? There is a large crowd in the photo. 2.This is "Northern Regional Congress", not a national one. How 'bout the other 3? 3. There was no USSR in 1918. 4. Any interpretation of this picture unbacked by a reliable source would constitute OR.--Galassi (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Out of how many? Who cares, this is the front row, and all are relevant state actors talked about in this article. 2. Again, the other "regional congresses" are irrelevant to the purpose of this photo. 3. Good job picking out an inane misnomer. 4. No it wouldn't, that's just your own personal opinion.--Львівське (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Or merely Guests of Honor. Who's to decide, lest commit OR?--Galassi (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You are the only one inferring as much. The picture, and caption, imply nothing other that what is depicted.--Львівське (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Guests of Honor" - even better. - Altenmann >t 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Vaksberg excerpt

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Jewish Bolsheviks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAProachement was a protracted process.Galassi (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact there could not be reaproachment during the Spanish civil war where the USSR and Germany supported opposing sides.--Dojarca (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That was over in 1936.Galassi (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually April 1939, but Stalin had given up on the Spanish Republicans by early to mid 1938 by which point the war was pretty much lost (and this defeat being in some measure due to the policies of the Soviet controlled communist party in Spain characteristically more interested in killing their fellow Republicans - Socialists and Anarchists - then actually fighting Fascists).
Anyway, whether or not Stalin had eliminated Jews from the Soviet government by 1940 is simply a matter of what sources say. The quoted text doesn't say the elimination was done in one single purge (like the Doctors' Plot) - you got to remember that the purges were just the up-spikes in normal activity; there was "elimination" (of various peoples) going on even in non-purge times.radek (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So the reapproachment with Germany started in 1936?--Dojarca (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No, probably somewhat later, 1938. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact . The paragraph was really poorly written. I've corrected it.Galassi (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am just asking is there a connection between the repressions aganst Jews and the reapproachment. The Moscow trials over Trotskyists and the opposition (among which there were many Jews) started much before any negotiations with Nazi Germany. Even more: many of these people were accused in fascist views and spying for Germany. The article on the other hand implyes that the repressions were the consequence or preparation for the reapproachment with the Nazis.--Dojarca (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I cannot find the exact citation for now. Apparently Stalin told Goebbels in a private conversation that he tolerates Jews as long as they are useful to him, but it shouldn't last.Galassi (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've never come across a source recording Stalin meeting with Goebbels. Would be interesting to take a look at that if you could find it. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate Galassi's effort at rewriting the disputed statement, but

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

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

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

This paragraph should probably be combined with the one mentioning Trotsky's assassination and the execution of Stalin's one-time opposition, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue here are not old bolsheviks, but upper levels party/security/army functionaries of the level below the elite. And that is where the most elimination occurred, under Yezhov. Of course there were some untouched by the repressions, and there were many who were repressed, but released because they were indispensable for some reason.Galassi (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Great Purge's direct targets were the Old Bolsheviks, and the majority of the Jewish leaders of the CPSU at the time were Old Bolsheviks. Of course, there was repression below that level, but of the highest Jewish leaders in the party / government / NKVD bureaucracy at the time, virtually all were Old Bolsheviks or at least Bolsheviks since 1918. Aren't these purged leaders the very subject we are talking about? Perhaps we're talking past one another (your reply to all of this was very brief) and I'd appreciate if you could specify whether I missed your point. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken here. Old bolsheviks were the most visible in the Purge, but they were not numerous. The 2nd generation bolshevics outnumbered them by a great margin.Galassi (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You are correct in the above, but you are not really confronting my argument: naturally, the Old Bolsheviks were not numerous. But the relatively large number of Jewish Bolsheviks eliminated by Stalin in the 1930s is attributable to the Great Purge, when the Old Bolsheviks (save the handful of extreme Stalinists among them) were systematically removed from Stalin's government and NKVD roles as a class. This was my point all along, and I think you can see it. Hence, my suggested text modification: the majority of high-ranking Jewish leaders in the 1930s were removed as part of Stalin's all-encompassing power struggling during the period – notably, with rapproachment with Germany then not even in the picture yet. Don't you agree here? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think rapproachment is in the picture, just because the removal of Jews as a potential obstacle made it possible.Galassi (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are off in your chronology. The Soviet Union and Germany were enemies during the Great Purge and for a while afterward. (They notably even sent troops to fight on opposite sides of one another during the 1936-1939 Civil War in Spain.) That's why the Non-Aggression Pact is described as a rapproachment between the two countries, which had decent relations before Hitler's coming to power in 1933 provoked a tense stand-off. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Re Goebbels- i think it was in his diaries, but I mislaid the pp##.Galassi (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You know the Yezhovshchina (the Yezhov's Great Purge) ended in first half of 1938 (with first preparations for the purge's end such as appointment of Beria and gradual transferring the powers to him from Yezhov, were made in January-Feruary). How it can be after reapproachment with Germany? The statement seems to be designed to attack the USSR by presenting it as an ally of Germany or even an Axis power and show the political repressions in the USSR as being primarily targeted towards Jews under German insistance as was in the case of other German allies such as Romania or Hungary.--Dojarca (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Re Goebbels - I think it was Ribbentrop rather, this refers to the same quote (2 versions): http://ricolor.org/history/rsv/portret/stalin/gensek/8/ and http://piratyy.h14.ru/article/stalin.html ""Сталин в беседе с Риббентропом не скрывал, что ждет лишь того момента, когда в СССР будет достаточно специалистов, чтобы полностью покончить с засильем в руководстве евреев, которые на сегодняшний день пока еще ему нужны". http://www.chayka.org/article.php?id=2442 - "Вот что сказал по приезде из Москвы Риббентроп главному идеологу нацизма Розенбергу (тот вел дневник, изданный в Германии после войны): "Русские были очень милы, он (Риббентроп) чувствовал себя среди них как среди старых национал-социалистов". Из этих же источников мы знаем, что Сталин два раза заверял Гитлера (через того же Риббентропа и личного фотографа Гитлера Генриха Гофмана) в своем одобрении мероприятий Гитлера по отношению к евреям, и что придет час, когда и он поступит с ними точно также."
Correct, Stalin met Germany's foreign minister, Ribbentrop, but not Goebbels, who was the Nazi propaganda minister. There is still every reason to strike the material about rapproachment, as it had nothing to do with the Great Purge. By the way, polemical articles sourced to personal sites don't meet WP:RS. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Radzinsky also notes the sudden cessation of anti-German rhetoric in 1938 and removal of a Jew as an ambassaror to Gernamy.http://lib.ru/PXESY/RADZINSKIJ/stalin.txt_Piece40.23 Galassi (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Litvinov was moved around. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This was exactly when the Great Purge was at the stage of being closed. Reasons for reassignment of the ambassador to Germany may vary, including that Germans may protested against Jewish ambassador or he himself felt uneasy etc. Anyway there are multiple instances where Stalin deliberately choose a Jew as a Soviet representative in meetings with Germans even later. For example he choose Jewish brigadier Krivoshein to be represntative at Brest-Litovsk handover in 1939 and there are other examples. You can also note that Molotov's wife was Jewish, so there was no great difference between Molotov and Litvinov in this case. If he wanted to eliminate Jewish influence from Soviet politics or from German-Soviet relations, he could appoint another man with Russian wife. For Germans it was not a big difference - to speak to a Jewish minister or to a minister whose wife was Jewish.--Dojarca (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Another story tells that Stalin at a meeting with Ribbentrop suggested a toast for Kaganovich. Ribbentrop had to clink glasses with Kaganovich, a procedure not very pleasant for him.--Dojarca (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Molotov's wife was also repressed. She has her own wiki - Polina Zhemchuzhina. As to the toast, it may be seen as a nasty joke, if it ever occurred. And who felt what is not documented, or is it?Galassi (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Nz0N5GBW6MC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=great+purge+jews&source=bl&ots=0-pMHCnGSQ&sig=AY7Y9W2OWICdhXt9egeSNnFTabc&hl=uk&ei=sXTpSt3yDtKm8AbJ_f2GDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=great%20purge%20jews&f=false and this source explicitly says that Stalin started purging Jews from the Party as early as 1936 in preparation to rapproachment with Hitler, from p.318 on.Galassi (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Polina Zhemchuzhina was arrested in 1948 after the creation of Israel possibly for her relations with Golda Meir. This has nothing to do with what happened before the war.--Dojarca (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"In a secret meeting of the Politburo on August 10, 1939, the agenda item number 33, "Regarding Comrade Zhemchuzhina", her alleged "connections to spies" led to a request to verify that information by the NKVD. As it was customary during the Great Purges, many of her coworkers were arrested and questioned, but the "evidence" (frequently acquired by force) against her was so contradictory that (on October 24) the Politburo concluded the "allegations against comrade Zhemchuzhina's participation in sabotage and spying... to be considered slanderous." However, she was severely reprimanded and demoted for unknowingly keeping contacts with "enemy elements thereby facilitating their spying missions." In February 1941, she was taken off the list of the candidates to the Central Committee." So, what are you driving at, Dojarka?Galassi (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Guys, this is really going off on a tangent from the disputed text. Galassi, I still suggest we discuss the proposed text I have provided. I think we've covered that the effect of rapproachment was essentially minimal. I also think it's a fact of history that most of the top-level Jewish officials in the 1930s (most of them Old Guard members or co-revolutionaries) were eliminated as a result of the massive '30s purges, and the particularly notable Great Purge. But nobody has argued that these purgings were anti-semitic. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly the opposite. Several have in fact argued the the purges were at least in part antisemitic in the 1930's, and outright so in the 1940's.Galassi (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What purges were in the 1940s before the war?--Dojarca (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
AFTER the War. Doctors' plot and the Cosmopolitism campaign.Galassi (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of Loktionov, Rychagov, Shtern, Smushkevich et al.? This is off-topic here, but somewhat indicative of somebody's ignorance. Colchicum (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Who, exactly, argues so? I've done quite a bit of research on the era, and I haven't come across anybody who calls the 1930s timeline antisemitic. Trotsky, unequivocally Stalin's fiercest opponent during this time, alluded in one of his writings during his period of exile abroad that Stalin might have tacitly taken advantage of anti-semitic subcurrents in Soviet society when he was purging opponents like Zinoviev and Kamenev, but even he refrained from calling Stalin an anti-semite. Although various interpretations are offered for later events (for example, the Stalinist anti-Zionist campaign that took place more than a decade after the Great Purge), but even there historians like Vojtech Mastny [The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years, p. 157] write that the events cannot be called unequivocally anti-semitic. Now, it is common knowledge that most of the most prominent Jewish leaders in the Soviet Union were removed from power during the 1930s purges, but I cannot find any source that states that they were eliminated as Jews, rather than as Old Bolsheviks whom Stalin distrusted or plainly thought inconvenient to have in the apparatus, among whom were people like Bukharin and other Gentiles. Do you have such a source? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
See the Nora Levin book.Galassi (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Any page numbers? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:43,

29 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Some comments

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

Re: ""So the reapproachment with Germany started in 1936?" -- "No, probably somewhat later, 1938. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact"" The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact article doesn't state that. I personally removed any statements about early Nazi-Soviet rapprochement from there.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Misinterpretation of the source

The recent text :"After dismissing Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in 1939,[1] 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.[2]" 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 [2]. This is a gross violation of WP policy. In future please, refrain from such steps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[3] 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:

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.[4] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Should the Russian section be deleted?

Dialog-information on.svg An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. Within 30 minutes, this page will be added to the Politics, government, and law list.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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"[5]. 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".[6] 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)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism"